Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.4 Geo. Eng. Council AgendaMay 27, 1992 City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Attention: Mr. Robert Weddie City Engineer Subject: Proposal for Geotechnical Materials Testing/Reports for Project Number SP 50-92 GPt Proposal Number 92037 Gentlemen: In response to your request for proposals (RFP) dated May 7, 1992, we are pleased to submit the enclosed proposals for providing geotechnical services for the following four projects: 1. Cypress Avenue Sewer 2. Citrus Avenue Storm Drain 3. Highland/Haven Tract Sewer and Storm Drain 4. Baseline and AImeria Avenue Sewers In accordance with guidelines provided in the RFP, our proposal is presented in two separate volumes, Our technical proposal presents our qualifications and technical approach. Our cost proposal, enclosed in a sealed envelope, presents our cost estimates and fee schedule. The proposed services will be provided out of this office by a team consisting of James Harris, Project Manager and Co-Principal of GPI, Stewart "Hank" Whittier, Senior Technician and Richard "Rip" Grimm, Technician. This team successfully completed identical geotechnical services for Fontana Empire Center Off-Site Improvements (CFD 90-3), as well as several other similar projects. Their familiarity with City of Fontaria requirements and their proven track record, we feel will be an asset for the proposed projects. We encourage you to contact the City staff referenced in our proposal for their impressions on our performance. We look forward to being your geotechnical consultant for the four projects listed above. Please call the undersigned or Jim Harris if you have any questions on the contents of this proposal or need additional information. Very truly yours, Geotechnical Professionals Inc. Byron Konstantinidis, G.E. President BK:gn 5736 Corporate Avenue o Cypress, CA 90630 e [714) 220~2211, FAX (714) 220-2122 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING Prepared for: City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Prepared by: Geotechnical Professionals Inc. 5736 Corporate Avenue Cypress. CA 90630 (714) 220-2211 92037 May 27, 1992 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING 1.0 INTRODUCTION In response to the City of Fontana RFP dated May 7, 1992, Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI) is pleased to present this technical proposal for providing geotechnical services for the following four projects: 1. Cypress Avenue Sewer 2. Citrus Avenue Storm Drain 3. Highland/Haven Tract Sewer & Storm Drain 4. Baseline and Almeria Avenue Sewers The scope of services will include a design phase geotechnical investigation for the Citrus Avenue Storm Drain and geotechnical field observation and testing services related to the construction of all four projects. In order to facilitate your evaluation, our proposal is organized following the format outlined in the RFP. Our corporate and staff qualifications are presented in Section 2. Our technical approach, including our understanding of key issues, our approach in dealing with these issues, and our anticipated scope and level of effort are presented in Section 3. Our concluding remarks are presented in Section 4. Back-up information, including resumes, Standard Form 254, and our most recent newsletter are presented in the Appendices. In accordance with guidelines presented in the RFP, our cost proposal is presented in a separate sealed envelope. _~ 2.0 QUALIFICATIONS 2.1 General Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI) is a full-service geotechnical consulting firm formed with the specific objective of providing geotechnical services to quality-oriented clients in ,., Southern California. The firm was founded in 1989 by James E. Harris and Byron Konstantinidis, the two principals/owners of the firm. Over the past three years, the firm has provided geotechnical services for 132 projects, including some very large public ,m works and commercial projects. The firm's primary expertise and business emphasis is in geotechnical engineering services for heavy construction projects. This can be clearly seen in our December, 1991 newsletter (enclosed in Appendix A) that describes some of our more notable projects completed in 1991. Without exception, all of the firm's projects have been either with past clients or through referrals from past clients and other project team members. City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Geetechnical Services May 27, 1992 The principals of GPI manage all of the firm's projects and are actively involved in day-to- day project activities. The in-depth principal involvement in project activities results in greater technical focus and is the main source of client satisfaction. Principal involvement in construction phase activities results in quicker resolution of potential problems and in many cases has prevented potential contractor claims from developing. Finally, GPI has consistently demonstrated that significant savings in total project costs can be realized by responsive and thorough geetechnical services. Realizing that a geetechnical consultant's actions and recommendations have a much greater impact on project costs and safety than his fees, GPI has a serious commitment to quality and thoroughness. This commitment is reflected in all corporate policies and actions related to staffing, facilities, and business operations, and can be verified by contacting our references. 2.2 Pertinent Project Experience and References As noted previously, GPI's primary business emphasis is in geetechnical engineering services for public works and commercia~ projects. A large portionof our projects (public works and commercial) are in San Bernardino County, in the Cities of Fontana, Ontario, Chine, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and San Bernardinc. Our recent experience includes several projects in Fontana associated with CFD 90-3, with essentially the same scope as the services proposed herein. We also completed similar services in Burbank. References from these and other projects are presented below. PROJECT NAME: EMPIRE CENTER, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, FONTANA, CA am PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPI pedOrmed geetechnical investigations and construction-phase services (geetechnical and materials) for the off-site Improvements related to the proposed Empire Center in Fontana. Sub-projects · ,~ included the Sierra/Slover storm drain and sewer, street Improvements, SCE trunk line and landscaping projects. GPI provided design/construction recommendations and am monitoring/consultations during construction, GPI PERSONNEL: Jim Harris, G.E., Project Manager/Engineer ' "Hank" Whittier, Senior Technician em "Rip" Grimm, Technician CONTACTS: John Riley, Associate Engineer, City of Fentuna all (714) 350-6644 Joseph D'Alessio, Sr. Public Works Inspector, City of Fontana, (714) 428-6163 "" 2 City of Fontana GPt Proposal No. 92037 Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 PROJECT NAME: MEDIA CITY CENTER, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, BURBANK, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPI performed geotechnlcal Investigationsand construction-phase "' geotechnlcal services for the off-site improvements associated with this $100 million regional mall. Specific Improvements Included: deep storm drains and sewers (greater than 30 feet below grade · - Including Jacking under I-5), water, gas and electric lines, and street Improvements including extensive new pavement construction. GPI PERSONNEL: Jim Harris, G.E., Project Manager/Engineer · Hank" Whittier, Senior Technician g 'Rip" Grimm, Technician CONTACTS: Bill Emment, City of Burhank (818) 953-9583 PROJECT NAME: ZONE 3-3 RESERVOIR, FONTANA, CA .., PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5-Million gallon water storage reservoir and pipelines in hillside terrain. SCOPE OF SERVICES: GPI provided a re-evaluation of site conditions, consultations and construction phase geotechnical services. GPI's re-evaluations ~" resulted in $1,000,000 savings In construction costs (See case history in newsletter.) GPI PERSONNEL: Jim Harris, G.E., Project Manager/Engineer Scott Fitlnghoff, Staff Engineer Marshall Payne, Geologist a~ Richard Grimm, Technician ~l CLIENT ORGANIZATION: West San Bernardino County Water District c/o NBS/Lowry 164 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 1 .-.. San Bernardino, CA 92412-8124 CONTACTS: Jerry Dunlap (714) 888-1401 City of Fontana GPI proposal No. 92037 Geotechnical Sen/ices May 27, 1992 PROJECT NAME: M.C.W.D. RESERVOIR NO. 2, COSTA MESA, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 19-Million gallon, buried water storage reservoir with pumphouse and pipelines. SCOPE OF SERVICES: GPI provided evaluations during design including evaluations of slope stability, dewatering requirements, foundation conditions, and review of plans and specifications. Construction services are pending. GPI PERSONNEL: Byron Konstantinldls, Project Manager Scott Fitinghoff, Staff Engineer CLIENT ORGANIZATION: Mesa Consolidated Water District " 1965 Placenti~ Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 CONTACTS: Gene Watson, Distdct Engineer (714) 631-1396 2.3 Project Team The proposed services will be managed by Jim Harris, principal of GPI. Mr. Harris is currently managing the geotechnical services for infrastructure improvements related to ., CFD 90-3, including: · Storm Drain Improvements, Sierra/Slover Avenue -- · Off-site Sewer Improvements Street Improvements, Sierra/Slover/Tamarind Avenues SCE Trunk Line .- Sierra/Slover Water Lines Mr. Harris has ten years experience in geotechnical consulting with a heavy emphasis in construction phase geotechnical services. He has provided geotechnical services for numerous public works and commercial projects. Selected projects involving services similar to those proposed herein include the following: · City of Burbank Infrastructure Improvements · City of Upland Reservoirs (3) and Pipelines "' City of San Fernando Water Facilities Improvements 4 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Geotechnlcal Services May 27, 1992 Seven pipeline construction projects in Irvine (for IRWD) North Torrance Drain, County of Los Angeles Bartolo Drain, County of Los Angeles On the geotechnical investigation for the Citrus Avenue Storm Drain, Mr. Harris will be assisted by Scott Fitinghoff, Staff Engineer. Mr. Fitinghoff is a Registered Civil Engineer with four years experience in geotechnical consulting. He has provided geotechnical services for several significant public works projects including geotechnical investigations for storm drains along Sierra Avenue and Slover Avenue, sewer lines along Santa Ana Avenue and within the Empire Center Site, and other storm drains designed per L.A. Flood Control District criteria. Field observation and testing services during construction will be provided by technicians experienced in monitoring construction of pipelines. All of our technicians have several years experience in monitoring pipeline construction and are familiar with soil conditions and agency requirements in Fontaria. The technician(s) assigned to the project will report directly to the Project Manager. At this time, we propose to use Mr. Stewart "Hank" Whittier and Mr. Richard "Rip" Grimm. These individuals are/have worked closely with City of Fontana Inspectors on the Empire Center Project. We urge you to contact them for a reference to our services and staff. Resumes for key staff available for this project are enclosed in Appendix B. ~, 3.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 3.1 Geotechnical Investigation for Citrus Avenue Storm Drain The Citrus Avenue storm drain will involve construction of 3,913 lineal feet of large diameter concrete pipe, 336 lineal feet of reinforced concrete box structure, 677 lineal feet of laterals~ replacement of A.C. pavement and work at the West Fontana Channel. The storm drain will cross the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. We understand that the tracks are used infrequently and open cut-and-cover will be permitted. However, jacking is anticipated beneath Foothill Boulevard, at the north end of the project. The subsurface materials are expected be predominantly granular, including sands, gravels, and possibly cobbles. Shallow groundwater is not anticipated. Key issues that will need to be addressed by the geotechnical investigation include the "' following: City of Fontane. GPI Proposal No. 92037 Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 Excavation conditions, including ease of excavation, caving, sloping ,m and/or support requirements, and impact on existing utilities. Characterization of excavated soils for use of backfill,including appropriate methods of placement and compaction. Unique construction conditions at the Foothill Boulevard crossing · ~ and channel. Our proposed scope of work will include field investigation, laboratory testing, " geotechnical analysis, and preparation of a geotechnical report. Our field program will consist of drilling 5 borings (approximately 1,000 feet spacing) to depths corresponding to 5 feet below the proposed invert elevations (boring depths ranging from 14 to 23 feet). Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of representative soil layers will be obtained at appropriate depth intervals (typically 5 feet). Difficult drilling conditions are anticipated due to presence of cobbles and gravels below .. relatively shallow depths. Common practice in the area is to use hollow-stem augers for subsurface exploration. However, sampling is biased toward the finer grained materials (cobbles are skipped) and such equipment iS likely to encounter refusal at depths well above'the invert 61evations. We propose to use bucket augers which provide more representative sampling of subsurface materials. We will implement measures to minimize . caving in order to achieve the required depths of penetration. The borings will be backfilled with the excavated soils placed in lifts and compacted to densities equal to at IIi least the in situ densities. .. We propose to drill one boring in the Flood Control District right-of-way, one boring in the Railroad right-of-way and three borings in paved street areas. Permits will be required for work in the Flood Control District and Railroad right-of-way. Traffic control (single lane ... closures) will be needed for borings in the street. The pavement will be patched with compacted A.C. cold patch or concrete. ,e Our laboratory testing program will be aimed at evaluating the index, compressibility, shear strength, and chemical (corrosion) properties of the site soils. The exact scope of the laboratory program will depend on the soil conditions encountered during our field ,= exploration. However, for planning purposes, we have considered the following types and numbers of tests: · - In-Situ Moisture Content and Density:20 · Direct Shear: 3 sets ,- 6 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Geotechnisal Services May 27, 1992 · Grain Size Analyses: 3 Sand Equivalent: 3 -' · Maximum Density Tests: 2 · Soluble Sulfate Content, pH: 2 Our evaluations will focus on the geetechnical aspects of excavation stability and buried structure design parameters. The results of the field, laboratory, and engineering evaluations will be presented in an appropriately illustrated report. The report will contain a project and site description, discussions of the seismic setting, summary of engineering studies, recommendations and conclusions pertaining to the design and construction of the proposed project, plus logs of the field explorations and laboratory test results. Our recommendations will address the following: Excavation criteria (safe slopes, earth pressures for bracing/shoring, caving potential, protection of adjacent utility lines and railroad ., tracks). · Backfill criteria (suitability of excavated soils for backfill with ~. discussion of suitable methods of placement, optimum lift thicknesses, degree of compaction, shrinkage and subsidence). .., Lateral earth pressures on box structure and impact of method of compaction on pressures. · -,' Lateral soil resistance for jacking pits Allowable bearing pressure and differential settlement potential. ..~ Pavement design criteria. · " We are prepared to start field work within one week after notice to proceed and issue our report in three weeks after completing the field work. This schedule estimate is based on the assumption that permits for the railroad and flood control right-of-way are received · " prior to start of field work. City of Fontaria GPI proposal No, 92037 Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 3.2 Construction-Phase Services Construction phase services will be provided on an "as needed" basis and will include observation of trench backfilling operation, testing of backfill, engineering consultations · -" and meetings, and preparation of reports. The level of effort for geotechnical services is dependent on the contractor's schedule and performance as well as testing requirements. · ' Post-construction settlement of trench backfill and the associated distress to surface improvements (pavements, curbs, slabs) is too common a problem, particularly with deep trench backfills. In the majority of cases where we investigated the nature of backfill e settlement, non-uniform compaction of backfill was found to be the cause of settlement. In many cases, we had soils reports indicating adequate compaction. However, the weak zones were in areas not tested, generally, in deeper parts of the trench. In several ,m instances, it was apparent that the geotechnical firm provided part-time testing services only, with no overview of construction activities. Based on these observations and our .. experience with a large number of projects, our construction phase services are based on the following concepts: a. Monitoring of backfill placement activities is as important as testing, which should be performed as the backfill is being placed. Random potholing and testing after significant thickness of fill is in place may not detect localized el loose zones. The amount of testing would vary based on the contractor's performance, and would be provided on an "as needed" basis. For cost estimating purposes, we have assumed that on the average, one field .. density test would be performed for each 3 foot thickness of fill at 300 foot intervals. -, b. It is highly desirable to use experienced field technicians for monitoring and testing of backfill even though the testing itself could be performed by technicians of limited experience. The experienced technician would be · -~ able to anticipate and mitigate most problems before they become major disputes and would facilitate the City Inspector's/Resident Engineer's job. , We employ technicians who are well qualified for providing field services ,e with minimal overview. This can~ be verified by contacting our references on the Sierra/Slover Storm Drain project. '"' c. All GPI services are supervised/managed by a principal of the firm, who provides technical overview of GPi's activities and is available for technical , consultations. He is the main. point of contact on all matters requiring 'J geotechnical engineering input as well as matters of contractual nature and quality control. The GPI field technicians maintain direct contact with the : City Inspector. " 8 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No, 92037 Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 -- d. The results of field observation and testing will be summarized on the Daily Field Summary forms issued by our field technician. These forms will clearly outline areas requiring recompaction. Test result summaries will be formally -~ reported within 48 hours in tabular form. A final report with narrative will be issued at the completion of the job. 4.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS We look forward to being the City of Fontana's geotechnical consultant for the services outlined in this proposal. We enjoyed a good working relationship with your staff on the Empire Center Off-Site Improvement projects (CFD 90-3). These projects gave us the opportunity to demonstrate our responsiveness and the quality of our staff. We believe that we made a positive contribution to the successful completion of these projects. We encourage you to contact the City staff members that were most intimately familiar with our work. For the four projects covered by this proposal, we are proposing the same team that successfully completed the CFD 90-3 projects. This team consisting of Jim Harris, Hank Whittier and Rip Grimm is very familiar with the City's requirements and has a proven record with your staff. We believe that our team would make a positive contribution to the successful completion of these four projects. II APPENDIX A NEWS GEOTECHNICAL I PROFESSIONALS INC. E}E~ }EMBER 1991 Geetechnical Investigation for State Route 73 to I-5 Interchange O~an, Se County, CA -- ]In March, GPI completed a comprehensive geotech- . nical investigation for two alternative alignments (Options 1 and 2) of the interchange at the junction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (State Route 73) and the San Diego Freeway (I-5). G]?I provided its services to Brown & Root USA on the largest of 13 section design contracts awarded by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency. In addition to the inter- change, this project includes 3 miles of freeway in~provements and 11 / 2 ~.., 5 . miles of new tollroad. Notable fea- tures of the two alignments covered Artist's rendering of the S.R. 73 to I-5 interchange (Option 2) by GPI's investigation include 11 Photograph courtesy of the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies bridges, with a combined length of over 10,000 lineal feet, 60-foot high earth fill embankments, 120-foot deep The investigation included geologic Relatively deep embankment fills of cut slopes, and over 13,000 lineal feet field mapping, borings, cone penetra- up to 60 feet to be placed over com- of retaining walls. tion tests, geephysical surveys, pressible alluvium required extensive laboratory testing and engineering engineering analysis to evaluate The north-bound and south-bound and geologic analyses. Subsurface stability and settlement potential. connectors require substantial bridge explorations were performed at 140 A number of engineering measures structures crossing over existing locations to depths of up to 160 feet. were evaluated for maintaining developments. Each connector will The subsurface materials ranged from embankment stability and for rectuc- be approximately 60 feet wide by compressible alluvium to relatively ing the magnitude and time rata'of 1/2 mile long, carrying three traffic incompressible bedrock and lerrace settlement. Alternatives discuSSed in lanes plus shoulders. Due to space deposits. The variable subsurface the report included staged co struc- constraints imposed by existing conditions, together with the excep- ' ' ' 7dmckend/.At~ supported on widely spaced massive a number of challenges. Several measures were recommended for the piers, each supporting loads of ap- foundation alternatives were evalu- various embankments taking into proximately 4,000 tons. These loads ated and recommendations presented account technical feasibility, time are equivalent to the column loads in the report on a bent-by-bent basis. constraints and cost-effectiveness. of an 80-story highrise building. At Deep foundations of prestressed several locations, the bridge deck will concrete and steel piles and drilled Shortly after GPI's geetechnical be 80 feet above the ground surface. piers were recommended for specific investigation was completed, the combinations of subsurface conditions Transportation Corridor Agency and loads. selected Option 1 as the preferred alternative. CASE HISTt')RY GPI'S Recommendation = $1,000,000 in Construction Savings Zone 3-3 Reservoir, Fontand Client: West San Bernardino County Water District GPI was brought into this project after a preliminary site location had been established for the 5-million gallon steel water tank. The original location had been fixed by hydraulic head and property boundary constraints. In taking a fresh look at the project's constraints and assumptions, GPI identified an opportunity to shift the tank's horizontal location 40 feet to the west. The key to this recommendation . .. was the introduction by GPI of % ~: reinforced earth construction tech- niques. These techniques permitted steepening of the fill embankment from 2:1 (t I:V) to 1:1 slope ratios which in turn allowed the shift in tank location without encroaching on the The aerial photo above shows the in-place 1:1 sloped fill embankment on the downhill western property boundary. side of the tank pad as the construction crew commences installation of the steel plate tank bottom. This project represented one of those gratifying circumstances when engineering ingenuity clearly results in significant cost savings. GPI's investigations and recommendations resulted in a reduction in the amount of excavation by almost 100,000 cubic yards ~ most of which would have required blasting of hard bedrock. The client's savings in grading costs was estimated by the project civil engineer, NBS/Lowry Engineers & Planners, to be $1,000,000! GPI's role in the Zone 3-3 Reservoir .c.,s~-,~.o project was to provide geetechnical and geologic site investigations, laboratory soil testing and on-site construction phase consultation. The reservoir was constructed as part of the water supply for the Alexander This cross section drawing illustrates the site geologic conditions and the revised Haagen Company's Palm Court locations of the cut slope, tank and fill embankment. Center project. PROJECT' BRIEFS Public Works technical investigations and consulta- minion square feet of retail space tierig during construction were pro- including the first IKEA store built in vided by GPI. California. Other major tenants Some of GPI's most challenging include Bullocks, Mervyns and Sears. engineering projects have been infra- structure and public works. The firn~ Street Improvements - Sierra/Slover GPI provided supplemental geotech- has been involved in highway and Avenues, Fontand nical investigations and construction bridge projects, water distribution Clients: The Alexander Haagen Cod phase geetechnical services for the facilities and harbor projects such as City of Fontana entire mall. those listed below. Construction phase services are under- way following geetechnical investiga- Westminster Center, Westminster tions completed by GPI for rehabilita- Client: IDM Corporation Pier Reconstruction, Redondo Beach tion of approximately 12,000 lineal feet To be opened by the end of 1991, this Client: Noble Consultants of 4-1ane streets and construction of promotional center will feature over Geetechnical investigations have been about 19,000 lane feet of new roadway. 400,000 square feet of retail space on a completed in support of designs for 40-acre site. Major tenants will be reconstruction of the historic Redondo Home Depot, Thrifty Drugs, Lucky Beach pier which sustained severe Stores and Hollytron. GPI provided damage in 1988 by storms and fire. Commerci~!l geetechnical and environmental Reservoir No. 2, Costa Mesa Developments investigations as well asconstruction phase geetechnical services. Client: Mesa Consolidated Water District Although construction activity de- Palm Court Center, Fontand Geetechnical investigations were clined across Southern California, in Client: The Alexander Haagen Co. performed for construction of a 19- 1991, GPI provided geetechnical Nearing construction completion, this million gallon underground water services for retail centers, large parking promotional center on a 60-acre site storage reservoir. GPI's recomn~enda- structures, office buildings, and indus~ boasts the largest Target store in the tions included criteria for foundations, trial developments. Western U.S. and the second IKEA construction excavation methods and a store built on the West Coast. The size permanent site dewatering system. Media City Center, Burbank of the site ranks it as the largest retail Client: The Alexander Haagen Co. center currently under development in Phillips Ranch Road Overcrossing, The first phase of this regional mall the western states. Pomona was opened in 1991. It includes one Client: Willdan Associates Underway are geetechnical investiga- tions for new ramps and widening of an existing bridge over the Pomona Freeway. Production Demonstration Facility, Costa Mesa Client: Mesa Consolidated Water District Geetechnical investigations were ~. ;~v,,', '~ ., . perforn~ed by GPI for a new water *- - treatment plant. ~ - ' ; .kdz, ~ ,'~-~ *'' ~-__,~~.~"' ':~-':i.~ Infrastructure Improvements, ~ ~ .. . ~ - -.~;., · .;~!i,:-~':~.-.,: :' B.rbank Client: City of Burbank Street and underground utility infra- structure improvements at Media City Center have been completed. Gee- Media Gity Gentor, BurOanR PROJECT BRIEFS CO~7~'TE~'C[a# MGM Grand Hotel Parking Struc- Parking Structure, nosemead ture, Las Vegas, Nevada Client: Ruey Chen and Associates DOI[O[OI~JT~'It.,.~ client: A. T. Curd Construction has been completed on Currently under construction, this 7 - 2-story, $6 million parking structure. Tri-City Shopping Center, level, 2.3 million square foot parking Recommendations provided by GPI San Bernardino structure when completed in 1994-95 resulted in cost savings of $200,000 Client: Rancon will serve the new 5000 room hotel, over the original design. Recently opened, this shopping center considered to be the largest in the occupies a 13-acre site, with Hoxne world. Depot and Office Club as anchor tenants. San Feruando Place, San Fernando Clien,: The Alexa.der ,aagen Co. P R O F I L E This S-acre neighborhood center was recently completed as a redevelop- ment project. GPI was formed by the firm's two principals, Byron Konstanlinidis and James E. Harris to, provide full-service geotechnical consulting to a Third & La Bred Shopping Center, selected group of Southern California clients. GPI's prindpals personally Los Angeles manage each proj,ect and take pride in maintaining high levels of client Client: Wood Investment service and communication. Repeat clients and referrals from existing Redevelopment of this urban S-acre clients have been hallmarks of GPI's success. GPI has consistently dam- shopping center is nearing comple- onstrated the value of its service by achieving significant client savings in tion. total project costs while maintaining project safety and integrity of the completed facilities. Crenshaw Plaza Phase lI, Baldwin Hills GPI staff experience includes: Client: The Alexander Haagen Co. · ComprehensiVe state-of-the-art foundation evaluations and perfor- This 5-acre neighborhood center was mance monitoring for settlement-sensitive structures such as office recently opened. buildings, bridges, power plants, and dam structures. Tri-City Corporate Center, San ', Evaluation of .earthquake-related hazards, including strong motion, Bernardino ground rupture due to ~aulting, and liquefaction. Client: Rancon ', Evaluation Of long-term settlement and stability of deep fills, includ- Geotechnical investigations have been ing evaluation of damage to structures resulting from fill deformation. completed for an 8-story and a 4-story · Development of earthwork criteria for major grading projects. office building. · Monitoring and evaluation of groundwater movement and contami- Media Center Parking Structure, nant plume n'tigration, as well as treatment of contaminated ground- Burbank water. Client: A. T. Curd · Soft ground stabilization. This 6-story precast concrete parking structure has recently been opened for · Design of deWatering systems including permanent drainage systems service. under structures. Rancon Center and Office Park, The experience of GPI staff is complemented by consultants in engineer- Ontario ing geology, geophysics, and earthquake engineering. Client: Rancon Geotechnical investigations have been completed for two mixed-use com- mercial and light industrial develop- ments on 9-10 acre sites. II .., APPENDIX B JAMES E. HARRIS PRINCIPAL EDUCATION 1982 Master of Science Degree in Civil Engineering (Geotechnical Major) California State University, Long Beach ~'~ EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1989-Present Geotechnical Professionals Inc. Principal 1985-1989 Geofon, Inc. Associate ,=~ 1983-1985 Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. Senior Engineer 1983 U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Civil Engineer -'~ 1981-1983 California State University Research Associate Long Beach, CA Civil Engineering SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Harris has a diverse background of geotechnlcal engineering experience In the Southern California ..~ - area. He has managed and performed foundation engineering and geo-environmental studies and construction phase services for a variety of projects Including large public works projects, large commercial projects, high-rise buildings, hotels, shopping centers, water storage and distribution facilities, large land developments (residential), military installations and numerous public and private ,,= sector projects. In addition to technical responsibilities. Mr. Harris has managed teams of professional and technical staff consisting of up to 10 individuals Including a geotechnlcal laboratory. .= Mr. Harris has designed and directed the installation of over 10,000 driven piles including comprehensive load testing, analysis using Pile Driving Analyzer and wave equation programs and pile , integrity testing; evaluated and directed ground modification techniques including grouting and site surcharging; performed comprehensive settlement evaluations for settlement-sensitive structures, including a cast-in-place concrete structure with 3000 kip column loads, evaluated the use of reinforced earth structures to prevent excessive wall loads on an existing 40 year old structure, performed evaluations to help resist 2,000,000 foot-pound moments applied to the top of a bridge foundation. am Geo-environmental projects have Included evaluations of groundwater contamination for a large public works project, mitigation of soil contamination for a regional mall and numerous environmental audits and assessments, As a Principal for Geotechnical Professionals Inc., Mr. Harris' responsibilities include project management, supervision of field and laboratory staff, administrative duties, and marketing. "'" REGISTRATIONS Registered Civil Engineer in California .. Registered Geotechnical Engineer in California Registered Professional Engineer in Nevada PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Associate Member, American Society of Civil Engineers JAMES E. HARRIS ADDENDUM TO RESUME SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE John Wayne Airport Improvement Project (Orange County, CA) As Project Engineer and subsequently, Project Manager, directed/managed geotechnical services for =,., the John Wayne AIrport Improvement Project In Orange County, California. Improvements to the existing airport consist of construction of a 400,000 square foot Terminal Building, muifi-level structures to provide parking for 10,000 vehicles, a depressed roadway rounded permanently 15 feet below ei groundwater, numerous elevated roadways and ramps for access to nearby freeways, and approximately 42 acres of new paved aprons and taxiways for the support of heavy commercial aimraft. Activities Included Interaction with the County of Orange, FAA, Construction Manager and local , regulatory agencies. Geotechnlcal constraints at the site consist of moderately weak subgrade soils e/ requiring plies for structural support and relatively heavy pavements for aircraft support. Total construction cost for these improvements is on the order of $310 million. ... Media City Center (Burbank, CA) As Project Manager, directed geotechnlcal investigations and construction-phase geotechnical services ' for this major mixed-use commercial development. The project Includes a regional mall, several major "~ retail stores, parking structures, hotels, theaters, office buildings, restaurants and a community censer. The phased development will ultimately encompass 2,500,000 square feet of commercial building space, valued at approximately $372 million. Fontaria Empire Center (Fontana, CA) ~ As Project Manager, directed geotechnical investigations for a 514 acre mixed use commercial development In Fontana. The project will include a regional mall, promotional and neighborhood centers, a major distribution center, restaurants, theaters and hotels. A portion of the site will be used for residential developments. Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza (Los Angeles, CA) As Project Manager, supervised geotechnical studies and construction phase services for the development of a $100 million regional shopping center and bridge structure. Evaluations for construction of large structures and deep excavations adjacent to existing multi-story structures were included. Tri~City Corporate Centre (San Bernardino, CA) · .~ As Project Engineer, managed geotechnlcal Investigations and construction phase services for portions of a $160 million commercial development. Specific structures Include low, mid and high rise buildings Including a 10-story hotel. .d Marriott Hotel (Los Angeles, CA) .J Managed the geotechnical investigation for a 27 story, cast-in-place concrete hotel. Column loads approaching 3000 kips were supported on a mat foundation supported on 15 feet of compacted fill, fills with differential settlements less than a,4 of an Inch in 40 feet. Construction of the structure on property lines, adjacent to high pressure gas lines required Innovative tieback/shoring solutions for · .~ removal of highly compresslble top soil. Holiday Inn (Irvlne, CA) Managed geotechnlcal investigation and construction phase services for a pile supported, 13-story hotel. Approximate construction costs - $16 million. JAMES E. HARRIS SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Embassy Suites (Irvlne, CA) Managed geotechnical investigation and construction phase services for pile supported, 10-story hotel. Approximate construction costs - $20 million. Clauset Centre (Santa Ana, CA) Managed geetechnical investigation for 9-story office building and 4-story parking structure. Recommendations included the use of ground modification methods to eliminate the potential for liquefaction, resulting In foundation cost savings In excess of $100,000. Park Center (Santa Ana, CA) Managed geetechnical investigation and construction services for 10-story combined office building/parking structure. Recommendations Included use of driven piles under very difficult soil conditions, resulting In a significant cost saving over the use of drilled plies. Construction cost $15 million. Stouffer Indian Wells Resort (Indian Wells, CA) Managed geotechnical investigation for 20 acre desert resort including 7-story, stmcturafiy complex hotel. Services Included evaluation of collapsible desert soils. Estimated construction costs - $25 million. Sierra Del Oro (Corona, CA) Directed engineering portion of geetechnical investigation for 1200 acre, mixed use development, including construction of several 200+ feet high slopes. Included recommendations to help mitigate potential for long term settlements of deep canyon fills. Upland Reservoirs (Upland, CA) Managed geotechnlcal investigation for a 5 MGD treatment plant and three, 5 million gallon reservoirs. San Fernando Water Facility Improvements (San Fernando, CA) Managed Geetechnical Investigation and construction phase services for construction of a 5 million gallon water reservoir and associated pipelines. Investigation Included probabilistic and deterministic seismlcity evaluations due to the slte's close proximity to known active faults. Other Reservoir Sites Managed geotechnical investigations/construction phase services for numerous other reservoirs in the Southern California area. Other Commercial Projects Managed geetechnical investigations/construction phase services for at least 200 other commercial projects including shopping centers, hotels, business centers, water distribution facilities, and pavement projects. STEWART H. (HANK) WHI'I'I'IER SENIOR TECHNICIAN : .,i EDUCATION 1984 NICET - Level II Certification 1985 CPN Nuclear Gage Operator Certification EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1989-Present Geotechnical Professionals Inc. Senior Technician 1987-1989 Geofon, Inc. Senior Technician 1986-1987 Coastal Valley Soils Engineering Senior Technician 1987-1986 Foundation Engineering Company Soils Technician 1981-1982 Dames &Moore Soils Technician 1980-1981 GN Soils Company Driller/Technician 1977-1980 Stewart Whittier &Associates Drlller/Technician SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Whittier has 12 years of experience as a soils technician. The majority of his experience is ~n field observation and testing services for a variety of projects including major mass grading projects with buttress fills, many fiatland commercial developments, as well as significant public works projects. In recent years, Mr. Whittier has been the lead field technician for major projects such as the Media City Center ($250 million Regional Mall), John Wayne AIrport Improvement Project ($310 million airport expansion), the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza ($100 million Regional Mail), Corporate Point (800,000 square foot high-rise office complex In Culver City), a hillside commercial development in Monterey Park (2,000,000 cubic yards of fill), Vail Street Dump Reclamation (backfilling of 200 foot deep dump excavation), Somerset Village (800,000 cubic yard mass grading project in Chatsworth), Silver Creek Ski Area (25 square mile resort In Colorado), Weld County Natural Gas Pipeline (200 mile, 8" gas main in Colorado),. Mr. Whittler's technical experience Includes geotechnlcal field observation and testing associated with grading, foundation construction (including footings, caissons, driven piles), tie-back installations; laboratory testing; groundwater monitoring; drilling and logging of borings; inspection, sampling and testing of concrete; and aerial and land surveying. STEWART H. (HANK) WHI'I'I'IER ADDENDUM TO RESUME SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Media City Center (Burbank, CA) As Lead Technician, performed observation and testing services during construction of a 40-acre regional mall. His responsibilities included interface with the general contractor and five subcontractors performing site grading, construction of cast-In-place piles, footing excavation, utility trench and wall backfill, subgrade preparation and base course placement and compaction. Of particular importance on the project was Mr. Whittier's Interface and coordination with city building officials in obtaining their approval of excavations and fill placement. John Wayne Airport Improvement Project (Orange County, CA) Mr. Whittier was the Lead/Supervisory Technician for geotechnlcal services for this $310 million project for the John Wayne AIrport. This project, the largest public works endeavor in the county's history, included the construction of three large parking structures (almost 10,000 vehicles), a 400,000 square foot terminal building. elevated and depressed roadways providing freeway access to the airport and 42-acres of pavements. His responsibilities included, initially, performing observation and testing for approximately 75-acres of grading for the airport site. Subsequently, he supervised up to four field technicians (while continuing his own observation and testing tasks), interfaced with ten general contractors and over 50 subcontractors, and pafficlpated In meetings with the project construction manager and the County of Orange for interaction between the various contractors. Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza (Los Angeles, CA) Similar project and scope of services as above. RICHARD (RIP) GRIMM TECHNICIAN EDUCATION Through 1988 Attended Humboldt State University .. Majored in Geological Sciences with an Emphasis in Geophyslcs and Field Mapping dill EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1990-Present Geotechnical Professionals Inc Technician 1989-1990 LF Geotechnlcal Technician SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Grimm has three years of experience as a Soils Technician in addition to his college education. The majority of his experience is in field observation and testing services for a variety of projects Including major ... mass grading projects with buttress fills, fiatland commercial developments as well as significant public works projects. Recently, Mr. Grimm has been the Lead Field Technician for the Fontana Palm Court Center (a 60-acre promotional center) and the associated City of Fontana Infrastructure Improvements. Mr. Grlmm's technical experience includes geotechnical field observation and testing associated with grading, foundation construction, laboratory testing, groundwater monitoring-drilling and logging of borlngs and the inspection, ssrnpling and testing of concrete and asphalt. RICHARD (RIP) GRIMM ADDENDUM TO RESUME SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Palm Court Center (Fontana, CA) As Lead Technician Mr. Grimm performed observation and testing during construction of a 60-acre promotional center. His responsibilities Included Interface with two General Contractors and over ten subcontractors performing site grading, footing excavation, utility trench and wall backfill, subgrade preparation, base course placement and compaction, pavement construction and rehabilitation and construction of reinforced earth slopes - APPENDIX C I I i t I I I. IL I · · I I I I I I_ I t STANDARD 1. Firm Name/Business Address: 2. Year Present Firm I 3. Date Prepared: FORM {SF) Established: Geotechnlcal Professionals Inc. 1989 3-13-92 254 Cypress, CA 90630 4. Specify ~.,/pe of ownership and check below, if spplicable Corporation Architect-Engineer X A. Small Business and Related Services 1 a. Submittal is for [ ^C ] Parent Company [ ^C ] Branch or Subsidiary Office B. Small Disadvantaged Business Questionnaire C. Woman-owned Business 5. Name of Parent Company, if any: 5a. Former Parent Company Name(s), if any, and Year(s) Established: N/A N/A 6. Names of not more than Two Principals to Contact: Title/Telephone Byron Konstantinidis, Principal/(714)220-2211 James E. Harris, Principal/(714)220-PP11 7. Present Offices: City/State/Telephone/No. Personnel Each Office 7a. Total Personnel 12 Cypress, California 714/220-2211 8. Personnel by Discipline: (List each person onlyonce, by prirnary function.) 2 Administrative __ Electrical Engineers __ Oceanographers 6 Soil Technicians __ Architects __ Estimators __ Planners: Urban/Regional __ Chemical Engineers 1 Geologists __ Sanitary Engineers ~ __ Civil Engineers __ Hydrologists 3 Soils Engineers __ Construction Inspectors __ Interior Designers Specification Writers Draftsmen __ Landscape Architects __ Structural Engineers __ Ecologists __ Mechanical Engineers __ Surveyors ~ __ Economists Mining Engineers __ Transportation Engineers ~ 9. Summary of Professional Services Fees Ranges of Professional SeNices Fees Received: (Insert index number) Last 5 Years (most recent year first) Index 1. Less than $100,000 1991 1990 1989 19 19 2. $100,000 to $250,000 Direct Federal contract work, includig overseas 3. $250,000 to $500,000 All other domestic work 5 5 2 4. $500,000 to $1 million All other foreign Work* 5. $1 million to $2 million 6. $2 million to $5 million 7. $..5 million to $10 million *Firms interested in foreign work, but without such experience, check here: [ ] 8. $1o million or grea~er 10. Profile of Firm's Project Experience, Last 5 years (4 years) Profile Number of Total Gross Fees Profile Number of Total Gross Fees Profile Number of Total Gross Fees Code Projects On thousands) Code Projects (in thousands) Code Projects (in thousands) 1) 97 124 2,900 11) 21) 2) 12) 3) 13) 23) 4) 14) 24) 5) 15) 25) 6) 16) 7) 17) 27) 6) 18) 26) 9) 19) 29) 1 o) 2o) 3o) 11. Project Examples, Last 5 years Completion Profile 'P','C', Date Code 'JV',or 'IE' Project Name and Location Owner Name and Address Cost of Work (Actual or (in thousands estimated) 97 C 1 S.R. 73/I-5 Interchange Transportation Corridor Agencies 671 1991 Laguna Niguel, California 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6011 97 C 2 Phillips Ranch Road Overcrosslng Cafirans District 7 16 1992 Pomona, California Los Angeles, CA 97 P 3 Media City Center The Alexander Haagen Co. 363 1992 Burbank, California 3500 Sepulveda BIvd. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 97 P 4 Infrastructure Improvements City of Fontana 269 1992 Fontana, California 6353 Sierra Ave. Fontana, CA 92335 97 P 5 I-5 Ramp Modifications City of Burbank/Caltrans Dist. 7 25 1992 Burbank, California 275 E. Olive Burbank, CA 91502 97 C 6 Harbor Freeway 4th-6th Street Caltrans District 7 223 1993 Ramp and Bddge Modifications Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, California 97 P 7 Infrastructure Improvements City of Fontana 269 1992 Fontana, California 8363 Sierra Ave. Fontaria, CA 92335 97 P 8 Empire Cemer The Alexander Hangart Company 171 1992 Foman~ Cal~ornia 35~ SepuN~a BNd. Manha~an Beach, CA 90266 97 P 9 Zone 3-3 Rese~olr We~ San Bernardino Coun~ Water Di~. ~ 1992 Foman~ Cal~ornia 855 We~ Base Une Ria~o, CA 92376 97 P 10 TrI=C~ Corporate Centre Rancon 97 1992 San Bemardino, Cairomid 27720 J~emon Temecula, CA 92390 97 P 11 Rancon Cemre Offiarlo/ROFP Rancon 28 1992 Ontario, CA 27720 J~erson Temecula, CA 92390 97 P 12 Westrainier Ce~er IDM 115 1992 Webrainier, Cal~ornia 5150 E. Pac~ic Coa~ H~. Long Beach, CA 908~ 97 P 13 Montehello Town Square The Alexander Haagen Co. 30 1991 Momebello, Cal~ornia 97 P 14 San Fernando PIe The Alexander Haagen Co. 15 1991 San Fernando, Cal~ornia 97 P 15 A~elope Valley Coud House Bi~cher 66 1992 Lancer, Cairomid 27611 ~ P~ Rd. ~guna Niguel, CA 92607~1 97 P 16 IK~ I~A 56 1992 Camon, Cal~ornia P~mo~h Commons Plymoth Meeting, PA 92462 97 P 17 The VIllage UncolNScardino 12 1991 Thousand Oaks, California 31255 Cedar Valley, Sure 208 We~lake Village, CA 91362 97 P 18 MCWD Rese~olr No. Mesa Consolidated W~er Di~. 80 19~ Co~a Mesa, California 1965 Placemid Avenue Co~a Mesa, CA 92627 97 P 19 Rosemead Parking Stru~ure Ruey Chen 40 1991 Rosemead, Cairomid 428 S. Atla~ic B~d., Sure 3~ Momer~ Park, CA 917~ 97 P 20 Heritage Park Andover/Chandler Companies 43 1991 Glendora, California Burbank, California 97 C 21 Redohalo Beach PIer Renovation City of Redondo Beach 24 1992 Redondo Beach, California Redondo Beach, California 97 P 22 Westpark Garrison Developments 23 1992 Corona, California Santa Ana, California 97 IE 23 San Joaquln Hills Transp. Corridor Transportation Corridor Agencies 750 1989 Orange County, California Costa Mesa, California 97 IE 24 John Wayne AIrport Improvement County of Orange 1,700:~ 1989 Orange County, California Costa Mesa, California 97 IE 25 State Route 91 Improvements Caitrans Districts 8 & 12 256 1989 Orange &Riverside County San Bernardino, California 97 IE 26 I-5/22/57 Interchange Cattrans District 12 67 1989 Orange, California Santa Ana~ California 97 IE 27 Route 57 Improvements Caltrans Distdct 12 67 1989 Orange County, California Santa Ana, California 97 IE 28 MItsul Container Terminal Port of Los Angeles 115 1985 Berths 136-139 San Pedro, California Port of Los Angeles, California 97 IE 29 IPP Railroad (11 miles) Intermountain Power Agency 16 1981 Lyndyll, Utah Sandy, Utah 97 IE 30 Blythe to Palo Verde Railroad (16 miles) San Diego Gas and Electric Co. 13 1977 Riverside County, California San Diego, CA 12. The foregoing is a statement of facts Date: March 13, 1992 Signature: Typed Name and Title: Byron Konstantinidis, President ~perience Profile Code Numbers ~2 Harbom; J~ies; Pie~; Ship Terminal 086 Radar; Sonar; Radio & Radar for use with questions 10 and 11 Facii~ies Telescopes 001 Acou~i~; Noise Abatement ~ He~ing; Vemilating; Air Cond~ioning 087 Railroad; Rapid Trans~ 002 Aed~ Photogramm~ ~ Heath Sy~ems Planning 088 Recre~ion Facil~ies (Parks, M~inas, ~ Agdcu~ural D~elopmem, Grain Storage; ~5 Highrise; Air-REgis-Type Building Etc.) Fa~ Mechanizations ~6 Highways; Stre~s; Aiffield P~ing; P~king 089 Rehabil~ion (Buildings; ~ructures; 0~ Air PollSion Comml Lots Facilities) 005 Ai~o~s; Navaids; Airpo~ Lig~ing; ~7 Historical Prese~mion 0~ Resource Recover, Re.cling Aircraft Fueling ~8 Hosp~al &Medical Facil~ies 091 Radio Frequen~ Systems & Shieldings 006 Ai~s: Terminals &Hangars; Freig~ ~9 H~els; Motels 092 Rivers; Canals; Wate~ays; Flood Control Handling 050 Housing (Residen~al, Mu~-Fmi~; 0~ S~e~ Engineering; Accident Studies; 007 Ar~ic Facil~ies ~anmenm; Condominiums) OSHA Studies O08 Audioalums & ~e~res 051 Hydraulics & Pneumatics 0~ Secur~ Sy~ems; Iraruder & Smoke 009 A~om~ion; Comrols; instrumentSion 052 Industrial Buildings; Man~a~udng Plants D~e~ion 010 Baffacks; Dorm~ories 0~ Indu~rial Processes; Qual~ Comrol ~5 Seismic Designs &Studies 011 Bridg~ 0~ Indu~dal Waste Treatmere ~6 S~age Coiledion, Treatment and Disposal 012 Cem~edes (Planning & Relocation) 055 Imedor Design; Space PInning 097 Soils &Geologic Studies; Foundations 013 Chemic~ Proce~ing &Storage 056 Iffigmion; Drainage ~8 Solar Energy Utilizmion 014 Churches; Chapels 057 Judicial and Courtroom Facil~ies 099 Solid Wa~es; Incineration; ~nd Fill 015 C~es; Standards; Ordinances 058 ~boratories; Medical Research Facil~ies 100 S~cial Environmems; Clean Rooms, 016 Cold Storage; R~rigeration; Fa~ Freze 059 Landscape Arch~e~um Etc. 017 Commercial Buildings (low rise); ~0 Ubraries; Museums; Galleries 101 Stru~ural Design; Special Stru~ures Shopping Cemers 061 Ughting (Interiom; Display; Theatre, Etc.) 102 Su~eying; Pla~ing; Mapping; Flood Plain 018 Communic~ionsSy~ems;~; ~2 Ughting(E~eriors, Streets: Memorials; Studies Microave Athletic Fields, Etc.) 103 Swimming Pools 019 Compeer Facil~ies; Compmer Seaice ~ M~edals Handling Sy~ems; Conveyors; 1~ Storm Water Handling & Facil~ies 020 C~w~ and R~our~ ~nagemem Soffers 105 Telephone Sy~ems (Rural; Mobile; 021 ConCretion Management ~ M~allur~ Intercorn, Etc.) 0~ Coff~ion Control; C~hodic Pr~e~ion; ~5 Microclimatology; Tropical Engineering 1~ Teeing & Inspe~ion Seaices El~ro~sis 066 Mil~a~ Design Standards 107 Traffic & Trans~ation Engineering 0~ Co~ E~im~ing 067 Mining & Mineralo~ 108 Towera (Seff-SuppoRing & GWed Systems) 024 Dams (Concrete; ~ch) 0~ Mi~ile Facil~ies (Silos; Fuels: Tryspot) 1~ Tunnels & Subways 025 Dams (EaRh; R~k); Dikes; L~s O69 Modular Sy~ems Design; Pre-Fabric~ed 110 Urban Renewals; Commun~ 026 Desalinization (Process & FaceTitles) Stm~ures or Componems Developmere 027 Dining Halls; Clubs; Re~aurams 070 Naval Arch~e~ure; OffShore Platforms 111 ~il~ies (Gas & Steam) 028 Ecol~ical & Archeol~ical Inve~ig~ions 071 Nuclear Facil~ies; Nuclear Shielding 112 Value Analysis; ~e-Cycle Costing 0~ Educmional Facil~ies; Classr~ms 0~ ~ice Buildings; Industrial Pa~s 113 Warehouses & Depms ~0 Ele~ronics 0~ Oceanographic Engineering 114 W~er Resources; Hydrology; Ground ~1 Elbatom; Escalators; People-Movem 074 Ordnance; Mun~ions; S~cial Weapons W~er ~2 Ener~ Codemarion; New Ener~ 075 P~roleum Exploreion; Refining 115 W~er Supp~, Treatment and Distrib~ion Sources 076 P~roleum and Fuel (Stomge and 116 Wind Tunnels; Research~esting ~ Environmemal Impa~ Studies, Distrib~ion) Facil~ies Design Asse~ments or Statements 0~ Pielines (Cross-CountS-Liquid &Gas) 117 Zoning; ~nd Use Studies ~ Fallo~ Sheffem; Bla~-Resistam Design 078 Planning (Communi~, Regional, ~eawide ~5 Field Houses; Gyms; Stadiums and State) ~6 Fire Proteflon 079 Planning (Site, Installation, and Project) ~7 Fisheri~; Fish ~ddem ~ Plumbing &Piping D~ign ~8 Fore~ &Forest Produ~s ~1 Pneumatic Stm~ures; Air~uppo~ Buildings ~9 Gara~s; Vehicle Maimenance Facil~ies; ~ Po~al Facil~ies Pa~ing Decks ~ Power Generaion, Transmission, Di~rib~ion ~0 Gas Sy~ems (Propane; Natural, Etc.) 0~ Pri~ns & Corre~ional Facil~ies ~1 Graphic Design 085 Produ~, Machine & Equipmere Design COST PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING ,.,, Prepared for: City of Fontaria 8353 Sierra Avenue .,, Fontana, CA 92335 Prepared by: Geotechnical Professionals Inc, 5736 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 (714) 220-2211 92037 May 27, 1992 COST PROPOSAL FOR "" GEOTECHNICAL/MATERIALS TESTING 1.0 INTRODUCTION In response to the City of Fontana RFP dated May 7, 1992, Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI) Es .pleased to present this cost proposal for providing geotechnical services for "= the following four projects: 1. Cypress Avenue Sewer 2. Citrus Avenue Storm Drain 3. Highland/Haven Tract Sewer & Storm Drain 4. Baseline and Almeria Avenue Sewers The scope of services will include a design phase geotechnical investigation for the Citrus Avenue Storm Drain and geotechnical field observation and testing services related to the construction of all four projects. The details of our technical approach are discussed in our technical proposal. Itemized costs based on the enclosed fee schedule are ,, presented below: 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION A geotechnical investigation is proposed for the Citrus Avenue Storm Drain. · - Pre-Field Activities (Review of plans, utility clearances, permits) Principal 4 hrs @ $100 $ 400 Staff Engineer 8 hrs @ $55 440 "' SUBTOTAL $ 840 Field Work '" Staff Engineer 12 hrs @ $55 $ 660 Drill Rig 12 hrs @ $150 1,800 Field Equipment and Supplies 240 '"' Traffic Control 200 SoB.C.F.C.D. Permit 50 SUBTOTAL 2,950 Lab Testing Moisture Content/Density 20 @ $18 $ 360 Direct Shear (3 pt ea) 3 @ $150 450 Grain Size Analyses 3 @ $70 210 ..i Sand Equivalent 3 @ $60 180 Maximum Density 2 @ $110 220 Soluble Sulfate. pH 2 @ $50 1 O0 ~ SUBTOTAL 1,520 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Cost Proposal for Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 Analyses and Report Principal 8 hrS @ $100 $ 800 Staff Engineer 24 hrs @ $55 1,320 Word Processing/Printing 10 hrs @ $32 320 Drafting 4 hrs @ $45 180 SUBTOTAL 2,620 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TOTAL $ 7,930 3.0 CONSTRUCTION-PHASE SERVICES Construction-phase services will be provided on an "as-needed" basis. The level of effort for geotechnical services will depend to a large extent on the contractor's schedule and performance. The estimates presented below are based on average contractor performance, the approximate schedule of construction, and our experience with similar projects. 3.1 Cypress Avenue Sewer The construction will involve approximately 10,550 lineal feet of main sewer line with invert depths ranging between 10 and 22 feet, plus laterals. The street pavement is to be replaced. Duration of construction is expected to be about six months starting in the fall or 1992, concurrently with the Citrus Avenue Storm Drain. We have assumed that full-time observation and testing will be required during the construction of the deeper, northern parts of the sewer transitioning to part-time observation and testing for the southern half of the alignment. Our cost estimate is as follows: Technician 200 hours @ $46 $ 9,200 Senior Technician 400 hours @ $55 22,000 Field Vehicle and Equipment 600 hours @ $7 4,200 Principal 60 hours @ $100 6,000 Clerical (reports) 10 hours @ $32 320 R-value Tests 5 @ $180 900 Maximum Density Tests 10 hours @ $110 1,100 TOTAL $43,720 2 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Cost Proposal for Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 3.2 Citrus Avenue Storm Drain The project will consist of approximately 4,200 lineal feet of storm drain along Citrus Avenue and 677 lineal feet of laterals. Invert depths range from 9 feet to 18 feet. The A.C. pavement will be replaced. This project will be completed concurrently with the -- Cypress Avenue sewer and is expected to involve less than half of the effort. Our cost estimate is as follows: el Technician 250 hours .@ $46 $11,500 Field Vehicle 250 hours @ $7 1,750 Principal 30 hours @ $100 3,000 el Clerical (reports) 10 hours @ $32 320 R-value Tests 3 @ $180 540 Maximum Density Tests 5 @ $110 550 TOTAL $17~660 3.3 Highland/Haven Tract Improvements The project will include 2,975 lineal feet of storm drain, approximately 2,500 lineal feet of large diameter sewer with invert depths of 12 to 16 feet, 9,950 lineal feet of 8 inch sewer .. with invert depth of 8 feet and 11,060 lineal feet of sewer laterals of shallower depth. Damaged A.C. pavement will be replaced. Estimated project duration is about six months. Our estimated level of effort and costs are as follows: Technician 500 hours @ $46 $23,000 Senior Technician 200 hours @ $55 11,000 .m Field Vehicle 700 hours @ $7 4,900 Principal 70 hours @ $100 7,000 Clerical (reports) 15 hours @ $32 4,800 el R-value Tests 3 @ $180 540 Maximum Density Tests 10 @ $110 1,100 m TOTAL $52,340 · ' 3 City of Fontana GPI Proposal No. 92037 Cost Proposal for Geotechnical Services May 27, 1992 =, 3.4 Baseline and Almeria Trunk Sewer The project will consist of 5,910 lineal feet of trunk sewers and laterals, plus reconstruction of pavement on Baseline Avenue. The invert depths for the trunk sewer range from 14 feet to 18 feet while the laterals will be at a typical depth of 9 feet. Our estimated level of effort and costs are as follows: Technician 350 hours @ $46 $16,100 Field Vehicle 350 hours @ $7 2,450 " Principal 40 hours @ $100 4,000 Clerical 10 hours @ $32 320 R-value Tests 3 @ $180 540 .e Maximum Density Tests 6 @ $110 660 TOTAL $24,070 3,5 Retesting Costs We will keep track of costs associated with retesting and invoice separately. We typically prorate the time spent in the field on a given day in proportion to the failing tests and invoice on an hourly basis. Should the City desire a fixed rate for retests, the unit rate is $60 per in-place density test. This cost includes the time for the test plus some standby , time. GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS, INC ..,, 1992 FEE SCHEDULE FONTANA SERVICES RATE ..~ Staff Engineer/Geologist $ 55.00/hr Project Engineer/Geologist 68.00/hr Senior Engineer/Geologist 80.00/hr ., Principal lO0.00/hr Senior/Supervisory Technician 55.00/hr ·=Technician 46.00/hr Assistant Technician 34.00/hr Draftsman 45.00/hr '= Typist/Clerical 32.00/hr Legal Testimony and Depositions 150.00/hr All field services are subject to a four hour minimum. EQUIPMENT Field Vehicles with test equipment (travel and on site use) $ 7.00/hr Passenger Cars (mileage only) 0.27/mi EXPENSES & OUTSIDE SERVICES Out-of-pocket expenses (expendable field supplies, aerial photos, long distance calls, blueprints, report production expenses, etc.) are charged at cost plus 10 percent. IN_C_. August25,1995 City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Attention: Mr. Gregory J. Bucknell, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Subject: Report of Observation and Testing During Backfilling of Cypress Avenue Sewer Line Trenches Fontana, California GPI Project No. 1146.1C Dear Mr. Bucknell: This report presents the results of geotechnical observation and testing performed by Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI) at the subject site. This report covers backfilling of the trenches re-excavated to repair damage to pavements on Cypress Avenue. The limits of backfilling covered by this report are shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Our scope of services performed and the backfilling operations observed are summarized in the subsequent sections of this report. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed by GPI during backfilling included the following: · Observation and field density testing during backfilling. · Laboratory testing including maximum density/optimum moisture, · Attending site meetings. · Preparation of this report. In-place dry densities were determined in accordance with ASTM D 1556 (Sand Cone Method). The results of laboratory maximum density/optimum moisture determinations are summarized in Table 1. The location ef our field density tests are summarized in Table 2 (Station reference), as well as our in-place moisture/density test results. 1146-1C .02R(8/95 ) 5736 Corporate Avenue o Cypress, CA 9OU30 - [714] 22(Z3-2211, FAX (714) 220-2122 City of Fontana August ;~5, 1995 Cypress Avenue Sewer Project, Fontana, California GPI Project 1146.1C Several bulk samples were obtained to determine the maximum density of the backfill material. "Check points" were performed to confirm that the original maximum densities were appropriate. OBSERVATIONS DURING BACKFILLING The areas covered by this report are as follows: · Sewer line along Cypress Avenue between Jurupa Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue. The area is comprised of two sections: 1) Stations 73+40 to 76+25+ (based on plans by NBS/Lowry, dated August 1990, drawing number 2042); 2) Stations 68+70 to 69+50± (based on plans by NBS/Lowry, dated August 1990, drawing number 2042). Trench Backfill Several pavement failures occurred along the trench alignment in Cypress Avenue. The areas were excavated down to the pipe and in some places the spring line. Portions excavated were enlarged to encompass the several localized and large failures occurring within the two reaches mentioned above. The Fontana City Inspector and Kenko (contractor) identified the areas based on obvious surface features and proof-rolling, performed with a heavy front end loader. These areas were saw cut to the greatest outside dimension, then excavated using a Caterpillar 235 excavator. The depths of backfill ranged from 11.5 to 12 feet along the alignment. Native sands and silty sands were used for backfill. The backfill was placed in 12- to 24-inch lifts, moisture-conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density (ASTM D 1557). Compaction was achieved using an excavator mounted sheepsfoot wheel and front end loader. 1146-1C.02R(S/gS) 2 City of Fontana August 25, 1995 Cypress Avenue Sewer Project, Fontaria, California GPI Project 1146.1C CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our observations and field density testing, the aforementioned backfill activities were, in general, performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Fontana, LIMITATIONS Observations and testing services described herein have been limited to activities performed between July 10, 1995 and July 13, 1995. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been based upon our observations and testing as noted. No representations are made as to the quality or extent of materials not observed. Our services were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principals available at this time and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either express or implied, is included or intended in our report. This report should be considered subject to review by the appropriate regulating agencies. The opportunity to be service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, ~~ Geotech ical Profes , nals Inc. __ _ ~ NO. 2~00 ~ James E. a;ri EXP. 12.31-97 JEH:sp Enclosures: Figure 1 - Location of Field Density Tests Table 1 - Summary of Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Determinations Table 2 - Summary of Field Density Tests Distribution - (4) Addressee 114S-1C.02R(8/95) 3 City Of Fontana August 25, 1995 Sewer Line Trenches, Fontana, California GPI Project No. 1146.1C TABLE 1 LABORATORY TESTING CURVE MAXIMUM DRY MOISTURE NO. SOIL DESCRIPTION DENSITY CONTENT 1 Light Brown Silty Sand (SM) 125 11 2 Light Grey Brown Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) 131 7.8 3 Grey Gravelly Sand (SW) 137 8.4 4 Brown Gravely Sand (SP/SW) 134 6.5 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS NO. 1995 ELEV, MOIST. DENSI~ NO. COMP. REMARKS 1 ~11 1030 7.2 126 2 96 2 7/11 1032 11.6 121 2 92 3 7/11 1034 8.0 133 3 97 4 7/11 1036 7.7 130 2 99 5 7/11 1037 8.0 126 2 96 6 7/12 1035 11.6 117 1 94 7 7/12 1035 7.5 122 2 93 8 7/12 1037 13.5 119 1 95 9 ~12 1039 10.8 122 1 98 10 7/12 1037 7.5 117 1 94 11 ~13 1040 10.5 128 2 98 12 7/13 1041 10.0 115 1 92 13 7/13 1038 5.4 133 4 99 14 7/13 1036 14.1 123 1 98 15 7/13 1041 11.5 116 1 93 16 ~13 1044 7.6 131 4 98 1146-1C,02T(8~5) PROFESSIONALS INC, ___ --_- August4,1995 City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Attention: Mr. Gregory J. Bucknell, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer Subject: Cypress Avenue Sewer Project Fontaria, California GPI Project No. 1146.1C Trench Failure/Pavement Repair Dear Mr. Bucknell: In accordance with the request in your letter dated June 19, 1995, this letter responds to the question/comments regarding the subject project. We observed excavation and repair of the failed trench and have utilized our observation in the field and data from our files as the basis for the response. A summary of our observations and field density testing performed during the repair will be provided in a separate report. INTRODUCTION We visited the site prior to the repairs performed in July 1995. At that time we observed a section of the pavement (Station 74+73±) had subsided up to 3 feet below adjacent grades. The soil adjacent to the manhole (B-19) had either settled or washed away to at least 4 feet below the top of the manhole. The failed pavement was 30+ feet long and 5 to 10 feet wide. Adjacent to the west edge of pavement, we observed a "piping" hole where water had obviously been running. Numerous rodent holes were observed adjacent to the pavements (west side of street). We observed the excavation of the soil backfill from over the sewer. During the excavation, we observed the "piping" hole extend 4 to 5 feet below the ground surface. The hole could not be traced further by excavation due to the presence of a gas main, Excavation into the pipe bedding (below the pipe springline) revealed complete contamination of the gravel (bedding) with sands. The bedding originally consisted of clean 3/4 inch gravel with no sand. Corporate AvenuE; - Cypress, CA 9OE;30 ', (714) 22E)-2211 , FAX (714] 22E)-2122 City of Fontana August 4, 1995 Cypress Avenue Sewer Project GPI Project 1146.1C "Washing Out" of Soil - Adjacent to the manhole and apparent in the void on the east side of the trench, we observed evidence of the soil being literally washed out from under the pavements. Little or no evidence of subsidence or settlement caused by densification of the backfill was observed except as noted below. Settlement of Backfill - We observed no evidence of settlement due to soil densification except immediately adjacent to the manhole. This appeared to be a local condition and was most likely caused by the related "piping" rather than contributing to the pavement failure. 3. Question: The trench failures were not along the entire length of the trench reaches, but in spot locations. An explanation for this type of trench failure is requested. Response: Based on discussions with Mr. Wayne Brown, City Inspector, the other reaches of the trench that exhibited failure also had rodent holes adjacent to the edge of pavement. Mr. Brown indicated that he observed several "piping" in the area of the other failure. Therefore, we conclude that the trenches failed, predominantly, in the vicinity of rodent holes. CONCLUSIONS As discussed above, evidence of settlement due to densification of the backfill by saturation was not observed. In addition, settlement of the fill by 3 to 4 feet due to densification is not possible. For 10 to 12 feet of fill to settle that much would have required a starting compaction of 50 to 60 percent, which is not possible given the test results and compaction activities observed. It is our opinion that most of the pavement damage was caused by either soil washing into the gravel bedding or completely washing out from under the pavement. We understand that storm runoff along Cypress Avenue is by surface flow over the street as storm drain facilities are not present. We also understand that large flows were observed on the street, supporting our opinion that the surface water ran into the rodent holes. 1146-1 C.01 L(8/95) 3 City of Fontana August 4, 1995 Cypress Avenue Sewer Project GPI Project 1146,1C RECOMMENDATIONS To help mitigate the potential for future subsidence, we recommend that the following tasks be performed. 1. Backfill all rodent holes and provide for a rodent control program. 2. Provide an asphalt or concrete swale adjacent to the pavement to help limit future infiltration of water into the subgrade. This should also help control erosion of the surficial soils adjacent to the pavement. 3. Monitor pavements for cracking which may indicate impending failure. It should be realized that other voids may have been created by the heavy storms and that future subsidence may occur. At the conclusion of the repairs, the contractor rolled the surface of the street with a heavy loader to help determine if other voids were present. At approximately 1,000_+ feet north of the subject site, a depression occurred when rolled with the equipment. The pavement was removed and a void observed. The exposed soil was consistent with compacted fill. No subsidence was observed at subgrade level when the void was backfilled. The opportunity to be service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, Geetechnical Professi Is Inc. i ',~ NO, 2100 James E. Harris, G.E. EXP. ~2-31-97 Principal JEH:gn/sp 1146-1C,01L(8/95) 4 FROM: . Our FAX No, ia (714) 220-2122 Hard copies to be mailed: yes ...... no '~'10'~0 N~U tJ~9~ bl'Ult~Url YKUI'tSb;>IURItLb I'HA ~IU, ~[qf'/U,"l// Y, U~' '-' DR FT G~OTF~CI--,INICAL PROFESSIONALS INC. .. August 4, 1895 City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 Attention: Mr. Gregory J. Bucknell, P.E. Principal CIvil Engineer Subject: Cypress Avenue Sewer Project Fontana, California GPI Project No. 1146.1C Trench Failure/Pavement Repair Dear Mr. Bucknell: In accordance with the request in your letter dated June 19, 1995, this letter responds to the question/comments regarding the subject project. We observed excavation and repair of the failed trench and have utilized our observation in the field and data from our files as the basis for the response. A summary of our observations and field density testing performed during the repair will be provided in a separate report. INTRODUCTION We visited the site prior to the repairs performed in July 1995. At that time we observed a section of the pavement (Station 74+73.,.) had subsided up to 3 feet below adjacent grades. The soil adjacent to the manhole (B-19) had either settled or washed away to at least 4 feet below the top of the manhole, The failed pavement was 30+ feet long and 5 to 10 feet wide. Adjacent to the west edge of pavement, we observed a "piping" hole where water had obviously been running, Numerous rodent holes were observed adjacent to the pavements (west side of street). We observed the excavation of the soil backfig from over the sewer. During the excavation, we observed the "piping" hole extend 4 to 5 feet below the ground surface, The hole could not be traced further by excavation due to the presence of a gas main. Excavation into the pipe bedding (below the pipe springline) revealed complete contamination of the gravel (bedding) with sands. The bedding odgin~,4ly consisted of clean 3/4 inch gravel with no sand. , 5736 Corporate Avenue ,m Gypnasa, CA 90830 · [714) 2E]C)-E~E~I I, FAX [714) 22521 P,i~L~-lJ:j-~b INPU ~;bJ L~P~UIEUH VKUP~.~j.'.~Ui'tHLb rH~ Ru. 114,-~uc~c,- r. u~ " DRAFT Oily or Fentans August 4, lg95 Cypress Avcnue S~w;r Prujcci QPI ProJest 1146. 10 On the east side of the excavation at about 2 feet below the pavement, we observed a void approximately 6 inches deep, extending 10 to 15 feet to the east and approximately 5 feet wide (north/south direction). The void was present under a portion of the street outside of the backfill area and did not correspond to any known laterals. The appearance of the soil observed in this area did not indicate settlement; however, evidence of soil piping or "washing out" was observed. The pavement had not settled and did net exhibit any distress at the surface. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 1. Question: The maximum dry density curves varying within short trench reaches. Response: During backfilling operations, the contractor would move soil from different reaches of the trenches. As the excavation continued, different materials were exposed and used as backfill. In some cases, low maximum density silty/clean sand may have been placed immediately adjacent to high maximum density gravefly sands. Typjcaily, the contractor backfilled the trench in 20 to 40 foot stretches. 2. Question: With the number of compaction tests taken within the trench failure reaches, the reason(s) or explanation(s) for the trench failure during the heavy rainfall and runoff is requested. Response: Based on our testing and observation of the backfill and the magnitude of pavement subsidence, the damage observed could not have been caused solely by densification/settlement of the backfill alone. Based on our observations at the site, we have concluded that three different occurrences contributed to the failure of the pavement/trench, "Piping" of Soil Into the Gravel Bedding - The voids in the gravel bedding were observed to be completely filled with sand; in spite of the fact that the gravel was "clean" when placed. We believe that water entering rodent holes at the surface "washed or piped" soil into the gravel. I t4e-I C.ol L(B/OS) 2 LJb-rg-ug V~.IY (3,~,1 LTE. UIE. bR FKU~E.~.'~iUili-iL;) rrlA i'(u, f IHCCU~IC~ ~, u~t DRAFT city or Fgniana August 4, 1Bee Cypress Ave~lU0 SeWer Project 0PI proJeo~ l 146.1C "Washing Out" of Soil · Adjacent to the manhole and apparent in the void on the east side of the trench, we observed evidence of the soil being literally washed out from under the pavements, Little or no evidence of subsidence or settlement caused by densification of the backfill was observed except as noted below. Settlement of Baddill - We observed no evidence of settlement due to soil densification except immediately adjacent to the manhole. This appeared to be a local condition and was most likely caused by the related "piping" rather than contributing to the pavement failure. 3. Question: The trench failures were not along the entire length of the trench reaches, but in spot locations. An explanation for this type of trench failure is requested, Response: Based on discussions with Mr. Wayne Brown, City Inspector, the other reaches of the trench that exhibited failure also had rodent holes adjacent to the edge of pavement. Mr. Brown indicated that he observed several "piping" in the area of the other failure. Therefore, we conclude that the trenches failed, predominantly, in the vicinity of rodent holes. CONCLUSIONS As discussed above, evidence of settlement due to densification of the backfill by saturation was not observed. In addition, settlement of the fill by 3 to 4 feet due to densification is not possible. For 10 to 12 feet of fill to settle that much would have required a starting compaction of 50 to 60 pement, which is not possible given the test results and compaction activities observed. It is our opinion that most of the pavement damage was caused by either soil washing into the gravel bedding or completely washing out from under the pavement. We understand that storm runoff along Cypress Avenue Is by surface flow over the street as storm drain facilities are not present. We also understand that large flows were observed on the Street, supporting our opinion that the surface water ran into the rodent holes, 114e-10.ol L(8/95) 3 [-;,.Jb-H:)-~b HE.U ~q LTEU IE. brl FKUF E..'~.',iUPtr~L-'. rrin s~u. i.H-tr_r_ur_l cr_ DRAFT City of Fon~ana August Cyi~rosS Avenue Sewer ProjeGt GPI Fmject 1146,1C RECOMMENDATIONS To help rnjtigate the potential for future subsidence, we recommend that the following tasks be performed. 1. Backfill all rodent holes and provide for a rodent control program. 2. Provide an asphalt or concrete swale adjacent to the pavement to help limit future infiltration of water into the subgrade. This should also help control erosion of the surficial soils adjacent to the pavement. 3. Monitor pavements for cracking which may indicate impending f,~ilure. It should be realized that other voids may have been created by the heavy storms and that future subsidence may occur. At the conclusion of the repairs, the contractor rolled the surface of the street with a heavy loader to help determine if other voids were present. At approximately 1,000_* feet north of the subject site, a depression occurred when rolled with the equipment. The pavement was removed and a void observed. The exposed soil was consistent with compacted fill. No subsidence was observed at subgrade level when the void was backfilled. The opportunity to be service is appreciated, if you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, Geo~l~cA~ilssionals Inc. James E. Harris, G.E. Principal JEH:gn/sp 114e.lC.01 L(8,'~5) 4 ~UU- 4-~b ~Ki ]~;~ UEUI~UH FKUP~IUNHL~ PH~ ~u,/lqd~udidd r, ui .~11~~ GEOTEECF~NICAL . PROPE,~SIONAL,c=j, tN_._,c,___. .......... FAX T~NSMITTAL LETTER TO: , FAX NO. Our FAX No. is (7t4) 220-2122 Hard copies torbc mailed: DRAFT August 4, 1995 City of Fontone 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontaria, CA 92335 Attention: Mr. GregoW J. Bucknell, P,E. Principal Civil Engineer Subject', ~rench Failure/P~vement Repair Cypress Avenue Sewer Project Fontone Cahfornla PI Proj'ect o. 146,1C Dear Mr. Bucknell: In accordance with the request in your letter dated June 19, 1995, this letter responds to the questioNcomments regarding the subject project. We observed excavation and repair of the failed trench and have utilized our observation in the field end data from our files as the basis for the response. A summary of our observations and field density testing pe~ormed during the repair will be provided in a separate report. We visited the site prior to the repairs performed in July 1995, At that time we observed a section of the pavement (Station 74+73±) had subsided up to 3 feet below adjacent grades. The soil adjacent to the manhole (B-19) had either settled or washed away to at least 4 feet below the top of the manhole. The failed pavement was 30+ feet long and 5 to 10 feet wide. Adjacent to the west edge of pavement, we observed a "piping" hole where water had obviously been running. Numerous rodent holes were observed adjacent to the pavements (west side of street). We observed the excavation of the sail backfill from over the sewer. During the excavation, we observed the 'piping" hole extend 4 to 5 feet below the ground surface. The hole could not be traced further by excavation due, to the presence of a gas main. Excavation into the pipe (b~t~v~tth~ring line) revealed complete contamination of the grav~ with sands. The shading originally consisted of clean 3/4 inch gravel with no sand. ~L~~''Z ~ ~ · D AFT l~4S4C.01L(~5) 573R Cc~r'l~rk, r-e AV~,rlLI~ ' CVpI'e-c-l~, CA 90[:]30 - (7141 ~O-;Z~I 'I, F~X (714) ~20~1~ On the east side of the excavation, we observed a void approximately 6 inches deep, extending 10 to 15 feet to the east and approximately 5 feet wide (north/south direction). The void was present under a portion of the street outside of the backfill area and did not correspond to any known laterals. The appearance of the soil observed in this area did not Ind(cate settlement; however, evidence of soil piping or "washing out" was observed. The pavement had not settled and did not exhibit any distress at the sudace. '~ CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations at the site, we have concluded that three different occurrences contributed to the failure of the pavement/trench. · "Piping" of Soil Into the Gravel Shading The voids in the gravel shading were observed to be completely filled with sand; in spite of the fact that the gravel was 'clean" when p(aced. We believe that water entering r i soft. - "Washing Out" of Soft - Adjacent to the manhole and apparent in the void on the east side of the trench, we obseNed evidence of the soil being fiteral{y washed out from under the pavements. Little or no evidence of subsidence or settlement caus~ by densification of the backfill was ebse~ed except as noted below. Settlement of Backfill - We obse~ed no evidence of settlement due to sell densification except immediately adjacent to the manhole. This appeared to be a local condition and was most likely caused by the related "piping" ether than contributing to the pavement failure. In summary, water entered the subgrade soils by way of rodent ho~es on the west side of the street. The soil was either completely washed out or "piped" into the gravel shading. Settlement of the backflit could not begin to account for the large magnitude of pavement subsidence. Considering the backfill is 12 feet deep at this location, 4 feet of subsidence equates to 33 percent densification. Assuming that the backfill was densifi~ to 85 percent of maximum density (reasonable for water jetting without mechanical compaction), the fill would have had to have sn initial density equal to 52 percent relative compaction. Even dumped b~ckfill exhibits dens~ corresponding to 70+ percent of maximum. RECOMMENDATIONS To help mitigate the potential for future subsidence, we recommend that the following tasks be performed. 1. Backfill all rodent holes and provide for a rodent control program. 2. Provide an asphalt or concrete swore adjacent to the pavement to help limit future infiltration of water into the subgrade. This should also help control erosion of the su~icial soils adjacent to the pavement. 3. Monitor pavements for cracking which may indicate impending failure. It should be realized that other voids may have been created by the heavy storms and that future subsidence may occur. At the conclusion of the repairs, the contractor rolled the surface of the street with a heavy loader to help determine if other voids were present. At approximately 1,000-~ feet north of the subject site, a depression occurred when rolled with the equipment, The pavement was removed and a void observed. The exposed soil was consistent with compacted fill, No subsidence was observed at subgrade ~evel when the void was backfilled, RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 1. Question: The maximum dW density curves varying within short trench reaches, Response: During backfilling oper~,tions, the contractor would move soil from different reaches of the trenches. As the excavation continued, different materials were exposed and used as backfill. In some cases, low density siity/clean sand may have been pieced immediately adjacent to high density grayoily sands. Typically, the contractor backfilled the trench in 20 to 40 foot stretches. 2. Question: With the number of compaction tests taken within the trench failure reaches, the reason is) or explanat ion(s) for the trench failure dudrig thB heavy rainfall and runoff is requested. Response: See above conclusions. 114~-1C.01L(~) 3 3. Question: The trench failures were not along the entire length of the trench reaches, but in spot locations. An explanation for this type of trench failure is requested. Response: Based on discussions with Mr. Wayne Brown. City Inspector, the other reaches of the trench that exhibited failure also had rodent holes adjacent to the edge of pavement. Mr, Brown indicated that he observed several "piping" in the area of the ether failure. Therefore, we conclude that the trenches failed, predominantly, in the vicinity of rodent ho~es. The opportunity to be service Is appreciated. If you have any questions, please cell. Very truly yours, E. Harris, G.E. ' Principal EXP, 12-31-91 JEH:gn 114~1C,OIL(6/'~5) 4 Cicty of Fontana LIFORNIA June 19, 1995 James E. Harris, G.E., Principal Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 5736 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 RE: Cypress Avenue Sewer Project from Jurupa Avenue to Valley Boulevard Trench Failure and Pavement Repair Dear Mr. Harris: Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. provided geotechnical testing construction services on the above referenced project. During the winter months of 1994/1995 heavy rainfall and runoff occurred. Trench failures occurred at various locations on the project from Jurupa Avenue to Santa Ana Avenue. These trench failures were at one foot to three foot depths. The construction contractor, Kenko Contractors, Inc., on the project was requested by the City to make repairs under the warranty clauses of their construction contract. Kenko Contractors, Inc. proceeded to make the necessary repairs under force account/disputed work. Converse Consultants were contracted by the City to provide geotechnical testing services for the trench and pavement repair work. Per our phone conversation, enclosed is one marked set of plans on the above referenced project. GPI's and Converse's test hole numbers, locations and curve numbers have been shown within the trench failure location reaches from Jurupa Avenue to Santa Ana Avenue. GPI's and Converse's maximum dry density curves and curve number tables are shown on the title page. Import material was incorporated for the trench repair backfill within the trench failure locations. As discussed, the questions to be addressed are as follows: 1. The maximum dry density curves varying within short trench reaches. 2. With the number of compaction tests taken within the trench failure reaches, the reason(s) or explanation(s) for the trench failure during the heavy rainfall and runoff is requested. 8353 SIERRA AVENUE(P O. BOX 518) · FONTAN& CAUFORNIA92334-0518 · (714) 350-7600 SISTER CITY -- KAMLOOPS, B,C. CANADA ~ recycled paper Mr. James E. Harris Page 2 6/19/95 3. The trench failures were not along the entire length of the trench reaches, but in spot locations. An explanation for this type of trench failure is requested. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact the undersigned at (909) 350-6646. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Engineering Division Principal Civil Engineer/Special Projects GJB/cye cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Quazi Hashmi, Converse Consultants CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREE]lENT THIS AGREIEMEMT is made this 1st day of Septem~, 1992, by and between the CITY OF FONTANA, a municipal corpor~of the State of California, (hereinafter "City") and Geotechnical Professionals, Inc., hereinafter "Consultant"). WHEREAS, Consultant desires to provide enqineerinq consultinq services to the City, and WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to provide consultinq enqineerinq services for the Cypress Avenue Sewer Project for geotechnical materials testinq and reports. NOII, THEREFORE, CITY m COMSULTANT MUllJALLY AGitEE THAT: SECrlOM I SERVICES OF THE CONSULTA~ff General Description of Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof so as to fully and adequately complete their project described herein. SECrlOM II RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMSULTAMr 1. Personnel. All the work shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. The Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant, shall not be considered to be an employee of the City. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of services under this Agreement and as required by law, shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting them, including but not limited to, Social Security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 2. Cooperation. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with City's designated Project Administrator, and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over or interest in the work to be performed. 3. Project Manaqer. The Consultant shall assign the project to a Project Hanager, who shall coordinate all phases of the project. This Project Manager shall be available to the City at all times. The Consultant has designated James Harris. G.E., to be its Project Manager. ORIGINAL 4. Tit f Performance. The task t' e performed by Consultant undeF"~m~ pursuant to this Agreement ~ll~fdll be completed within 150 days from the date of the Consultants receipt of written authorization to proceed from the City. Consultant shall receive no additional compensation if completion of its obligation under this Agreement requires a time greater than as set forth herein unless such extension is caused solely by the conduct of the City. Each party hereby agrees to provide timely notice to the other of any violation occurring under this section and the cause thereof. 5. Report Materials. At the completion of this project, Consultant shall deliver to City all documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by Consultant under this Agreement. Said documents shall be considered the property of City upon payment for services performed by Consultant. 6. City Policy. Consultant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 7. Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable city, county, state, and federal requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City Council. 8. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, and attorneys' fees, directly arising from any and all negligent actions of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement. 9. Standard of Carex Licenses. Consultant represents and agrees that all personnel engaged in performing services are and shall be fully qualified and are authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. Consultant shall perform the services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner. Consultant shall be responsible to City for any errors or omissions in the execution of this Agreement arising from Consultant's actions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits, and other approvals during the term of this Agreement. 10. Insurance. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to the City Attorney. Such policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Said policies shall ~/ EXHIBIT :"A" ~m/ SCOPE OF SERVICES I. The City of Fontana plans to bid ~his summer the Cypres Avenue Sewer Project and requires the services of an engineering geotechnical consulting firm to provide construction materials testing (see attached project vicinity map) A. 6eneral Services 1. Provision of GeotechniCal Servlces During Construction This proposal shall be~based on tests being scheduled within 24 hours of the Inspector's request for tests. Results of these tests shall then be made available immediately in the field, followed by reports within 48 hours. ~ In place sot1 densities shall be determined by the sand cone method of test in accordance with ASTN Standard D-1556-64, or by the nuclear method of test tn accordance with ASTH Standard D-2922-071. ' Optimum sot1 motsture ~ensity relations shall be determined bY the method of ~test specified in ASTH Standard D-1577-78. R-Value shall be determined by the stabilometer test (Test Nethod No. Calif. 301). The proposal shall be: based on the following qualities of work or materials stated below. a. The following minimum tests at 300' intervals (except as noted on ProJect Specific Scope of Services) and upon 20% of estimated laterals. Pipe Zone -Bedding (where applicable) Backfill -Bottom half of trench above Pipe Zone Backf111 -Top half of trench above Pipe Zone Subgrade -At finish subgrade plus R-Value 1500' to 2000' intervals). Include analysis and recommendation for structural section of A.C. pavement where applicable (number of tests is: Project specific)' b. Optimum Sot1Notsture Density Test The results shall, as a minimum, include the following informaitton: 1. Test Slte Station and Depth (relative to project drawings) 2. Notsture Content by percentage 3. Dry Density 4. Relative Compactton 5. Sotl Type with maxtmum dry density and optimum moisture content 2. Project Specific Scopes - Construction ~ITY 6F FONTANA Geotechnical professionals, Inc. A Municipal Corporation City Manager Title Pzesident ATTEST: Notary / City Clerk ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California } CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of Oranqe [] INDIVIDUAL Geotechnical On 8-5-92 before me, *Deborah L. Carter* ~] CORPORATEPr°fessi°nals DAPE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., 'JANE DOE, NOTARY PUSLIC' OFFICER(S) nTLE(S} [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED personally appeared *Byron Konstantinidis* , [] GENERAL NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] All'ORNEY-IN-FACT [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~j[ whose name(~) is/'aiffi( [] TRUSTEE(S) subscribed to the within instrument and [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR acknowledged to me that he/~ [] OTHER: executed the same in his~ authorized capacity(:l~i~, and that by -. hidsignatureS) on the instrument AllENTION NOTARY: Although I~e inforrna~on r ~;2~Fd~tra THIS CERTIFICATE T'rtle or Type of Document *Consultant Services Agreement* MUST BE ATTACHED * 13' 8-5-82' TO THE DOCUMENT Number of Pages Date of Document DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: Signer(s) Other than Named Above See Dccument* ©1992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remn,~t Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Pazk, CA 91304-7184 SECTION ¥II V SII~CONTR~CTI!~ 1. Consultant shall not: subcontract any portion of the services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior approval of City. 2. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipul)ted in this Agreement. IN WITNESS W!IEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted and made and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and provisions above stated, on the day and year first above written. READ AND APPROVED: Stephen P. Deitsch' City Attorney This document is the true and complete document approved by City Council on September 1 , 1992. )merit Director '~ Grah~m~ Risk Hanagement Any notice so given shall be considered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. The address for notice may be changed by gtving notice pursuant to this paragraph. 3. Litlqatlon. Should litigation be necessary to enforce any term or provision of this Agreement, or to collect any portion of the amount payable under this Agreement, then all litigation and collection expenses, witness fees, expert fees, court costs, and attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. 4. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between City and Consultant with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modlfied by a writing signed by both parties. 5. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 6. Nondiscrimination by Consultant. Consultant represents and agrees that Consultant, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or holding companies do not and will not discriminate against any subcontractor, consultant, employee, or applicant for emplo3n~ent because of race, religion, color, sex, handicap, or national origin. Such nondiscrimination shall include, but not be 11mired to, the following: emplo3nnent, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment, recruitment advertising, layoff, termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 7. City's Rtqhts to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this project. 8. Conflicts of Interest. A. Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"}, which {1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. of such records. .ultant shall atlow inspectio~ all work, data, documents, proceed~gs, and activities related to ~e Agreement for a period of three {3} years from the )date of final payment under this Agreement. SECTIOM' VI GE)iEP,~L PROVISIONS 1. Termination. A. City may, by ~written notice to Consultant, terminate this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. In the event of termination without cause, Consultant shall be compensated for the work performed up to the date of termination. Payment for work com!pleted under the Agreement to date of termination shall be made strictl~y on the basis of the percent of services completed under the terms of this Agreement. The percent of work completed to date of termination)shall be the percent of the total compensation under this Agreement which shall be paid to Consultant. The City Manager shall determine the percent of work completed at the date of termination. In no event may total payment upon termination exceed S43,720.00. Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation after termination. COnsultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. B. In the event this Agreement is terminated, as provided in paragraph A of this section, City may procure from any person or entity upon such terms,~ and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similiar to those terminated. C. If this Agreement is terminated as provided in paragraph A of this section, Consu]tant shall provide to City upon request by City all finished or un(inished documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, photographs, reports~ etc., prepared by Consultant for the project as such time as final pa)nnent is made pursuant to paragraph A of this section. D. Consultant further covenants to give its good faith cooperation in the transfer of the work to any other consultant employed by City following termination hereunder, and to participate in a maximum of two meetings at no cost to City as shall be deemed necessary by the City Manager to effectively accomplish its transfer. 2. Notices. Any noticei required or desired to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be given in writing, and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: City ConSultant Jay M. Corey Mr. Byron Konstantinidls, G.E. City Manager President City of Fontaria Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 8353 Sierra Avenue 5736 COrporate Avenue Fontana, Ca. 92335 CypresS, CA 90630 0 (714) 350-7654 (714) 22 -2211 the City. City shaj~mlk~not be required to pay any aFt/melts in excess of this sum whether fb, copying costs, incidental, di.~ct, or indirect costs, or any type incurred by Consultant. This section shall not limit the ability of the parties to amend this Agreement to provide for extra work. 2~ Extra Work. Consultant shall receive compensation for extra work authorized by City in an amount as specified by the parties at the time such authorization is given. All extra work must be authorized in writing by the Project Administrator and Consultant shall not be entitled to extra compensation without such authorization. 3. Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized by the City. 4. Monthly Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices to the City on a monthly basis in accordance with Consultant's schedule of fees contained in Exhibit "B" hereof. Each invoice shall be itemized. Each. invoice shall show the number of hours per person/consultant and the nature of the work performed. 5. Payment of Compensation. City shall make payments to Consultant within thirty {30) days of receiving said statement unless City disputes the amount Consultant claims is owed under this Agreement. 6. Withholdinqs. City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the disputed withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue its work for a period of thirty {30} days from the date of withholding as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the Mayor and City Council with respect to such disputed sums. The determination of the Mayor and City Council with respect to such matters shall be final. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent {7%) per annum from the date of the withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 7. 1~ Withholding. City may withhold an amount equivalent to ten percent {10%} of the total compensation provided herein, to be released to Consultant upon final adoption of the project by the Mayor and City Council. The City reserves the right to refuse to pay all billings requesting amounts in excess of 90% of the total compensation provided heroin until the project is completed and adopted as specified above. SECTIQMV ~O(JIITIMI~ P~ECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with its work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies add as insured City ts elected officials, officers nd employees for all liability arisi)~m/from Consultant's services as Vcribed herein. A. Prior to the commencement of any services hereunder, Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance with original endorsements, and copies of policies, if requested by City, of the following insurance, with Best's Class B or better carriers= {1) Worker's Compensation insurance coverage as required by the laws of the State of California~ {2} Commercial general liability insurance covering third party:liability rtsks, including without limitation contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined~ single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate Shall apply separately to this project, or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limit~ {3) Commercial auto liability and property insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. B. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party except after thirty {30} days prior notice hasl been given in writing to City. Further, Consultant shall give City written notice thirty {30) days prior to suspension, voiding, or reduction in coverage or in limits. Consultant shall give to City promptSand timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and; maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of ins,urance, which in its own judgement may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. C. Consultant shall include subcontracting consultants, if any, as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for each subcontractor shall be subject to the requirements stated herein. O. All insurance obtained by Consultant hereunder shall be primary. Notwithstanding any insurance which may otherwise be obtained by City. 11. Prohibition Aqainst Transfers. A. Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly by operationof law without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and voiL!mm~ and any assignee, sublesse~hypothecatee or transferee shall ~quire no right or interest ~ reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation, or transfer. B. The sale, assignment, transfer, or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or co-tenant if Consultant is a partnership or a joint venture or a syndicate or a co-tenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of this Agreement. Control means fifty percent {50%} or more of voting power of the corporation. 12. Progress. Consultant is responsible to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the work, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 13. Conftdentiality. No news releases, including photographs, public announcements, or confirmations of the same, of any part of the subject matter of this Agreement or any phase of any program hereunder shall be made without prior written approval of City. The information which results from the services in this Agreement is to be kept confidential unless the release of information is authorized by City. SECIIOM Ill RESPQ~IBILIIlES OF CITY 1,. Coooeration. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the project. 2~ Citv's Resoonsibilities. City shall furnish to Consultant base maps, existing studies, ordinances, data, and other existing information as shall be determined by Consultant and materials in City's possession necessary for Consultant to complete the work contemplated by this Agreement. City further agrees to provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. 3. Administration. This Agreement will be administered by the City Manager's Office. The City Engineer or his/her designee shall be considered the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for the City under this Agreement. The City Manager or his/her authorized representative shall represent the City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. SECT1011 IV FEES All) PAYMEXTS 1. Compensation. Except as provided in this section, Consultant shall receive as compensation for all services rendered under this Agreement an amount not to exceed $43,720.00 and at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B'. The total project cost shall not exceed this amount unless additional work is authorized in writing by a. press Avenue Sewer =~,rovision of Geotechnical Servic'~'~s During Construction of the Above Referenced Project. P_~roject Characteristics: Project consists of installation of trunk sewer main in diameters of 30", 27", and 24" for a total length of 10,550 L.F. Installation of 4" diameter laterals, variable number. Installation of related structures and removal and reconstruction of asphalt cement pavement. All carrier pipe is Vitrified Clay Pipe. Additional testing required at bore and receiving pit for proposed pipe conduit bore under 1-10 freeway. Scope of S~r~vi_.c~ See General Scope of Services A minimum of 3 R-Values shall be provided. II. DELINEATION OF RESPO~IBILITIES A. Responsibilities of the Enqineerinq/Geotechnical Consultant The Consultant is expected to provide the lead role in providing the testing services under the general direction of the inspector and engineer as appropriate. The Consultant must, on a regular basis, keep the Engineer informed of the status of the work and inform the Engineer as to any pertinent decisions that should be made for a quality constructed product. The Consultant may be called upon to attend meetings during any phase of the work to give technical advice or to inform various parties as to the status or nature of the work. At a minimum, the Consultant shall attend: 1. Construction projects "pre-job" meetings 2.Upon completion of the project work and submission/ review of final report UIAA ~ne r · I ~eney, I he, ~ NOT ~, B~D Oe ~ ~ ~V~! ~ my ~ U~A BMI Idlnl FO~ S~FE~ARD IN~R~E ~ ~ B ~preaa ~ D CA 00600 ~ I ~e~3oe eliole~ 1/H/el ~w~ e 1.000,00o et~. W' t I oo0 ,ooe, ~bb. oo ~ ~NO~ QY~elS0g el301ll 1130113 ~.,,.~, .-. ~--.,.,:-..-~---~.:....-m Attn~ Robert W, ~ddie L~UTV~K~T~,ITB~TIOR~AT~t EXHIBIT "B" GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS, INC 1992 FEE SCHEDULE FONTANA SERVICES RATE Staff Engineer/Geologist $ 55,00/hr Project Engineer/Geologist 68.00/hr Senior Engineer/Geologist 80.00/hr Principal 100.00/hr Senior/Supervisory Technician 55.00/hr Technician 46.00/hr Assistant Technician 34.00/hr Draftsman 45.00/hr Typist/Clerical 32.00/hr Legal Testimony and Depositions 150.00/hr All field services are subject to a four hour minimum. EQUIPMENT Field Vehicles with test equipment (travel and on site use) $ 7.00/hr Passenger Cars (mileage only) 0.27/mi EXPENSES & OUTSIDE SERVICES Out-of-pocket expenses (expendable field supplies, aerial photos, long distance calls, blueprints, report production expenses, etc.) are charged at cost plus 10 percent. I'I'ATE ..o. ~ox 4~o.0,. ~. ~.,~c,sco. c~ ,~ INIURAN~I FUND CERTIFIMTEOF~BKE~'COMPE~ATIONIN~RANQE ~UGUST 4f 199Z POLI~YNUIER: 11~3518 - 92 F CITY OF FONTANA 9U~L~ZNG ~ SAFETY ~g&RT~iNT ATTN~ RObeRT ~ED~LE P,O, SOX 518 F0~TA~iA, C~ ¢2335 J09~ ALL 0PERAT~0NS Thb tl ~ ~tlfv t~t ~ N~ iswd e velld W~km' ~lti~ iNureme ~l~V In e fo~ a~ llr~e ~miMio~ to tM ~p~ M~ ~w fu l~ ~liey Nr;~ i~cawd. ~ ~ I~ G~I ~ TEN ~' ~ ~m.l~d this ~li~y ~ u~.ff~ to ~.~~ *t. ~ ~:!~, . ~,~ ~ :.'. " E~OYIR. ~7~6 CORPORATI AV!NUE CYPRES~ CALZ~ORNIA gO7~6 COPY FOR INBURED'8 FILE · . FAX CITY 0F CAL IFOR NIA COHNUNICATION$ FRON FAX NO. [909] 3SO- 6618 O PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: N NAME: LOCATION: ~e/'Jt/F./L~'~ ~c,-u.~F,n-n/lI T LOCATIONt ACCOU~ NO. PHON~)~D ( i ncl udi ng ~, ~ ~L. CC= PURCHASE ORDE,,, F- 2 S 0 0 CITY OF FONTANA 5353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 ~o%~r~tb:ar;~satc~;:~ on a,I Packing Slip must accompany merchandise. D - S -- D CONTACT~ DATE P EPARED TERMS FOB ACCGUNT NO, 7;~u~/J~S NET P,c~ uP Q OSL,WnED ~ ~ -- DESCRIPTION O~ SUPPLIES UNIT $ E~ENO~D $ (All computer related equipment must be approved by Information Sevices Manager.) SUB TOTAL All pncing must appear on order. BILLING ADDRESS: Enter all available information in the designated Accounts Payable Division Phone (909) 350-7658 TAX areas such as accDunt number, complete vendor P.O. Box 518 Phone (909) 350-6707 · name and address. Fontana, CA 92334 ' FREIGHT Do not use this form ~'~f~¢~"~' ~ if multiple payments -~,j"~ are required. , RECEIVED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE RECEIVED !DATE AUTHORIZED WHITE - VENDOR CANARY - ORININAL DEPARTMENT PINK - ACCOUNTS PAYABLE GOLDENROD - PURCHASING 12/93-25M ~°-/~ R,~LD PURCHiASE ORDrb~ F- 2 5 8 0 CITY OF FONTANA 8353 Sierra Avenue This number must appear on all Fontaria, CA 92335 documents and packages. Packing Slip must accompany merchandise. DATE PREPARED TERMS FOB ACCOUNT NO. (All computer related equipment must be approved by Information Sevices Manager.) SUB TOTAL All pdcing must appear on order. BILLING ADDRESS: Enter all available information in the designated Accounts Payable Division Phone (909) 350-7658 TAX areas such as account number, complete vendor P O. Box 518 Phone {909) 350-6707 . name and address. Fontana, CA 92334 FREIGHT Do not use this form ~~L~. ~ if multiple payments ~..~ r___j are required. , ]~/T'~ RECEIVED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE RECEIVED DATE AUTHORIZED WHITE - VENDOR CANARY - ORININAL DEPARTMENT PINK - ACCOUNTS PAYASLE GOLDENROD - PURCHASING A ENDA ITS. 99 CIl~r COUNCIL ACTION REPOI[r ~EFTEMBER 1. 1992 CO~SE/(r CALE]I)JU~ Neering Date Ageride Placement TO: Nayor and City Council FROIe: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Cypress Avenue Sewer Project Approvin9 Geotechnical Engineering (Construction SOils Testing) Services Agreement RECO!e~ENDATIO~h TO APPROVE AN AGREENENT WiTH GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS, iNC., FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION SOILS TESTING) SERVICES FOR THE CYPRESS AVENUE SEWER PROJECT .IN THE ANOUNT OF $43,720; TO ESTABLISH A CONTINGENCY RESERVE IN THE ANOUNT OF $4,370; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREENEHT .~__TY NANAGER. BY THE __ Funding __ General BUDGET INPACT No Ixl Yes Source: I_1 Fund Budget Ix__l (0711 Sewer CaDttal Fund Budget 151 Bond Proceeds I:1 Developer DepoSits Funds for this project are tncluded in the FY 92/93 Budget in Account Number 071-7251 in the amount of $2,255,094 (Pages 3-4). The funds for this project are from the~Sewer Capttal Fund and were derived from fees paid by any development or pro~ect which connects to the Ctty sewer system. The fees are presently $600 periequtvalent dwelling unit, except the North Fontane area ts $1,772 per equivalent dwelltrig unit. ENVZRMB~AL Z.PACT= I:1 Yes IX'l No On July 7. 1992 (Page 5), the CoUnctl approved e mlttgated negattve declaratlon and California Ftsh and Game DeHtntmus I'mpact Ftltng and Fee Exemption. The Nottce of Determination was ftled on Ouly;13, 1992. On July 7, 1992 (Page 5), the Ctty Council authorized staff to advertise this project, which is tncluded in the 1991-1996 Capttal improvement Program (CIP) (Page 6), for publtc bids. The bid opent~g is scheduhd for August 13, 1992. The Cypress Avenue sewer project (approxt~mately 10,560 feet long) will connect to the Ctty's Jurupa Avenue sewer trunk, ltne and construct a 27 and 30-1nch dtameter sewer 11ne in Cypress Avenue from Jurupa Avenue to Valley Bouhvard and a 24-inch diameter sewer in Cypress: Avenue from Valley boulevard to San Bernardtno (Location and Vicinity Nap, ,Page 7). The project also tncludes "boring" or tunneling a large steel carrier ptpe (54,inch diameter) under the ratlroad and Z-IO Freeway for the sewer 1the to be tnstalhd within this carrier pipe. M4ALV$1$~qD JD$TIFICATIOM: Thts project wtll provide the additional capadty for the Kaiser Hospital Primary Care Unit expansion project as well as reduce deficiencies tn other City sewer lines. The inspection of this project w~11 be with in-house inspection staff. The construction surveying has been contracted and will be provided by the design engineering staff of NBS/Lowry. At th~s time, ~t is necessary to contract fop 9eotechnical engineering services for the necessary construction soils testing. A complete Scope of Work ts attached (Pages 20-2Z of the Consultant Services Agreement). These specialty services cannot be provided by staff as noted the attached Contractual Services Requisition Preparation Check-off sheet (Pages 8-ZO). In order to select this proposed consultant, a qualifications-based selection process was utilized, as required by State law. A Request for Proposals was issued and c~rculated. A total of 7 firms ptcked up proposal forms. Price proposals were sealed separately from proposals showing the qualifications of the applytng firms. A total of 6 ttmely, responsive proposals were received. In accordance w~th Ctty purchasing procedures, proposals were revtewed and scored by staff, analyzing solely for demonstrated qualifications. Geotechnlcal Professionals, Inc. was selected as the best qualtfied firm for this project. The C~ty Purchasing Agent asststed with the review/selection process and concurred tn the recommended Staff recommends approval of the Consultant Servtces Agreement w~th Geotechntcal Professionals, Inc. (Pages 1~-23). This recommended actton complles wtth the Ctt~'s adopted purchasing policies and procedures. ATTACi!EHTS: Page 3 - FY 92/93 Pro~ect Budget Page 5 - Minute action of July 7, 1992 Page 6 - 1991~1996 CZP Page 7 - Location and Vicinity Nap Page 8 - Contractual Services Requhttton Preparation Check-off Sheet Page ~l - Consultant Services Agreement w~th Exhtbtts Page 20 - Sco · )f Work (Part of the Consultant Services Agreement) SUBN Dj~/~ REVIEYED BY= RECONNENDED BY~ e~nt Clark Corey ;;e,o.,r.cte. City Attorne~ GH:RNN:wp CITY OF FeNTARA 1992-93 ADOPTED 81.~GET BY $L~,~R IFIF, RO~EII~NT FU~ C0?1) 1~2-~ 1~2-~ 1~2-~ EXPENSE ~TE~Y 071-~7 071-~1 071-~57 V~Y/CYPRI ~F~S/JURUPA V~Y/PLNETTO PERSONA~ SERVICES ~ERATZNG EXPENSES 322 O O CONTRACT~L SERVICES ~SO,OOO ~,197,000 O INTERNAL SERVICE CHARGES 0 0 0 CAPITAL EXPENSES 0 O OPERATING tRANSFER O 0 O FUNDING SOURCE: $/*80,708 $2,255,0~, S22,b7~ GUOGETED .FULL-TIRE POSITIONS 0.475 0.930 0.365 PERSONNEL BY QIJECT 1100 FULL-TIRE ENPLOYEES 21,950 41,~55 16,354 1155 ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOFF 1,010 1,930 752 1200 PART-TIIqE EFIPLOTEE$ 130Q OVERTtHE 1400 SPECIAL DUTY PAT 1600 INCENTIVE PAY 135 211 121 1800 POt. lCE UNIFOltlq .M. LOMANCE 190Q AUTO ALLOgANCE 1902 PERS RETIRERENT 5,543 6,78~. 2,6~5 1905 CAFETERIA E~NEFIT pULM 3,129 5,987 2,370 1908 FICA HOSPITALIZATION 274 541 171 1909 ~OIIKER$' C134PENSATION 345 676 1910 UNEFPLOYNENT INSURANCE TOTAL PERSONNEL 30,380 58,0~, 22,67~ OPERATING EXPENSES 8Y OBJECT 2000 OEPARTNENTAL EXPENSIS 2100 UNIFORN SUPPLIES 2200 ADVERTISING 322 Z~O0 UTILITIEE 2500 RENTS & LEASIS 2610 AUTCI~OTIVI PIIT$ 2611 FUEL ANO OIL 2612 TIRES ANO TIllS 2800 EQUIPflINT 3000 INSURNCI $ETTLEItNT$ 3100 NEllIESNIPS & 3200 CCIIFERENCES, TRAINING, ]210 ONGAIIIZATIOIIAL TIAINZI~ ]/.QO NZ$ClLLAIIEClJ$ EXPINli 5~,50 DEPRECIATION 5500 ENPLOYEE EO'4CATIOli RI[NI 5600 iNTEREST EXIlENIl CITY Of FONTAJiA lg92-93 A~CI;TED 8~JOMT EY F!Jll) $L~E ININIOV~4E¼T fUND 199Z-93 1992-93 EXPENSE CATEGORY 071-7147 071-7~51 0;"1-7257 VLY/CYPRE CYPRSIJURUPA VLYIPLNETTO '~700 PSIXCIPAL PAYRENT 3800 PQSTAG~ COSTS 3801 PHOTOCOPY COSTS 3802 DENTAL COSTS 36o3 OFFICE $1JPPLIES 3~00 EQU[PIFURN[TURE < S3DO/1JNIT TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3:~2 O O CONTRACTED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4000 LEGAL SERVIC~S /.100 ACCOUNTING & ALlOtTING 4ZOO ENGINEERING SERVICES Z?,OOO 15,000 /.210 PLAN CNECI( SERVICES I,220 INSPECTIN SERVICES 4300 CONSTRUCT[OIl CON'reACTS 47.~,000 2,182,000 /*600 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERliAL SEEVICl CHARGIS BY OI,IECT 2600 V~HZCLE NAZNTENANCE 2700 DATA PROC~S$II40 CHARM 3000 RISK LIAgILITY TOTAL INTERNAL SEEVIII CRARGI$ O 0 0 CAPITAL OUTLAY EY QGJECT 5100 V~HICLE$ & EOI, LING $TQCX 5200 RAIRTENAIICl & TESTIWi ielJIPIIIIT 3300 OFFICE EQUINIIET & F1JIlIIllJll 5/.00 LANO& GUILDlaGS 6080 PROJECT 60~Q DISPOSAL OOlTI 6120 CO$T Of I~UlIJICl TOTAL CAPiTAl,, CUTLAY "(~ 0 O OPERATING TSANIFEit TOTAL IT QIJECT 480,708 2,Z55,094, 22,67~ City COuncil Minutes July 7, 1992 I. (1) Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration ADPT MITIGAT and California Fish and Game De Mtntmus Impact Finding NEG OEC/ and directing staff to file the Notice of Determination CYPRESS AVE and Certificate of Fee Exemption for the construction SEWER SYSTEM of the Cypress Avenue sewer system between durupa MO 92-257 Avenue and San Bernardtrio Avenue. (2) Authorizing the Co~m~untty Development Depart- ATMRZ COMM ment to advertise for bids for the construction of the DEV ADVERT- Cypress Avenue sewer system between OuPupa Avenue and BIDS CYPRESS San Bernardtno Avenue, AVE SEWER MO 92-258 G 19~1-96 CIP SE~,/ER priority Project TiTLes 1st Yr 2rid Yr 3rd Yr Gth Yr 5th Yr Future 1 Kaiser Wastewater RecLametion PLant 1,739 9,924 27,857 21,255 2 Empire Center-Local Phases l,ll&lV 3 Santa Aria & ELm improvements 283 4 FoothilL/Cherry-Hefntock 870 5 9aseLine/Beech-ALmeri$ 325 5A Highland Hsven Phase i 1,300 6 Foothill/Lime-Citrus 58 7 Sierra/SLocer-Empire Center 892 8 South Park-Master PLan Se~er 522 )9 Cypress/Valley-San Brnd&Jurupa-vaty 1,255 630 10 Master Sewer PLan Revision 50 IOA Sewer RepLacement/RehaO 200 200 ZOO 200 200 11 Jurupa/Cypress-Sierra 300 12 Empire Center-santa Ana Phase 13 AImerie/Los Cedros-Ci~rus & various 680 14 ALder/San Bernardino-Locust 15 Bssetine/ALmeria-Juniper 525 16 vetley/Cypress*Nango 425 17 Brtc~tepeth-Foxborough-Locust 77 18 South Perk/Bon-Naster PLan Seusr 438 19 woo<~haven Se~er Improvenents 283 20 Foxborough/Trailhead-Phase ill 168 21 Tamarind & Jutups 221 22 Empire Center-Regional Phase Iv 1,331 (amounts in ~housand dollars) TOTALS 8,818 ' 15,004 28,446 23,101 200 0 -229- ! ~ CiTY OF FONTANA CONTRACTUAL SERVICES REQUISITION PREPARATION CHECK-OFF SHEET DEPARTHENT: Cornunity DevelopBent DATE: August 3, 1992 ACCOIJNT NO.: 071-7251 (Cypress Avenue Sewer, Geotechnical Engineering Services) 1. Is th~s service budgeted? Yes X No 1A. If not budgeted, what program are you willing to g~ve up in order to obtain th~s one? N/A 2. What impact w~11 the loss of the program you give up have on departmental services? N/A 3. Wha~ is the service that you want tO have contracted? Geotechnical engineering servtces (soils testing) 4. Why is this service needed? Construction projects require soils'testing for compact~on requirements and suitability of soil. 5. Is there available staff to perform this service? Yes No X 5A. If not, can the staff be hired by HUman Resources? Yes No X 6. Is there special or technical expertise required? Yes X No 6A. If yes, can staff be trained to perform this skill? Yes__ No X 7. Is there a time factor involved req~i.ring expedited services? Yes X No 7A. If yes, when do you need the services to begin? Immediately. The Cypress Avenue Sewer project's proposed bid opening date ~s Augus~ 13, 1992. 8. How long w~]l you need the services? Approximately 5 months. 8A. If these services are needed for ~onger than one year, can you provide available staff with training to perform this service? Yes No X 8B. Can Human Resources hire a permanent employee to provide this service? Yes No X Contractual Services Requisition/Cypress=Avenue Sewer Preparation Check Off Sheet Page Two · 8C. If yes, how long will it take? N/A! 9. Is there a market/economic impact on hiring a permanent employee with these skills? Yes No X gA. If yes, what is the impact? N/A 10. What is the potential long-term impact on your budget for the provision of these services? None. The budget anticipated theseservices. 11. What is the potential benefit/detriment to the City of you providing contractual services? Utilization of geotechnical engineering services is necessary for proper construction. 12. What is the potential benefit/detriment to the City if you hire permanent staff to provide this service? The cost of hiring soils engineers and technicians would have to be augmented with the very high cost oil purchasing a materials laboratory and appropriate equipment. I. Prepared by: Robert W. Weddle~, P.E. Title: City Engineer · Approved II Department Head ~//~/~: Date Denied Remarks: III. Human Resources /~xx~x,/_~ Approved Date Denied Remarks: I0 Contractual Services Req'~uisition/Cypress Avenue Sewer Preparation Check Off Sheet Page Three IV. Finance/Purchasing Approved Date Denied Remarks: .. ~ VCOIISIJLTMCT SERVICES AGREEMENT V THZS AGREBE]IT is made this day of , 1992, by and between the CXTY OF FONTANA. a !munc'~al corpo~ the State of California, (here~nafter "CIty,) and Geotechn~cal Professionals. (nc., here~nafter "Consultant"). tilElEAS, the principal members of Consultant Byron Konstantintdts, G.E. President. and ItlEREAS, C~ty desires ;to engage Consultant to provide consult~nq enq~neeHnq services for the CYpress Avenue Sewer Project for qeotechn~cal materials test~nq and reports. NOM, THEREFORE, CZTY AI~ CONSULTNIT INTUALLY AGEE THAT: SECTlOll I SER¥]CES OF THE COI¢~LTRNT General DescriPtion of S~rvtCes. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth ~n Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof so as to fully and adequately complete thetr project described herein. SECT101111 RE$1~Nt$1BILITIE$ OF CONSULTNff 1. Personnel. All the work sha~ be performed by Consultant or under its superv~s4on. The Consultant represents that possesses the professional and techn4cal personnel requ4red to perform the services requ4red by th4s Agremnt. City retains Consultant on an ~ndependent contractor basis and Consultant, shall not be considered to be an employee of the C~ty. The personnel performing the serv4ces under th~s Agreement on behalf of Consultant sha~ at a~ times be under Consu~tant's exclusive direction and contro~. Consultant shal~ pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personne~ connection wtth their performance of services under th4s Agreement and as required by ~aw, sha~l be irespens4ble for a~ reports and obligations respecting them, ~ncludtng but not ~4mited to, Socta~ SecuHty taxes, ~ncome tax w4thho~d~ng, unemployment ~nsurance, and workers* compensation tnsura~tce. 2. Coooera~ton. Consu~tan~ sha~ work c~osely and cooperate fully w4th Ctty's designated Prodect Adm4n~strator, and any other agencies wh4ch may have ~urtsd~ctton over or ~nterest 4n the work to be performed. 3. Prodect Manager. ' The Consultant shal~ ass4gn the pro~ect to a Project Manager, who shah coordinate al~ phases of the prodect. This Projec~ Manager sha~ be ava4~able to the C~ty at t~mes. The Consultant has des4gnated ~ames Harris. ~.E., to be Pro~ect Manager. \ 4. Tim, of Performance. The task to he performed by Consultant under aVpursuant to this Agreement ~mm~l be completed within 150 days from the date of the Consultants receipt of written authorization to proceed from the City. Consultant shall receive no additional compensation if completion of its obligation under this Agreement requires a time greater than as set forth herein unless such extension is caused solely by the conduct of the City. Each party hereby agrees to provide timely notice to the other of any violation occurring under this section and the ~cause thereof. 5. ReDoft Materials. At the completion of this project, ' Consultant shall deliver to City all :documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs,:and reports prepared by Consultant under this Agreement. Said documents shall be considered the property of City upon payment for services peTformed by Consultant. 6. City PolicY. ConsulKant will discuss and review all matters relating to policy and project direction with the Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure that the project proceeds in ~ manner consistent with City goals and policies. 7. Conformance to Ao~licable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall conform:to applicable city, county, state, and federal requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City Council. 8. Indemnification. Consultant agrees tO indemnify, save, and hold harmless City, its officers, agents, and employees from and agatnst all liability, claims, damages, losses, and expenses for damages of any nature whatsoever including, but not limited to, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damages, and attorneys' fees, directly arising from any and all negligent actions of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors pursuant to thts Agreement. 9. Standard of Care; Li!censes. Consultant represents and agrees that all personnel engaged i performing services are and shall be fully qualified and are authorized or permitted under and · state local law to perform such services. Consultant shall perform the services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner. Consultant shall be responsible to City for any errors or omissions in the execution of this Agreement arising from Consultant's actions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals required of its profession. Consultant further represents and warrants that it shall keep in effect all such licenses, permits, and other approvals during the term ' of this Agreement. 10. ZnsuranCe. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, Consultant shall obtain and provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and satisfactory to the City Attorney. Such policies shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and must be filed with City prior to exercising any right or performing any work pursuant to this Agreement. Said policies shall · add as insured Cit: ]ts elected officials, offlcers ~nd employees for all liability arisi~tl~from Consultant's services as~w~cribed herein. A. Prior to the conmnencement of any services hereunder, Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance with original endorsements, and copies of policies, if requested by City, of the following insurance, with Best's Class B or better carriers: (1) Norker's compensation insurance coverage as required by the laws of the State of California; (2) Commercial general liabillty insurance covering third party liability risks, including without limitation contractual liability, in a minimum amount of $1 million combined: single ltmit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If commercial genera!l liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate shall apply separately to this project, or the gene~al aggregate limit shall be twice the occurrence limits (3) Co~mmrcial auto liability and property Insurance covering any owned and rented vehicles of Consultant in a minimum amount of $1 million combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. B. Said policy or policies shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior notice has been given in writing to City. Further, Consultant shall give City written notice thirty (30) days prior to suspension, voiding, or reduction in coverage or in limits. Consultant shall give to City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of Consultant's operation hereunder. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own Judgemerit may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. C. Consultant shall include subcontracting consultants, if any, as tnsuredS under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for each subcontractor shall be subject to the requirements stated herein. D. All insurance obtained by Consultant hereunder shallbe primary. Notwithstanding any insurance which may otherwise be obtained by City. 11. Prohibition AqainstTransfers. A. Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly or indirectly by operation of law without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall · be null and vot~ and any assignee, sublessee Jhypothecatee or transferee shell ~u,q~uire no right or interest E,~.-~ reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecatton, or transfer. B. The sale. assignment. transfer, or other disposition of any of the ~ssued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the ~nterest of any general partner or Joint venturer or s.vnd~cate member or co-tenant if Consultant is a partnership or a jotnt venture or a syndicate or a co-tenancy, whtch shall result in changtng the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of th~s Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of voting power of the corporation. 12. PrOqress. Consultant is responslble to keep the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized deslgnee Informed on a regular basts regarding the status and progress of the work, acttvlt~es performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 13. Confidenttal~ty. No news reqeases, including photographs, public announcements, or confirmations of the same, of any part of the subject matter of this Agreement or any phase of any program hereunder shall be made Wtthout prior w~ttten approval of City. The information which results from the services in this Agreement ~s to be kept confidential unless the release of information ts authorized by Clty. SEClION III RISPOMSIBILITIES OF ClI~f 1. Coooeratton, City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant on the pro~ect. 2. Ctty's ResDonslbtllttes. City shall Yurntsh Consultant base maps, extstln9 studies, ordinances, data, and other existing information as shall be determined by Consultant and materials tn Ctty's possession necessary for Consultant to complete the work contemplated by t~ts Agreement. City further agrees such materials tn a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's wor~ schedule, 3. Admtntst~attono This Agreement will be administered by the City Manager's Office. lhe City Engineer or his/her destgnee shall be considered the Pro~ect Administrator and shall have the authority act for the City under this Agreement, The City Manager or his/her authorized representative shall ~epreseat the City in all matters- pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. SECTION IV 1. Comoensatlon. Except as provided in this section, Consultant shall receive as compensation for all services rendered under this Agreement an amount not to exceed $43,720.00 and at the rates set forth in Exhibit '8',: The total pro~ect cost shall not exceed this amoun~ unless additional wor~ is authorized in writing by this sum whether ot~P copying costs, incidental, , or indirect costs, or any type incurred by Consultant. This section shall not limit the ability of the parties to amend this Agreement to provide for extra work. 2. Extra Work. Consultant shall receive compensatlon for extra work authorized by City in an !amount as specified by the parties at the time such authorization is; given. All extra work must be authorized in writing by the ProjectSAdministrator and Consultant shall not be entitled to extra compensation without such authorization. 3. Reimbursement for ExPenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized by the City. 4. Honthly Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices to the City on a monthly basis in accordance with Consultant's schedule of fees contained in Exhibit "B" hereof. Each invoice shall be itemized. Each invoice shall show the number )of hours per person/consultant and the nature of the work performed. 5, PaYment of ComPensation. City shall make payments to Consultant within thirty {30} days of receiving said statement unless City disputes the amount Consultant claims is owed under this Agreement. 6. Withholdinqs. City may withhold payment of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the disputed withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue its work for a period of thirty {30) days from the date of withholding as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the .ayor and city to such disput. sums. determination of ay n Council with respect to such matters shall be final. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of the withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 7. 10% Ntthholdlnq.; City may withhold an amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) bf the total compensation provided herein, to be released to Consultant upon final adoption of the project by the Hayor and City Coundl. The City reserves the right to refuse to pay all billings requesting amounts in excess of 90% of the total compensation provided herein until :the project is completed and adopted as specified above. SECTIOll V Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with its work to be performed under, this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies 16 · of such records.: sultant shall allow inspecttol all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to :~eef e Agreement for a petted of three (3) years from the date of final payment under thts Agreement. SECTION VI GENERAL PROVISIO!6 1~ Termination. A. CIty may, by: written notice to Consultant, terminate this Agreement at any time and without cause by 91vtng written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. In the event of termination without cause, Consultant shall be compensated for the work performed up to the date of termination. Pa~nent for work completed under the Agreement to date of termtnatlon shall be made strtctly on the basis of the percent of services completed under the terms of thts Agreement. The percent of work completed to date of termination shall be the percent of the total compensation under thts Agreement whtch shall be patd to Consultant. The Ctty Hanager shall determine the percent of work c~mpleted at the date of termination. In no event !may total payment upon termtnatlon exceed $43,720.00. Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation after termination. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 8. In the event thts Agreement ts terminated, as provided in p~ragraph A of thls sectton, City may procure from any person or entity upon such termS, and In such manner as ~t may determine appropriate, servlces similar to those terminated. C. If this Agreement ts terminated as provided in paragraph A of this sectton, Consultant shall provide to Ctty upon request by Ctty all ftntshed or unfinished documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, photographs, reports, etc., prepared by Consultant for the project as such ttme as final payment is made pursuant to paragraph A of this section. D. Consultant further covenants to 9tve its good faith cooperation in the transfer of the work to any other consultant employed by Ctty following termination hereunder, and to partedpate in a maximum of two meetings' at no cost to City as shall be deemed necessary by the Ctty Hanager to effectively accomplish its transfer. 2. Hottces, Any nottce required or desired to be given pursuant to thts Agreement shall be 9tven tn wrtttng, and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: City COnsultant Jay H. Corey fir. Byron Konstanttntdts, G.E, City Hansget President City of Fontana Geetechnical Professionals, Inc. 8353 Sierra Avenue 5736 Corporate Avenue Fontana, Ca, 92335 C3~press, CA 90630 (714) 350-7654 (714) 220-2211 Any notice so given shall be consiclered served on the other party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the p~rty at its applicable address. The address for notice may be changed by giving notice pursuant to this paragraph. 3.' Litiqation. Should litigation be necessary to enforce any term or provision of this Agreement, or to collect any portion of the amount payable under this Agreement, then all litigation and collection expenses, witness fees, expert fees, court costs, and attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the losing party to the prevailing party, 4. Entire Aoreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between City and Consultant with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may onlybe modified by a writing signed by both parties. 5. Enforcement. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws'of the State of California. 6. Nondiscrimination by Consultant. Consultant represents and agrees that Consultant, its affiliates, subsidiaries, or holding companies do not and will not discriminate against any subcontractor, consultant, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, cotor, sex, handicap, or national origin. Such nondiscrimination shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgradtng, demotion, transfers, recruitment, recruitment advertising, layoff, termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 7. Cttv's Riqhts to. Employ Other Consultants. City reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this project. 8. Conflicts of Interest. A. Consultant Or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 {the "Act'), which (1) requires such persons to disclose financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. B. If subject to the Act, Consultant shallconform to all requirements of the Act. FailUre to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for termination of this Agreement by City. V SECTlOll Y11 '~/ ~BCOIITRACTZlt Z. Consultant shall not~ subcontract any portion of the servtces requlred by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior approval of City. 2. Subcontracts, tf any,~shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated tn this Agreement. IN MilllESS IIIIEREOF, the patties hereto have accepted and made and executed this Agreement upon the terms, conditions, and provisions above stated, on the day and year first above written. READ ANO APPROVED: Clark Alsop or Stephen P. Oeitsch City Attorney This document is the true and complete document approved by City Council on , 19e2. Linda S. Nunn Deputy City Clerk Greg Hulsizer Community Development Director Jennifer Vaughn 81akely Compliance Officer Robert A. Graham Risk Management J~ C XTY OF FONTANA ~' Geotechni cai~rofess i onal s, ]nc. A Municipal Corporation Jay M. Corey Name City Manager Title ATTEST: Notary Kathy Montoya City Clerk EXHIBIT "A' SCOPE OF SERVICES I. The City of Fontana plans to bid this sunwhet the Cypres Avenue Sewer Pro~ect and requires the services of;an engineering geotechnical consulting firm to provide construction materials testing (see attached project vicinity map) A. General Services 1. Provision of Geotechnical Services During Construction This proposal shall be based on tests being scheduled within 24 hours of the Inspector's request for tests. Results of these tests shall then be made available tnwaedlately in the field, followed by reports within 48 hours. In place sot1 densities shall be determined by the sand cone method of test in accordance with ASTM Standard 0-1556-64, or by the nuclear method of test in accordance with ASTM Standard D-2922-071., Optimum sot1 moisture density relations shall be determined by the method of, test specified in ASTM Standard D-~577-78. R-Val~ue shall be determined by the stabtlometer test (Test Method No. Calif. 301). - The proposal shall be based on the following qualities of work or materials st!ted below. a. The following minimum tests at 300' intervals (except as noted on Pro~ect Specific Scope of Services) and upon 20~ of estimated laterals. Pipe Zone -Bedding (where applicable) Backfill -Bottom half of trench above Pipe Zone Backfill -Top half of trench above Pipe Zone Subgrade -At ftntsh subgrade plus R-Value ZSO0' to 2000' intervals). include analysts and reco~waendatlon for structural section of A.C. pavement where applicable (number o~ tests !s ProJect specific)' b. Optimum So~1Mohture Density Test The results shall, as a mintmum, include the following information: 1. Test Site Station and Oepth (relative to project drawings) 2. Motsture Content by percentage 3. Dry Density 4. Relatlve Compactton · 5, Sot1 Type with maximum dry density and optimum moisture content 2. ProJect Specific ScOpes - Construction 21 of the Above Referenced Project. Pro~ect Characteristics= Project consists of installation of trunk sewer main in diameters of 30', 27", and 24' for a total length of 10,550 L.F. InstallatiOn of 4' diameter laterals, variable number. Installation of related structures and removal and reconstruction of asphalt cement pavement. All carrier pipe is.Vitrified Clay Pipe. Additional testing required at bore and receiving pit for proposed pipe conduit bore under 1-10 freeway. Scooe of Services: See General Scope of Services A minimum of 3 R-Values shall be provided. IX. DELINEATION OF RESHHSIBILXTIE$ A. Responsibilities of the Enqineerinq/Geotechntcal Consultant The Consultant is expected'to provide the lead role in providing the testing services under the general direction of the inspector and engineer as appropriate. .The Consultant must, on ~a regular basis, keep the Engineer informed of the status of the work and inform the Engineer as to any pertinent decisions that should be made for a quality constructed product. The Consultant may be called upon to attend meetings during any phase of the work to give technical advice or to inform various parties as to the status or nature of the work. At a minimum, the Consultant shall attend= 1. Construction projects 'pre-job' meetings 2.Upon completion of the project work and submission/ review of final report- ./,, '.~":/. I · .'-:"""' '.' :" ~ ,i' ,',;: ~,':,"-"""" 0' "'"-'-"" """"' [ :,.-,,, ,.,':'-~- ~;-_.-:- ...,..,.~,.,:,. ,,,, ~.,....._ ~.':~'..,. .,.,; ,~. ~E~..: -,~,.~ ,,, ~. -.,.. .', ., J ' .i | J ~.= i .~",-,". """ .......... ' ~... z ....~:1 "m'/h~,,~,, ,,,'nfo ~-e· , c,'rv oF Fo.'r,...^ CYPRESS AVE. SEWER ~ ' ""' " " I,/ICINIT¥ NAP ; EXHIBIT "B" GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS, INC 1992 FEE SCHEDULE FONTANA SERVICES RATE Staff Engineer/Geologist $ 55.00/hr Project Engineer/Geologist 68.00/hr Senior Engineer/Geologist 80.00/hr Pdndpal 100.00/hr Senior/Supe~isory Technician 55;(X)/hr Technician 46.00/hr Assistant Technician 34.00/hr Draftsman 45.00/hr Typist/Clerical 32.00/hr Legal Testimony and Depositions 150,00/hr All field services are subject to a four hour minimum. EQUIPMENT Field Vehicles with test equipment (travel and on site use) $ 7.00/hr Passenger Cars (mileage only) 0.27/mi EXPENSES & OUTSIDE SERVICES Out-of-pocket expenses (expendable field supplies, aedal photos, long distance calls,. blueprints, report produc'don expenses, etc.) are charged at cost plus 10 percent. JUL-10-'92 THU 13:1~ = CHZ INCORPORATED ; TEL NO:FAX NO ?~24-9209 ~?~ PC1 " INCORPORATED P. O, Box 231 13,55 ~ist Cooley Drive, COItol~ CA 9~324 . PhOne (714) 82~7210 11910 Hessads Roe~ ~ulte 2 · He~perla CA 92845 . (61 ~} 949-0~6 ~ob No. q 2_H ........................ FAX MESSAGE ...................... COF~IBNT$: .. , .... 3UL-10-'92 THU 13:14 ~CHI INCORPORATED TEL NO:FAX NO ?i~!24-7209 ~6'2~I~]F' " ........... ,lull' 10, 1992 NBS/Ijow~y 3oh No. 92415-3 164 We~ HoS~ttali'L"'/~ane san Bernardtrio, CalifOrnia 92408 Attention: Mr. Eugene Diepholz Subject= Addendum to Subsurface Soils Investigation Report proposed Sanitary Sewer Cypress Avenue Fontaria, California Prepared ~Y C.H,3., IncOrporated Dated May 29, 1992, Job~No. 92415-3 Demr Mr. Diep~nlz: AS per your request end st the re~ue8~ of the City of Fontaria, we have made two ~hanges to theCONCLUSIONS AND R~CQ~NDATIONGpOrtiOn of OUr Subsurface Soils Investigation report, re~ere~Oed above- Items NO. 2 and 4 should be revised es foilowes 2. Fill was encountered ~o e de~h of four fee~ below the existing ground Burface in aTee8 drllled by this firm. SinGe the pose~ sewer is to be installed below this fill at these 1008- tions, the fill should not affec~ ~he prolMlsed sewer alignment unless the fill extends beneath ~he ~lignment in other If undocumsn~d fills are encountered beneath the sewer# undocumented fills should be!removed e~d replaced with properly compacted fills a~ 90 percent relative compaction b~sed upon A~TM D 155~-~8. 4. The natural SOXls ~re ~ensrally suitable for use as trenoh backfill above be~ding mateTisl. Baokfill and de~eifica~ion oper~tiorm should he performed in acCOrdance with ~eOtion -.-_,.uJUL-10-'92 THU 13: 14 CHJ INCORPORATED TEL NO:FAX NO 7 124-7209 ~675 P03 . . ~"'f'....~ '....0:-& :'lM'''- Page No. 2 Job NO. 92415-3 306-1.3 of the St8ndard specifications for Public Works Construction~ Within the Stan<1ord Specifications, .recomaended mesne of oompaction and thickness of lifts are provided. Wa recomMend that the lifts be thin enough 50 that compae~ion oan be aChieved throughout the depth of backfill. All backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relati"e COIIIpactJ.on based u.pon ASTM D 1557-78. Silty materielil were encountere" 'throughout the a.lignment. These materie.ls will not be su1table for jetting to obtain compaction. It may be possible to jet isolated areas of the alignment where sandy gravelly soils are encountered and no silty material is encountered. This.determinetion should be made at the time of the hackfillinq operation by the project 90ils engineer. At this point in time, it is recoaunended that the backfill be mechan~ca~ly compacted in accordance w~th the Standard Specifi- cation9. This letter should be considered part of, and be utilized in oonjunc- tion with, the referenced Subsurface Soils Investigation report. We trust this information is as requested. If you should have ~ny questions or comments concerning this letter, please do not hesl tate to contact this firm at your convenience. :A.espec f~~ ~,~, ' .~ \\ (\~ . .'< . ,,,,,"0'=. . __ "" \' l,\.~\ /l. . ~ ~\?.... \ \ . \ \ :'J\ d M. Matthews 6 R.C. B. 45956 ~ ~j \"~~ \ \~ \j. \) Project Eng1 er ~ l~~ \~A~. . NOJ! l; _ Jo Senior Vice ! J DMM/RJJ:tlp E~/~ ~o~' GEOTECIIiICAL SERVICES PRO~ ~AL~T]~ CRITERIA /~'/~ 1) Cypress Se.e~ 2) C~rus S~orm Dr~n . ~,~ ~"~) Highland/Haven Se~er & Storm Drain NEZGHTED NEIGHTED FACTOR SCORE* NEXGHT SCORE 1. qualifications of Firm a. Relevant experience of the '~ 1~ firm b. Reputation of firm, based 10% upon references c. qualifications of personnel 30% to be assigned~ experience, training, communicative skills 2. Technical Approach a. Responsiveness to meet or exceed request for proposal b.Schedule validity or applicability c. Ability to communicate "product" in an organized, clear and convincing manner ~..~- Subtotal 90% ~r 3. Fees {Blind envelope of 10% recommended proposal) TOTAL 100% *Score 0 - Unacceptable 1 - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Good 4 - Excellent Reviewerms Name: ~/~:)~~~ Date: INCORPORATED P.O. Box 231 · 1355 East Cooley Drive, Colton, CA 92324 · Phone (714) 824-7210 11910 Hesperia Road, Suite 2 · Hesperi~ CA 92345 · (619) 949-0006 992 JUL 0 1992 NBS/~Ow~ 3oh No. 924~5-3 ~64 West ~osp~ta~t~ ~ane San Berna=d~no, Ca~o=n~a 92408 Subject: Addendum to Subsurface Soils Investigation Report Proposed Sanitary Sewer Cypress Avenue Fontana, California - Prepared by C.H.J., Incorporated Dated May 29, 1992, Job No. 92415-3 Dear Mr. Diepholz: As per your request and at the =request of the City of Fontana, we have made two changes to the CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS portion of our Subsurface Soils Investigation report, referenced above. Items No. 2 and 4 should be revi:sed as follows: 2. Fill was encountered to a depth of four feet below the existing ground surface in areas drilled by this firm. Since the pro- posed sewer is to be installed below this fill at these loca- tions, the fill should not affect the proposed sewer alignment unless the fill extends beneath the alignment in other areas. If undocumented fills are ~encountered beneath the sewer, the undocumented fills should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fills at 90 percent relative compaction based upon ASTM D 1557-78. 4. The natural soils are generally suitable for use as trench backfill above bedding material. Backfill and densification operations should be performed in accordance with Section SOILS ENGINEERS · MATERIALS TESTING AND EVALUATION · CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Page No. 2 Job No. 92415-3 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Within the S~andard Specifications, recommended means of compaction and thickness of lifts are provided. We recommend that the lifts be thin enough so that compaction can be achieved throughout the depth of backfill. All backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based upon ASTM2D 1557-78. Silty materials were encountered throughout the alignment. These materials will not be suitable for jetting to obtain compaction. It may be possible to Jet isolated areas of the alignment where sandy gravelly soils are encountered and no silty material is encountered. This determin~tion should be made at the time of the backfilling operation by the project soils engineer. At this point in time, it is recommended that_ the backfi~ be mechanically compacted in accordance with the Standard Specifi- cations. This letter should be considered part of, and be utilized in conjunc- tion with, the referenced Subsurface Soils Investigation report. We trust this information is asrequested. If you should have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this firm at your convenience. C.H.J., INCORPORATED at s . 95 r°'r~tJ.~J ~'/ P Ject E gi Rob ohnson, G.E. Senior Vice ~resident DMM/RdJ:tlp