Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda_GTAB_03.08.2019
Notice of Meeting for the Georgetown Transportation Adv isory B oard and the Gov erning B ody of the City of Georgetown March 8, 2019 at 10:00 AM at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 I ndustrial Av enue, Georgetown, T X 78626 T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay Texas at 711. Regular Session (T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.) A C all to O rder B Introduc tion of New Board Members and Visitors C R eview Board/Meeting P roc edures - Board Liaison D Indus try/C AMP O /T xDO T /Trans it Updates E Airport Monthly R eport – O c tavio G arza, P.E., C .P.M., P ublic Works Director F March 2019 G TAB Updates - Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ys tems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, C I P Manager. L egislativ e Regular Agenda G Nominations and electio n o f Vic e-C hair o f the G TAB Bo ard . – R o nald Bind as – C hair P erson for G TAB H Nominations and elec tion of S ecretary of the G TAB Board. – R onald Bindas , G TAB C hair P ers on I R eview and pos s ible ac tion related to the Day and Time of G TAB Board Meetings – R onald Bindas , G TAB C hair P erson J C ons ideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the F ebruary 08, 2019 Meeting. -- Emily Koontz - Board Liaison K C ons ideration and possible action to approve Task O rder No. A&F -19-002-TO for Aguirre & F ields LP of Aus tin, Texas for the engineering of the S outhwest Bypass from Wolf R anch P kwy to S H 29 in the amount of $706,991.75 -- Wes ley Wright, P E, S ys tems Engineering Director. C E RT IF IC AT E O F P O S T IN G I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a place readily ac cessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2019, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the sc heduled time of s aid Page 1 of 150 meeting. ____________________________________ R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary Page 2 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C all to O rder IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NO NE S UB MIT T E D B Y: Emily Koontz - Board Liais on Page 3 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: R eview Board/Meeting P rocedures - Board Liais on IT E M S UMMARY: T he following doc uments will be provided, at the meeting, for your referenc e: Bylaws C ode of O rdinanc e - Attendanc e P olic y R os ter Board Member Tidbits & Don't F orgets R eview: Attendance P olicy Q uorum R equirements S ign in S heet P arking Attorney G eneral Trainings - https ://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/open-government-training 1. O pen Meeting Ac t 2. P ublic Meetings Ac t F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Page 4 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Industry/C AMP O /T xDO T /Transit Updates IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NO NE S UB MIT T E D B Y: Emily Koontz - Board Liais on AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Memo Backup Material US 290 & SH 130 Backup Material Page 5 of 150 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board Members FROM: Ray Miller, Jr., Transportation Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Industry / CAMPO / TxDOT / Transit Updates – March 8, 2019 Meeting DATE: March 1, 2019 The purpose of this memo is to provide GTAB with updates in regards to the subjects listed above. Industry: No new updates CAMPO: • Staff recently attended the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting that was held on Monday, February 27, 2019. The following items were discussed at the meeting: i. CAMPO is continuing to work on the update for the federally required long- range transportation plan for the CAMPO Area. The current plan is the 2040 Plan and the updated plan will have a forecast year of 2045. The new long- range plan must be approved by the TAC and Policy Board by May 2020 to avoid a lapse in the long range plan which could jeopardize Federal funding. City of Georgetown has been reviewing its demographic data and financial data to provide to CAMPO for inclusion in the development of the Long Range Plan. ii. Information was provided at the meeting regarding the ground-breaking of the US 290 and SH 130 project. This project will provide direct connectors or flyovers at the intersection. The information is attached. iii. Staff is anticipating a “Call for Projects” by CAMPO for the inclusion of projects in the CAMPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This “Call for Projects” should go out in later part of March or in April. Information will be provided to GTAB as soon as a timeline is provided regarding a call for projects and funding categories. Page 6 of 150 2 iv. The next TAC meeting will be on March 25, 2019. TXDOT • Staff continues to work on the Advance Funding Agreements (AFA) with TxDOT for the Williams Drive intersection and access management improvements. The funding amount approved by CAMPO is $1.38 million. A draft AFA has been provided by TxDOT for the City to review. • Austin Avenue Bridges – A public meeting was held on February 27, 2019 at the Georgetown Public Library to gain input on 4 proposed bridge rail options. Meeting Purpose • Initially it was being proposed that the existing bridge railings would be refurbished and utilized as the railings on the proposed pedestrian bridge. • However as the environmental and historical review of the existing bridge continued, it was determined that the existing bridge railings are a historical feature of the bridge and therefore could not be utilized on the proposed pedestrian bridge. • The existing bridge railings do not meet current crash test standards and if allowed to remain in place then an additional crash rated railing or barrier would have to be installed adjacent to the existing bridge railings. • If the Austin Avenue Bridges were too be rehabilitated or reconstructed without maintaining the existing bridge railings then future state and federal funding could be in jeopardy for non-compliance with the environmental review and the historic significance of the bridges. Page 7 of 150 3 Meeting Summary Location: Georgetown Public Library, Hewlett Room Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm City Staff: Wayne Reed (ACM), Jim Briggs (ACM), Octavio Garza (Director – Public Works), Ray Miller, Jr. (Transportation Planning Coordinator) Attendees: (that signed in) = 26 Total Ballots or Rankings: 32 How was the meeting conducted? It was an open forum. A sign-in table was setup at the door so that participants good be greeted, sign-in, given hand-outs and explained the purpose of the meeting. The 4 bridge railing options were setup on display boards for the participants to view and to ask questions of City Staff. The participants were also provided with a ballot or scoring sheet that listed the 4 bridge railing options and they were asked to rank the options from 1-4 with one being the best liked option and four being the least liked option. Preferred Option = Option #3 Below are the 4 bridge railing options that were presented to the public: Option #1 Page 8 of 150 4 Option #2 Option #3 (Preferred Option) Page 9 of 150 5 Option #4 • Mobility-35 Projects (my35.org): i. IH-35 and Leander Road (RM 2243) – TxDOT will be doing the schematics and construction. TxDOT is at 90% schematic An “Open House” for the project was held at Dell Pickett Elementary School on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 from 5:30pm – 7:30pm. Approximately 110 attendees. Some concerns were raised by corner property owners (Speedy Stop & Motel 6). A lot of questions about the future improvements of Leander Road out to US-183A. ii. IH-35 and SH-29 – design continues on this project. The amount of current and future traffic through this intersection coupled with the existing stop lights on the east and west sides of the current intersection are imposing design constraints for the project. A schematic will be presented to GTAB as soon as it is available. iii. IH-35 and Westinghouse – The proposed design of this project will be the opposite of its current configuration. The new configuration will have Westinghouse at-grade and IH-35 going over Westinghouse. An Open House will be held on April 4, 2019 at George Washington Carver Elementary School from 5:30pm – 7:30pm. Page 10 of 150 6 iv. IH-35 and Williams Drive – TxDOT is anticipating an August 2020 “letting” with construction starting in late 2020 for the diverging diamond interchange. The projected completion time is mid-2023. • 2019 Safe Routes to School & Transportation Alternatives Call for Projects - February 8, 2019: Call for Projects issued - February 12 - March 13, 2019: Workshops and Webinars 1st Stage of application process - April 12, 2019: Preliminary Applications due by Close of Business (this is high-level project overview) - On or before June 7, 2019: Coordination with TxDOT District SRTS / Transportation Alternatives Coordinator. - June 14, 2019: TxDOT review of Preliminary Application Completed. - June 18, 2019: TxDOT notifies sponsors of application pool. 2nd Stage of the application process - August 15, 2019: Deadline to submit Detailed Application. - Fall 2019: TxDOT Review of Detailed Application Review Complete - December 2019: Final Project Award (tentative) Staff has meet with GISD to discuss some candidate projects. To be eligible for the SRTS Call for Projects the candidate projects must be within 2 miles of a K-8 school facility. We will also look at private and charter school locations for any potential projects. Once we have a potential candidate list will be compare it to the Sidewalks Master Plan to see if the candidate project is also referenced in the plan. Transit – GoGeo The 1st and 2nd charts show the number of riders by route and by month of the year. In reviewing the two charts, there has been an increase in ridership for October thru January of FY 2019 in comparison to October thru January of FY 2018. The 3rd and 4th charts provide ridership numbers by month and fiscal year for both the Fixed Route system and the Paratransit service. The Fixed Route system in shown in blue while the Paratransit service is shown in green. Page 11 of 150 7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Fixed Route Operations by Route FY 2018 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Fixed Route Operations by Route FY 2019 Page 12 of 150 8 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 Fixed Route and Paratransit FY 2018 Fixed Route Paratransit 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 Fixed Route and Paratransit FY 2019 Fixed Route Paratransit Page 13 of 150 9 The Transit Working Group met on February 27, 2019 to discuss operations of both the Fixed Route system and the Paratransit services. Below are some of the items that were discussed: i. ADA Transit Plan – CARTS is going to move forward with providing a notice to a client regarding the “No-Show” policy of the para-transit service. Staff was asked to provide some comments regarding the “No-Show” policy within the City Council presentation on GoGeo and transit services during the council workshop on March 26, 2019. ii. Wolf Ranch Parkway Transit Stop – city staff is going to install a transit shelter at the Wolf Ranch Parkway intersection with Rivery Driveway. This will also involve the extension of the existing sidewalk and the construction of a shelter pad. iii. Orange Route / Southwestern University – Discussion began at the January meeting about taking the Orange Route through Southwestern University that would run near the student housing. CARTS has done some trial runs through the campus to see the impacts on route timing. It was noted that the change should move forward but this would require going through a formal process with a separate public meeting. Next cycle for changes with CapMetro would be August 2019. Before, scheduling a public meeting and moving forward, staff is going to look at the total cost of making the route and stop changes, then will prepare a timeline for proceeding with the route change. Lyft Pilot Program – The Lyft Pilot Program began in July 2018. The parameters of the program are as follows: • Rider pays a $2.00 base fee • A Flat City subsidy of $10.00 • Rider pays remaining balance if exceeding City subsidy • Each user receives 10 riders per month Page 14 of 150 10 Lyft Ridership Numbers July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 # of Days 6 31 30 31 30 31 31 Total Users 18 45 120 131 164 228 157 New Users 18 34 97 68 85 107 24 Lost Users N/A 7 22 57 52 43 96 Total Cost 403.68 3098.52 5912.26 6084.09 9473.14 12489.48 8413.11 City Subsidy 303.37 2072.00 3738.00 4056.09 6042.12 8013.18 5723.12 Avg Cost 9.39 11.03 11.52 10.71 11.43 11.02 10.27 Avg Subsidy 7.06 7.37 7.29 7.14 7.29 7.07 6.99 Page 15 of 150 Page 16 of 150 Page 17 of 150 Page 18 of 150 Page 19 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Airport Monthly R eport – O ctavio G arza, P.E., C .P.M., P ublic Works Direc tor IT E M S UMMARY: Airport R eports: · Airport Master P lan R eport · R unway R ehabilitation P rojec t R eport · O perations R eport · F uel S ales R eport · Hangar / Tie-Down Lease R eport · F Y 2019 Ac complishments and P rojec ts · Avgas F uel P ric e C omparison · Jet A F uel P rice C omparis on · Airport Monthly F inancial R eport F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: None S UB MIT T E D B Y: Debbie Jolly, Airport Bus iness C oordinator AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Airport Cover Sheet Cover Memo Airport Master Plan Report Cover Memo Runway Rehabilitation Project Report Cover Memo Operations Report Cover Memo Fuel Sales Report Cover Memo Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Report Cover Memo FY 2019 Accomplis hments and Projects Cover Memo Avgas Fuel Price Comparison Cover Memo Jet A Fuel Price Comparis on Cover Memo Page 20 of 150 GTAB Meeting Date: March 8, 2019 Item No. AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Airport Monthly Report – Octavio Garza, P.E., C.P.M., Public Works Director ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ITEM SUMMARY: Airport Reports: · Airport Master Plan Report · Runway Rehabilitation Project Report · Operations Report · Fuel Sales Report · Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Report · FY 2019 Accomplishments and Projects · Avgas Fuel Price Comparison · Jet A Fuel Price Comparison · Airport Monthly Financial Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: None COMMENTS: None ATTACHMENTS: Submitted By: Debbie Jolly, Airport Business Coordinator Airport Manager Octavio A. Garza, P.E., C.P.M. Public Works Director Page 21 of 150 Airport Improvements Project No. 16MPGRGTN March 2019 Project Description FY2016 project: Airport Master Plan Update Purpose Update to 2005 Airport Master Plan Project Estimate $213,290 Project Engineer Coffman Associates Jan 28 – Transportation Commission approval of $200K Grant Feb 19 – Solicitation for Consultant Qualifications Mar 29 – Consultant Qualification Submissions due TxDOT Aviation Apr – Committee to Review Consultant Qualifications • John Pettit • Donna Courtney • Mike Babin Page 22 of 150 • Jordon Maddox • Russ Volk May 9, 2016 – Selection Committee scheduled to meet to tabulate scoring of consultants Jun/Jul 2016 – TxDOT in negotiations with consultant over scope of work and fees Sep/Oct/Nov 2016 – Selection of Members for Master Plan Steering Committee Dec 6, 2016 – Kickoff Meeting with Steering Committee and Consultant Feb 2, 2017 – 2nd Meeting with Planning Advisory Committee and Consultant as well as Public Open House Mar, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Apr, 2017 – Documents available for public comments May, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Jun 6, 2017 – 3rd Meeting with Planning Advisory Committee and Consultant from 2 – 4 PM followed by a Public Open House from 5:30 to 7 PM. Jul, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Aug, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Sep, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Oct, 2017 – Documents available for public comments Nov 16, 2017 – Planning Advisory Committee mtg from 2 – 4 PM @ Library Public Information Workshop from 5:30 to 7 PM @ GCAT Approximately 60 folks in attendance Jan 2018 – Consideration of plan placed on hold by FAA to allow time for their review Feb 2018 – Under review by FAA Mar 2018 – Under review by FAA Apr 2018 – Under review by FAA May 2018 – Under review by FAA Jun 2018 – Under review by FAA Jul 2018 – Reviewing comments provided by FAA with TxDOT Aviation and Coffman Associates Aug 2018 – Draft plan updated based upon FAA recommendations Aug 28, 2018 – First Reading by City Council amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Airport Master Plan. Page 23 of 150 Sep 11, 2018 – Second Reading by City Council amending the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and adopting the Airport Master Plan. Oct 2018 – Complete with only final minor edits and approval of the Airport Layout Plan by TxDOT later this month Nov 2018 – Final review by FAA Dec 2018 – Final review by FAA Jan 2019 - FAA to draft approval letter for GTU Feb 2019 - FAA to draft approval letter for GTU Mar 2019 - FAA to draft approval letter for GTU Page 24 of 150 Airport Improvements Project No. 1814GRGTN March 2019 Project Description FY2018 project: Rehabilitate Runway 18/36 Purpose Design and Construct a Runway Rehabilitation Project Project Estimate $5,165,000 Project Engineer Garver Engineering Jun 8, 2018 – GTAB consideration of project Jun 12, 2018 – City Council approval of participation in project Jun 28, 2018 – Texas Transportation Commission approval of design grant Jul 2018 – Engineering, design and preparation of bid package Aug 2018– Package out for bid Aug 30, 2018 – Texas Transportation Commission approval of construction grant Sep 2018– Bid Opening September 25th @ 2 p.m. in Austin. Sep 25, 2018- Bid Results – Three contractors submitted a proposal for the Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation project. The apparent low bidder, Jordan Foster Construction, LLC, bid consisted Page 25 of 150 of the following for Schedule 1 (74 Calendar Days) and Schedule 2 (104 Calendar Days) construction: Schedule 1 Base Bid: $3,485,191.15 Additive Alternate 1: $132,906.00 (Groove Runway 18-36) Additive Alternate 2: $103,600.00 (Overlay Additional Shoulder Pavement) Additive Alternate 3: $252,971.00 (Install Taxiway Lighting Infrastructure within Runway 18-36 RSA (No lights)) Additive Alternate 4: $27,300.00 (Install Electrical infrastructure to Runway 36 PAPI (No lights)) Grand Total: $4,001,968.15 Schedule 2 Base Bid: $3,565,091.15 Additive Alternate 1: $132,906.00 Additive Alternate 2: $103,600.00 Additive Alternate 3: $253,619.00 Additive Alternate 4: $27,300.00 Grand Total: $4,082,516.15 Garver estimated construction cost for Base Bid and Additive Alternates: $4,980,000.00. At this time, TxDOT anticipates the construction for the Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation to start toward the beginning of 2019. Sep 27, 2018 - Texas Transportation Commission approved project. Oct 2018 – TxDOT to award contract for Runway 18-36 Rehabilitation project. Contract awarded to Jordan Foster Construction of Pflugerville, Texas. Nov 2018 – TxDOT to execute contract documents. Dec 2018 – Execution of the Project Participation Agreement (Federally Assisted Airport Development Grant), CSJ No. 1814GEORG, between TxDOT and the City of Georgetown. Jan 15, 2019 – Preconstruction meeting with Garver, TxDOT, Jordan Foster Construction, Resident Project Representative (RPR), and Airport staff. Page 26 of 150 Jan 25, 2019 - TxDOT issues a Notice to Proceed with the Construction Phase to Garver Engineers. Feb 18, 2019 – Jordan Foster Construction to begin staging. Mar 4, 2019 – Runway 18/36 closed and construction begins. Page 27 of 150 Georgetown Municipal Airport Contract Tower Program Update Operations for Month of January 2019 Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators For the Month of: January January 2018 FY-T-D January 2019 FY-T-D Variance Take Offs and Landings 2018 2019 IFR 688 944 3,181 3,257 76 2.3% VFR 7,159 7,975 29,390 31,405 2,015 6.4% Total Take Offs/Landings 7,847 8,919 32,571 34,662 2,091 6.0% *This does not include flyover operations (i.e. handoffs from ABIA approach/departure control to KGTU tower then onto the next ATC. Page 28 of 150 Georgetown Municipal Airport Fuel Sales Update For Month of January 2019 Operating Statistics Performance/volumetric indicators Gallons For the Month of: January January 2018 FY-T-D January 2019 FY-T-D Variance Type of Fuel 2018 2019 AVGAS 21,422 35,639 101,768 120,732 18,964 15.7% JET A 29,669 43,533 157,811 154,471 < 3,340> <2.1%> Total Gallons Sold 51,091 79,172 259,579 275,203 15,624 5.7% Page 29 of 150 Airport Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Update March 2019 Project Description Hangar / Tie-Down Lease Agreements Purpose Occupancy Rates Unit Stats Total T-Hangars – 130 130 Occupied 0 Vacant Total Storage Units – 11 8 Occupied 3 Vacant Total Tie-Downs – 38 Monthly, 14 for Overnight/Transient Parking 32 Monthly Occupied 6 Monthly Vacant Page 30 of 150 GTU Airport FY 2019 In-Work Projects Replace bottom door seals on Hangars H, I, J, and TT. 60 of 66 complete Develop Airport Preventative Maintenance Program. Ongoing Wildlife Hazard Assessment completed by Lou Bridges with Mead & Hunt. Reviewing report Upgrade to bi-fold door drive motors in Hangars BB & CC. Obtaining contractor bids Upgrade cable guides with roller poppers in Hangar H. In progress – ½ completed Tree and brush removal at retention pond drainage area. In progress Replace skylights on AeroJet Center hangar roof. In progress – 1/3 completed Repave Terminal Drive with new asphalt. In planning phase with Street Dept Install cattle guard at north gate. Obtaining quotes Replace water heaters in CTA hangar. Obtaining quotes Replace HVAC units in CTA hangar. Obtaining quotes Planned Projects Taxiway edge lighting / PAPIs 11/29. Obtaining Pesticide Application License to allow for airport staff to spray state regulated chemicals. Replace broken fence along Lakeway Drive. Replace HVAC units in AeroJet Center hangar. Airport rate study. Install roller poppers in Hangar I. Page 31 of 150 Install chain link fence around Tower. Convert lights in Hangars E, F, and G to LED. Convert lights in CTA hangar to LED. Spray seal asphalt pavement at north side of AeroJet Center hangar. Spray seal asphalt pavement at Hangars H, I, and J. Crack seal asphalt pavement at CTA hangar. Install cattle guard at south gate. Paint CTA hangar. Install decorative rock around AST and oil recovery tank fences. Accomplishments Rekeyed all locks in the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) for added security and to simplify the number of access keys needed. The locks have not been changed since the ATCT’s opening in 2007. Added a magnetic dry erase whiteboard to the north wall of the Airport Conference Room. Repaint Airport Manager’s Office and Communication Room in Terminal building. Install rain diverters to tin covered walkway in front of Terminal entrance. Remove vegetation and install predator wire for wildlife management. Tree and brush removal completed at Genesis. Inspect roof insulation in CTA hangar. No repair needed. Install timer switches in Hangar I. Installed lending library bookcase in terminal conference room. Inspected door rollers on Genesis hangar. No replacement needed. Installed tv/monitor for use in Airport Conference Room. Page 32 of 150 Installed gun cabinet in maintenance shop for wildlife management. Page 33 of 150 Page 34 of 150 Page 35 of 150 Page 36 of 150 Page 37 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Marc h 2019 G TAB Updates - Wes ley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Directo r/Michael Hallmark, C I P Manager. IT E M S UMMARY: March 2019 GTAB Updates Cover S heet F M 971 - Realignment at Austin Avenue: Engineer ’s plans submitted to C ity for the 60% design, rec eived the fully exec uted AFA 10-20-17 plans s ubmitted to T xDO T for review. T xDO T review from dis tric t office met 4-17 Klotz to move on to 100 % s ubmittals. S cheduled T xDO T bidding late 2019 Northwest Blvd: Engineering underway: 100% plans submitted for bridge, rec eived the fully exec uted AFA 10-20-17. Engineering completion s cheduled 5-18, Environmental C omplete P roject to advertise January/F ebruary 2019 Award s cheduled for March 2019 Tentatively sc heduled to begin mid-F Y 2019. Rivery Blvd Extension: Base cours e ins tallation underway Utility installation underway O utfall drainage 95% Rivery Blvd T IA improvements: All turn lanes are open. T DLR ins pection complete. C ontractor has c ompleted punch list items , awaiting project doc umentation. T his portion of the projec t to be c los ed out. E B Williams @ Rivery turn lane Design is c omplete and being reviewed by Joe Bland for pric ing. S urveying for R O W /eas ements are complete, working to obtain eas ement and R O W needed. S outhwest Bypass (R M 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1: Topsoil and vegetation las t task S outhwest Bypass (R M 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2: R O W 90% to subgrade Bridge pier drilling c omplete Blasting c omplete Rock Water Quality P ond Improvements: F inalizing des ign. W PAP modific ations defined and to be s ubmitted to T C EQ . G A being updated for W PAP modific ations . Task order exec uted for the bidding and cons truction for this project. Old Town “Northeast” S idewalk: F inalizing des ign, received T C EQ W PAP approval. Working to c los e on easements needed. High performance pavement seal Package #1: C ontractor tentatively s cheduled to return mid to late March 2019 to begin pavement seal operations in S un C ity. Meeting with contrac tor on 3/1/19 to finalize date and c ontractor to send sc hedules over for notifications to S un C ity community as s ociation. Austin Ave S idewalks – Hwy 29 to Leander Rd.: P re-cons truction meeting held on January 31 2019. C ontrac tor to s tart sending in submittals and plan to Page 38 of 150 s tart on April 1st 2019. 10th & 11th @ Austin Ave Improvements: Water line on 11th has s tarted. ADA ramps at 11 th and R oc k are being cons tructed. Demo work on curb along 11th has begun. S hell S idewalk Improvements: KPA working on design for sidewalk along S hell R oad from S equoia S pur to Bellaire Dr. 1 eas ement needed along S hell R oad near S equoia S pur. Des ign is 95% c omplete. 17th S t. C D B G Sidewalk: Tas k order is fully executed for the engineering s ervic es . Des ign underway S urvey – c omplete by F eb 28th; F inal Des ign – complete by early May Bidding – C omplete by mid-June F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Wesley Wright, P.E., S ystems Engineering Direc tor/Mic hael Hallmark, C I P Manager. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type March 2019 GTAB updates Pres entation Page 39 of 150 March 2019 GTAB Updates Cover Sheet FM 971 - Realignment at Austin Avenue: Engineer’s plans submitted to City for the 60% design, received the fully executed AFA 10-20-17 plans submitted to TxDOT for review. TxDOT review from district office met 4-17 Klotz to move on to 100 % submittals. Scheduled TxDOT bidding late 2019 Northwest Blvd: Engineering underway: 100% plans submitted for bridge, received the fully executed AFA 10-20-17. Engineering completion scheduled 5-18, Environmental Complete Project to advertise January/February 2019 Award scheduled for March 2019 Tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY 2019. Rivery Blvd Extension: o Base course installation underway o Utility installation underway Outfall drainage 95% Rivery Blvd TIA improvements: All turn lanes are open. TDLR inspection complete. Contractor has completed punch list items, awaiting project documentation. This portion of the project to be closed out. EB Williams @ Rivery turn lane Design is complete and being reviewed by Joe Bland for pricing. Surveying for ROW/easements are complete, working to obtain easement and ROW needed. Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1: Topsoil and vegetation last task Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2: ROW 90% to subgrade Bridge pier drilling complete Blasting complete Rock Water Quality Pond Improvements: Finalizing design. WPAP modifications defined and to be submitted to TCEQ. GA being updated for WPAP modifications. Task order executed for the bidding and construction for this project. Old Town “Northeast” Sidewalk: Finalizing design, received TCEQ WPAP approval. Working to close on easements needed. High performance pavement seal Package #1: Contractor tentatively scheduled to return mid to late March 2019 to begin pavement seal operations in Sun City. Meeting with contractor on 3/1/19 to finalize date and contractor to send schedules over for notifications to Sun City community association. Page 40 of 150 Austin Ave Sidewalks – Hwy 29 to Leander Rd.: Pre-construction meeting held on January 31 2019. Contractor to start sending in submittals and plan to start on April 1st 2019. 10th & 11th @ Austin Ave Improvements: Water line on 11th has started. ADA ramps at 11th and Rock are being constructed. Demo work on curb along 11th has begun. Shell Sidewalk Improvements: KPA working on design for sidewalk along Shell Road from Sequoia Spur to Bellaire Dr. 1 easement needed along Shell Road near Sequoia Spur. Design is 95% complete. 17th St. CDBG Sidewalk: Task order is fully executed for the engineering services. Design underway • Survey – complete by Feb 28th; • Final Design – complete by early May • Bidding – Complete by mid June Page 41 of 150 FM 971 at Austin Avenue Realignment Intersection Improvements Project No. 1BZ TIP No. AG March 2019 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for the widening and realignment of FM 971 at Austin Avenue, eastward to Gann Street. Purpose To provide a new alignment consistent with the alignment of the proposed Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35; to allow a feasible, alternate route from the west side of I 35 to Austin Avenue, to Georgetown High School, to San Gabriel Park and a more direct route to SH 130. Project Managers Joel Weaver Engineer Klotz Associates, Inc. Element Status / Issues Design Engineer’s plans submitted to City for the 60% design, received the fully executed AFA 10-20-17 plans submitted to TxDOT for review. TxDOT review from district office met 4-17 Klotz to move on to 100 % submittals. Redesign of Gann intersection underway. Scheduled engineering completion 2019 Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way Pursuing one parcel on Project. Parcel has been sent to condemnation, possession expected Summer 2019. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Estimated late fiscal year 18-19 Other Issues AFA with TxDOT complete. Page 42 of 150 Northwest Boulevard (Fontana Drive to Austin Avenue) Project No. 5QX TIP No. AF March 2019 Project Description Construction of overpass and surface roads to connect Northwest Boulevard with Austin Avenue and FM 971. Purpose This project will relieve congestion at the Austin Avenue/Williams Drive intersection and provide a more direct access from the west side of IH 35 corridor to Georgetown High School and SH 130 via FM 971. Project Manager Joel Weaver and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer Klotz Associates Element Status / Issues Design Engineering underway: 100% plans submitted for bridge, received the fully executed AFA 10-20-17. Engineering complete, Environmental Clearance 5-18. Ready to Let awaiting final approval from TxDOT. Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way ROW Documents are being finalized. All offers have been made. 8 Parcels required. 5 acquired, 1 in closing, 2 in condemnation. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Project advertised Feb 17th Bids accepted March 26th Award scheduled for April 2019 Tentatively scheduled to begin mid-FY 2019. Other Issues Page 43 of 150 Rivery Boulevard Extension (Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard @ Fontana Drive) Project No. 5RM TIP No. AD March 2019 Project Description Develop the Rights-of-Way Map, acquire ROW, address potential environmental issues and complete construction plans specifications and estimate (PS&E) for the extension of Rivery Boulevard from Williams Drive to Northwest Boulevard at Fontana Drive in anticipation of future funding availability. Purpose To provide a route between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard serving the Gateway area, providing an alternate route from Williams Drive to the future Northwest Boulevard Bridge over IH 35, to provide a route between the hotels in the Gateway area and the proposed Conference Center near Rivery Boulevard and Wolf Ranch Parkway. Project Manager Travis Baird, Joel Weaver, and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer Kasberg Patrick and Associates Element Status / Issues Design Complete Environmental/ Archeology Complete Rights of Way Offers have been made on 22 parcels, and 20 have closed. Environmental assessment complete on 11 parcels in preparation for demolition. Condemnation hearings completed on 2 parcels, working toward final resolution of matter. Total Parcels: 22 Appraised: 22 Offers: 22 Acquired: 20 Closing pending: 0 Condemnation: 2 Utility Relocations TBD Construction o Base course installation 95% complete o Utility installation underway 85% o Outfall drainage 95% o Planned to complete 3rd Quarter 2019 Other Issues Page 44 of 150 Rivery Boulevard TIA Improvements Project No. 5RP TIP No. None March 2019 Project Description Develop the Plans, Specifications and Estimate for roadway improvements necessitated by the development for the Summit at Rivery. Purpose To provide improved traffic flow into the Summit at Rivery hotel and conference center from Rivery Boulevard. Project Manager Joel Weaver, Chris Pousson and Wesley Wright, P.E. Engineer M&S Engineering, LLC Element Status / Issues Design Engineering 100% complete for Hintz, Williams and Wolf Ranch Pkwy turn lanes and are in construction EB Williams @ Rivery turn lane design complete. Working on ROW/Easement needs. Environmental /Archeology TBD Rights of Way All easements acquired. Additional easements are needed for EB Williams @ Rivery turn lane, in acquisition now. Total Parcels: 6 Appraised: 3 Offers: 3 Acquired: 3 Closing pending: 0 Condemnation: 0 Utility Relocations Utility relocate for Rivery turn lanes are complete. Bid Phase GTAB approved on 2-21-18, Council approved on 2-27-18. Pre-Con held on 3-20-18. Construction All turn lanes are open. TDLR inspection complete. Contractor has completed punch list items, awaiting project documentation. This portion of the project to be closed out. Other Issues TBD Page 45 of 150 Southwest Bypass Project (RM 2243 to IH 35) Project No. 1CA Project No. BK March 2019 Project Description Develop PS&E for Southwest Bypass from Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 in the ultimate configuration for construction of approximately 1.5 miles of interim 2-lane roadway from Leander Road (RM 2243) to its intersection with the existing Inner Loop underpass at IH 35. Purpose To extend an interim portion of the SH 29 Bypass, filling in between Leander Road (RM 2243) to IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road. Project Manager Williamson County City Contact: Ed Polasek, AICP Engineer HDR, Inc. Element Status / Issues Williamson County Project Status (Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 1 – WPAP for phase 1 approved. On site tasks: Phase 1 o Complete Southwest Bypass (RM 2243 to IH 35) Phase 2 – ROW 90% to subgrade Bridge pier drilling complete Bent construction underway Blasting complete Project completion scheduled last quarter 2019 Rights of Way Complete Other Issues Page 46 of 150 Rock Water Quality Pond Improvements Project No. 1EC TIP No. None Unchanged - March 2019 Project Description Design and preparation of final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and construction administration for WPAP modifications and rehabilitation of the Rock Water Quality Pond. Purpose To improve the water quality treatment and capacity for the downtown overlay district. Project Managers Michael Hallmark, Chris Pousson Engineer Steger & Bizzell Element Status / Issues Design Finalizing design. WPAP modifications defined and to be submitted to TCEQ. Executed task order for GA, bidding and construction services. Environmental/ Archeological GA being updated to finalize WPAP modifications. Rights of Way N/A Utility Relocations none Bid Phase TBD Construction TBD Other Issues Page 47 of 150 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Project Old Town Northeast Sidewalks Project No. 1EF TIP No. None March 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of pedestrian facilities along several streets in northeast “Old Town”. Various methods of rehabilitating existing non-compliant sidewalks will be considered. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps identified in the 2015 Sidewalk Master Plan. Project Managers Nat Waggoner, AICP, PMP®, Chris Pousson Engineer Steger Bizzell Element Status / Issues Design Finalizing design, received TCEQ WPAP approval. Working to close on easements needed. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements 1 easement has been obtained, County easement will be considered on 2/26/19 at commissioner court. 5 other easements are being finalized. Utility Relocations Relocate Frontier, Sudden link and COG Electric overhead. Construction TBD Other Issues Page 48 of 150 Transportation Services Operations CIP Maintenance March 2019 Project Description 2018 CIP Maintenance project consist of furnishing and installing approximately 138,000 square yards of two course surface treatment with fog seal, approximately 56,000 square yards of high performance surface treatment and approximately 380,000 square yards of high performance pavement seal applications. Purpose To provide protection and maintain an overall pavement condition index of 85%. Project Manager Chris Pousson Engineer/Engineers KPA, LP Task Status / Issues Two Course treatment with fog seal All two course surface treatment with fog seal is complete. All striping, handwork and buttons are complete. Punch list is completed. Streets Included • Lakeway (Airport to Northwest) • Inner Loop (FM 971 to Hwy 29) • Sam Houston (Maple to Rock Ride) • Patriot Way (Sam Houston to Ronald Rd) High performance pavement seal Package #1 Contractor tentatively scheduled to return mid to late March 2019 to begin pavement seal operations in Sun City. Meeting to be on 3/1/19 to finalize date and contractor to send schedules over for notifications to Sun City community association. High performance pavement seal Package #2 (HA5) Contractor has applied HA5 pavement sealer to all of River Chase and Oak Crest Estates Subdivisions. Contractor to complete punch list items Page 49 of 150 SHELL R O A D WEB B DEL B L V D . STE T S O N TRAIL D R . C A V E R N C O B B ST . WATE R RUNNI N G BASS S T . CIR. STE T S O N BER R Y T R . JUNIPER WILD P L U M W A Y R I D E R T R A I L C I R C L E G L O R Y M O R N I N G WAYANEMONE DR. BELL BLUE CUP TR. TERBUT TR. BUS H BEAUTY CIR. ANEMONE C I R . B U S H B E A U T Y WAYSTAR LONE D R . C O ONBR CIR . BR O N C O C I R . A S T E R W I L D H O R S E D R . E N C H A N T E D L O G A N R O A D WAY SISP O E R O FL O W E R S THE OF LA N E LI L Y C O V E BE L L FLOWER S THEOF CO U R T TRAIL A L P I N E CIRCLE T R A I L DR STAR LANE CO V E A EN R B DEL W E B B B L V D . DR. V E LAN E LAR K S P U R R E DACAC I A W A Y T H I S T L E BLAZING CO L U M B I N E C O U R T DEWBERRY DRIVE DAND E L I O N D R P O P P Y VIN C A D R VINCA L I A T R I S L N EG R E T SA N D P I P E R WHITE WOODPECKER WAY POP P Y T R A I L TR A I L O F T H E F L O W E R S BLUE S T E M D R WH I P P O O R W I L L W A Y CHI C K A D E E SC I S S O R T A I L T R A I L WH I P P O O R W I L L CO V E WAY WINECU P W A Y PA T H TR A I L D A I S Y PURPLE SA G E D R LANT A N A D R I V E SCIS S O R T A I L COV E WARB L E R W A Y PAINT E D B U N T I N G SI L V E R - RO S E RO C K TRAIL ORANGE CIRCLE R A I N WAYGAILL A R D I A C TE A C U P CI R C L E CO U R T CO V E LN.MYRTL ECREPE COVEBERRYELDER - ST. E L D E R B E R R Y L N . MIST F L O W E R D R . R U N I L I A DR. RU N I L I A CIR.RED O A K CIR.BLOS S O M PEAC H WA Y L A U R E L MO U N T A I N LAN E PER S I M M O N CIR . WA L N U T DRI V E TEXAS TR A I L CHIS H O L M OLD ST. WAYIL TR A TLE CA T CI R . MU L B E R R Y CI R . TA I L SW A L L O W - CV . FA L C O N ST. CONFAL DR. LARIAT S I X F L A G S D R . D R . CO U N T R Y H I L L TR A I L M O O D Y DA N COVE SUCKLE HONEY- S T . S U N F L O W E R W A Y H A W K N I G H T CV. YUCCA D R . W I L D R O S E DRIV E SMITHACKBL D R . C O U N T Y H I G H C O V E B L A C K S M I T H C T . B L U E S K Y D R . H I G H T R A I L DR . SP R I N G S C O L D CIR.LILLYWATER- GOOD W A T E R D R I V E S P R I N G S C R Y S T A L WIND WHISP E R I N G LAKEW O O D D R I V E S O U T H C H E R R Y W O O D L A N E LAKEWO O D D R I V E N O R T H C A S A L O M A D R I V E SEDRO T R A I L CIR. RED WI N G W A Y P A S S P L O V E R CO V E WHI S P E R I N G W I N D D R I V E B E R R Y W O O D L A N E JIM D R . HO G G VILL A G E GLE N GROV E CT. HA N O V E R VIL L A G E CO M M O N S WEST B U R Y L N . LA N E FA I R F I E L D G O L F V I E W D R I V E BUR OAK L N MALL A R D LN TANA G E R L A N E A R A N S A S C V W I L D TU R K E Y L N BL V D . SCISSORTAIL T R A I L BRIAR PATCH COVE GR A P E V I N E L A N E HO L L Y B E R R Y LANE AGAVE LANE GOLDE N R O D SOT O L PAS S CHU C K W A G O N TRA I L D O U B L E FI R E T R . PR O S P E C T O R PA S S INDIAN SP R I N G S D R . FRI E N D L Y CR. ROSE B U D L N SAD D L E TR.HARN E S S LN. LONG H O R N TR . BARNDANCE CV. RA N C H HO U S E CV . GR E A T FR O N T I E R DR. BRA N D I N G IRO N C V . CAM P DRIV E RO D E O D R . STO C K M A N TR T E X A S DR I V E CR O S B Y COURT LYN N COV E NOLAN DR I V E SCU R R Y B O U L E V A R D SUN CITY BLV D . CA P R O C K C A N Y O N FOSSIL PALO D U R O B I G S P R I N G S SIERRA B L A N C O LOVIE LN W I L L I A M S D R . KASBERG, PATRICK & ASSOCIATES, LP CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEORGETOWN, TEXAS 78626 FIRM REGISTRATION NUMBER F-510 2018 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECTS - SUN CITY January 15, 2019 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 500 1000 NORTH © 20 1 8 K a s b e r g , P a t r i c k & A s s o c i a t e s , L P FI L E : P: \ G e o r g e t o w n \ 2 0 1 4 \ 1 4 - 1 1 8 5 Y R C I P \ C A D \ E x h i b i t \ 2 0 1 7 - 1 2 - 1 4 2 0 1 8 W O R K P L A N \ S U N C I T Y . d w g L A S T S A V E D : 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 0 9 : 1 8 : 1 3 A M LA Y O U T : SU N C I T Y E X H I B I T GEORGETOWNTEXAS EST. 1848 LEGEND HIGH PERFORMANCE SURFACE SEAL COUNCIL DISTRICT 5 - Kevin Pitts COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 - Steve Fought COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 - John Hesser Page 50 of 150 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Austin Ave Sidewalk Improvements Project No. 1CJ TIP No. None March 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of pedestrian facilities along Austin Ave from Hwy 29 to Leander Rd. Various methods of rehabilitating existing non-compliant sidewalks will be considered. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps identified in the 2015 Sidewalk Master Plan. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design Bid Opening held on 10-30-18. GTAB approved on 11-9-18, City Council approved on 11-27- 18. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements none Utility Relocations Hydrant Construction Pre-construction meeting held on January 31 2019. Contractor to start sending in submittals and plan to start on April 1st 2019. Other Issues TBD Page 51 of 150 10th & 11th @ Austin Ave Improvements Project No. 1DT & 1DW TIP No. None March 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of pedestrian facilities at 10th & 11th streets at Austin Ave. This project also includes water line replacement along 11th from Rock to Main and storm water drainage improvements at the intersection of 11th and Austin Ave. Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps, rehab existing water line and improve drainage at 11th and Austin Ave. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design Bid opening was held on 10-23-18. GTAB approved on 11-9-18, City Council approved on 11-27-18. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements none Utility Relocations 1 street light Construction Water line on 11th has started. ADA ramps at 11th and Rock are being constructed. Demo work on curb along 11th has begun. Other Issues TBD Page 52 of 150 Shell Road Sidewalk Improvements Project No. TIP No. None March 2019 Project Description The proposed project consists of the installation of pedestrian facilities along Shell Road from Sequoia Spur to Bellaire Dr. This project requires coordination with TCEQ and TDLR and all proposed pedestrian elements will be ADA compliant with the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Purpose To provide ADA/TDLR compliant sidewalks and ramps to eliminate sidewalk gaps for pedestrian mobility. Project Managers Chris Pousson Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design 95% design set to be reviewed. Environmental/ Archeological TBD Rights of Way / Easements 1 easement needed at Shell Road and Sequoia Spur. Utility Relocations TBD Construction TBD Other Issues TBD Page 53 of 150 17th St CDBG Sidewalks (Railroad to Forest St) Project No. 9AZ TIP No. March 2019 Project Description Construction of new sidewalk along 17th St from Railroad to Forest St. Improving the two GoGeo bus stops on that route. Purpose This project will improve the pedestrian route connecting existing low income housing to important community services and destinations. Project Manager Chris Logan Engineer KPA Element Status / Issues Design Task order is fully executed for the engineering services. Design underway • Survey – complete by Feb 28th • Final Design – complete by early May • Bidding – Complete by mid-June Environmental/ Archeological Complete Rights of Way Unknown until survey is completed. Utility Relocations TBD Construction Other Issues Page 54 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Nominations and election of Vice-C hair of the G TAB Board. – R onald Bindas – C hair P erson for G TAB IT E M S UMMARY: P er the Bylaws of the G eorgetown Transportation Advisory Board; “Section 3.1 – Officers. T he Board O ffic ers are C hairman, Vic e-C hairman and S ec retary. T he C hair is appointed by the C ity C ounc il during the annual appointment proc es s . T he other Board O ffic ers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at its firs t meeting after the annual appointment process.” T he C hair of the Board, Mr. R onald Bindas , will take the nominations from the floor, for position of Vice- C hair. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Page 55 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: Nominations and election of S ec retary of the G TAB Board. – R onald Bindas, G TAB C hair P erson IT E M S UMMARY: P er the Bylaws of the G eorgetown Transportation Advisory Board; “Section 3.1 – Officers. T he Board O ffic ers are C hairman, Vic e-C hairman and S ec retary. T he C hair is appointed by the C ity C ounc il during the annual appointment proc es s . T he other Board O ffic ers are elected by a majority vote of the Members at its firs t meeting after the annual appointment process.” T he C hair of the Board, Mr. R onald Bindas , will take the nominations from the floor, for position of S ecretary. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: Page 56 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: R eview and possible action related to the Day and Time of G TAB Board Meetings – R onald Bindas, G TAB C hair P ers on IT E M S UMMARY: P er the G TAB Bylaws S ection 4.1 Time & Date of Regular Meeting. T he Board shall meet once a month on the same week of the month, the same day of the week, at the same time, and at the s ame plac e. T he regular date, time, and place of the Board meeting will be dec ided by the Members at the first meeting, of the Board after the annual appointment process. C urrently, the G TAB Board meets on the sec ond F riday of eac h month at 10:00 a.m. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: N/A S UB MIT T E D B Y: AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Meeting Dates 2019 Backup Material Page 57 of 150 GEORGETOWN TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (GTAB) Meeting Schedule March 2019 – February 2019 All Regular Meetings will be held on the second Friday of every month at 10:00 a.m. at the Georgetown Municipal Complex, located at 300-1 Industrial Avenue. Please contact Emily Koontz at 512-930-6556 if you have any questions regarding meeting dates or times. MARCH 8, 2019 APRIL 12, 2019 MAY 10, 2019 JUNE 14, 2019 JULY 12, 2019 AUGUST 9, 2019 SEPTEMBER 13, 2019 OCTOBER 11, 2019 NOVEMBER 8, 2019 DECEMBER 13, 2019 JANUARY 10, 2020 FEBRUARY 14, 2020 Page 58 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the Minutes from the F ebruary 08, 2019 Meeting. -- Emily Koontz - Board Liais on IT E M S UMMARY: F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: NO NE S UB MIT T E D B Y: Emily Koontz - Board Liais on AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type GTAB Minutes February 8, 2019 Backup Material Page 59 of 150 Minutes of the Meeting of the Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board and the Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas February 8, 2019 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Board Members Present: Ron Bindas – Vice Chair, Dan Jones, Robert Redoutey, Sheila Mills, Troy Hellmann, John Hesser, John Marler – Board Chair Board Members Absent: Doug Noble, Donna Courtney – Secretary, Dan Jones Staff Present: Wes Wright, Jim Briggs, Emily Koontz, Ray Miller, Laurie Brewer, David Morgan Others Present: Terry Reed-ACC, Carl Norris-ACC, John Milford-ACC, Trae Sutton – KPA Engineering, Josh Crawford, Wendy Dew-ACC Regular Session A. Call to Order: Meeting called to order by Chairperson John Marler at 10:00am Georgetown Transportation Advisory Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to Convene an Executive Session at the request of the Chair, a Board Member, The City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that follows. B. Introduction of Visitors: All visitors and staff were introduced. C. Industry/CAMPO/TxDOT/Transit Updates: Ray Miller gave updates. Miller gave handouts which are included in the packet. Hellmann asked and Miller responded that the GoGeo numbers presented were actual ridership. D. Airport Monthly Update: Garza gave updates. Reports are included in the packet. Airport Master Plan was been adopted. Airport improvements – yesterday received the letter from the design engineer notifying the contractor that they are clear to proceed, their clock starts February 18th. Phase one begins February 18th. TxDOT required contractors to purchase all materials needed before so there will be no wait for materials. Will be shutting down runway 1836 on March 4th, though all dates are weather- dependent. Around April, both runways will be shutdown. Marler asked and Garza responded that this will last from April 5th to April 16th. All of the alternatives were approved including paving the shoulders. Hellmann asked and Bindas responded that January had a huge spike in fuel sales because of the good weather and many people were trying to complete their flight training. Marler asked and Garza responded that the city is still in the process of interviewing Airport Manager candidates. Mills asked and Garza responded that closure of airport runways are published in the appropriate places. Page 60 of 150 Citizens Wishing to Address the Board: The following people with the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC) signed up to speak to the Board on Item D: Carl Norris – 6 minutes (extra 3 minutes donated by John Milford) E. November 2018 GTAB Updates: Wright gave updates. All updates included in the packet. Marler asked and Wright responded that the number of parking spots are about fourteen. Policy Development/Review Workshop F. Discussion and update on various road bond projects -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. This item was moved to the end of the agenda. Wright gave handouts which are included in the minutes. Bindas asked and Wright responded that the plan for Berry Creek was to widen it to four lanes. TxDOT is looking to make improvements to the intersection of Berry Creek and 195. Hellmann asked and Wright replied that there will probably be about four million in cash from the 2008 Road Bond Projects to use on Berry Creek. Marler asked and Wright responded that the bond was a contract with the voters so that they are only capable of doing the specific projects based on how the debt was allocated. Morgan explained that the way the language was for the issuance for debt, the funds can only be used on these specific projects. Hellmann asked and Morgan responded that there is $21 million authorized, but not issued so it is not money that will be wasted, the city is not obligated to be issued and is not extra cash available. Mills asked and Wright responded that the $11.6 million from 2015 Road Bond Projects that will most likely not be spent can be allocated to any project on the list. Hellmann and asked and Wright responded that DB Wood has not been designed yet. Morgan said that the city has a five-year plan to phase projects in a way to allow for growth to pay for this plan and for the tax rate not to be shifted. Legislative Regular Agenda G. Consideration and possible approval of the Minutes from the January 11, 2019 Meeting – Emily Koontz – Board Liaison. MOTION by Mills, second by Bindas to approve the minutes as presented. APPROVED 6-0-3 (Courtney, Noble, and Jones – absent) H. Consideration and possible recommendation on Task Order KPA-19-003-TO with Kasberg, Patrick, and Associates of Georgetown, TX in the amount of $456,500.00 for professional services related to 2019 Street Maintenance -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. Wright explains that this is their annual street maintenance task order. Wright explains that they are looking hot-in-place and sealant options for road maintenance. The proposed streets are in the packet. This is just the design task order. Hellmann asked and Wright responded that last year’s projects will be completed by the end of spring and the current year’s projects should be done by the end of summer. MOTION Hellmann by, second by Hesser. APPROVED 6-0-3 (Courtney, Noble, and Jones – absent) I. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve task order KPA-19-001-TO with Kasberg, Patrick & Associates, LP of Georgetown, TX (“Engineer”) for Professional Services for the design of SE Inner Loop (FM 1460 to Austin Avenue) and Southwestern Page 61 of 150 Boulevard (Raintree to SE Inner Loop) in the amount of $1,362,935.00. -- Wesley Wright, PE, Systems Engineering Director. This is for design of roadway improvements – will take road from two lanes to four lanes. With increased traffic, city feels this project needs to be moved forward. GTEC has budgeted money to complete construction. Southwestern Blvd was included in the 2015 Road Bond Project for design and construction. Included for design and construction. Will provide four lanes for increased access. MOTION by Bindas, second by Hellmann. APPROVED 6-0-3 (Courtney, Noble, and Jones – absent) J. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve funding for Atmos Gas relocation work necessary to facilitate the Northwest Blvd Bridge Extension in the amount of $135,153.02 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager. Wright explains that this is for utility relocation. Funding is available from the 2015 Road Bond Project. MOTION by Hellmann, second by Bindas. APPROVED 6-0-3 (Courtney, Noble, and Jones – absent) Adjournment Motion by Hesser, second by Mills. APPROVED Meeting was Adjourned at 11:22 AM Approved: Attested: ___________________________ __________________________ Ronald Bindas - Chair – Secretary _________________________________ Emily Koontz – GTAB Board Liaison GTAB STATEMENT FEBRUARY 8, 2019 AGENDA ITEM “D” AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the GTAB. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My residence is 4400 Luna Trail, Georgetown, Texas. I am a member of the Airport Concerned Citizens (ACC). The ACC is a major community public interest stakeholder group demanding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for all federal and state taxpayer funded grants for the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU). This is the 90th presentation by ACC members to the city council and GTAB since January 14, 2014. My comments this morning address the Runway Rehabilitation Project Report portion of Page 62 of 150 Agenda Item "D". According to staff notes, the TxDOT developed contract for this project, "RW 18/36 Rehabilitation", 1814GRGTN, was awarded to a Pflugerville contractor and issued a Notice to Proceed without an executed Airport Project Participation Agreement or any prior approval actions by this board or the city council. ACC has addressed and opposed this project in multiple prior statements to this board and most recently at the November 9, 2018 and January 11, 2019 board meetings. ACC objections to this project initiated when it was first proposed by staff at the GTAB May 2015 meeting. ACC objections are based NOT on the runway's need for surface protection, BUT on the strengthening of the runway to accommodate heavier, noisier, more dangerous aircraft. All ACC objections and specific concerns have been contemptuously ignored without comment by this board and city staff. The current fiscal problems for customers of the electric system portion of the Georgetown Utility System are recognized by all as one in which public input and participation was denied in the conception, development and implementation of the new program. Secrecy prevailed. Government transparency was non-existent. Now, the public is paying the price. A similar cloak of secrecy, misinformation and lies has shrouded the city's development of our GTU as a dangerous military and civilian Reliever airport for the Central Texas Region in the very planned heart of our growing city and atop the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The proper method for public input and participation of our impacted community for GTU development by use of federal and state funding is by adherence to the federal law, NEPA, demonstrated by preparation of a fully scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and its Record of Decision (ROD) for the new 52 projects, $60 Million PROGRAM of airport capital improvements proposed by the new Airport Master Plan. That PROGRAM includes the "RW 18/36 Rehabilitation" project described in staff's outline for this agenda item. This board should understand that an EIS preparation process and its ROD does not terminate a proposed grant action. The process provides the general public and interested agencies a full opportunity to examine ALL impacts of a proposed funding action, mitigation measures for elimination or reduction of adverse impacts, and full examination of All practicable alternatives to the action. The ROD contains the conditions, if any, for the project to proceed. The FAA and TxDOT federal and state taxpayer funding agencies for the GTU are determined that no EIS will be prepared on the $60 Million PROGRAM or any of its projects on the premise that the GTU's location is irrelevant and no adverse impacts will occur now or in the future by the PROGRAM or any of its projects. TxDOT, on its own with FAA's approval, has determined the "RW 18/36 Rehabilitation" project is categorically excluded from the NEPA and EIS preparation. These public agencies focus on safety and need of aviation operations and pay no demonstrated concern for the safety, health and environment of those on the ground. The FAA welcomes NEPA/EIS law suits by alarmed plaintiffs demanding compliance with the rule of law. The agency enjoys using its bastions of taxpayer paid lawyers NOT to argue NEPA or EIS issues, but for endless court continuances and delays to fiscally bleed the plaintiffs into submission and withdrawal. This board has clearly expressed the position of our city leaders that “Unless notified by a federal authority or a court order to the contrary, all public demands for compliance with the NEPA will be considered irrelevant.”. Faced with these options, the ACC continues its demands for NEPA/EIS compliance to local, state and federal officials. The ACC statements for the November 2018 and January 2019 board meetings identify a broad listing of fraudulent defects of this "RW 18/36 Rehabilitation" project that this board and staff continue to ignore with no professional response. Page 63 of 150 Mr. Chairman, the ACC again demands a fully scoped GTAB open public hearing for this project prior to any board recommendations to the city council. Page 64 of 150 City of Georgetown, Texas Transportation Advisory Board March 8, 2019 S UB J E C T: C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve Tas k O rder No. A&F -19-002-TO for Aguirre & F ields LP of Austin, Texas for the engineering of the S outhwes t Bypas s from Wolf R anc h P kwy to S H 29 in the amount of $706,991.75 -- Wesley Wright, P E, S ystems Engineering Direc tor. IT E M S UMMARY: T his proposed task order is to provide professional engineering services related to an extension of the S outhwes t Bypas s from its current intersec tion at Wolf R anch P arkway to S H29. T he s cope of work inc ludes providing extending 2 lanes of the S outhwes t Bypas s to intersec t at grade with S H29 (no bridges or interc hange), as well as the des ign of a traffic s ignal. T he traffic s ignal will only be implemented if warranted and approved by T xDO T. T he overall sc ope of work includes engineering design, surveying, environmental, geotec hnical, and bidding/cons truction phase efforts nec es s ary to complete the project. F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T: T his Tas k O rder will be funded from excess 2015 R oad Bond proc eeds from the original S outhwes t Bypas s projec t in the amount of $706,991.75. S UB MIT T E D B Y: Wesley Wright P.E. S ystems engineering direc tor. AT TAC H ME N T S: Description Type Task Order No. A&F-19-002-TO Backup Material exhibit a Backup Material exhibit b Backup Material exhibit c Backup Material Page 65 of 150 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 1 of 5 Task Order In accordance with paragraph 1.01 of the Master Services Agreement between Owner and Aguirre & Fields, LP (“Engineer”) for Professional Services – Task Order Edition, dated March 1, 2019 ("Agreement"), Owner and Engineer agree as follows: 1. Specific Project Data A. Title: Southwest (SW) Bypass – Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 B. Description: The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing final plans, specifications, bidding and construction administration services for the SW Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 Connection project (See Attached Exhibit C). The professional services will consist of providing final roadway, drainage, and incidental designs, as well as Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) coordination between the Owner and the State, utility coordination, environmental investigations and reports, survey, geotechnical investigations, Right of Way (ROW) and Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) metes and bounds documents, bidding documents, bidding services, and construction administration services. C. City of Georgetown Project Number: ____ D. City of Georgetown General Ledger Account No.: _______________________ E. City of Georgetown Purchase Order No.: _______________________________ F. Master Services Agreement, Contract Number: 19-0023-MSA 2. Services of Engineer Engineer shall provide the following services to the Owner: A detailed description of the Scope of Services to be provided by the Engineer can be found in Exhibit “A”, which is attached to this document. 3. Owner's Responsibilities Owner shall have those responsibilities set forth in the Agreement subject to the following: Provide timely review comments to plan reviews and project scope changes. The City shall be responsible for permitting and third-party review fees. Data for the project that the City has available (e.g. environmental documents, preliminary schematic design, correspondence, materials, previously conducted studies regarding proposed improvements, etc.) Available traffic counts and traffic projections for use in the development of the project. Available existing right-of-way maps for the project. Task Order No. A&F-19-002-TO, consisting of 45 pages. Page 66 of 150 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 2 of 5 Available hydrologic and hydraulic models for the San Gabriel River. Available as-built plans and previous surveys from City, developers and utility companies existing within the project limits. Assist the Engineer, as necessary, in obtaining any required data and information from local, regional, state and federal agencies. Assist the Engineer and Surveyor, as necessary, in obtaining right-of-entry for property adjacent to project ROW. City staff will provide updates and direction to the Engineer based on City Council and any Committee meetings. 4. Times for Rendering Services Schedule shown below is approximate and subject to change as project develops: Phase Completion Date _Alternatives Analysis __December 31, 2019_ 30% PS&E June 30, 2020 95% PS&E March 31, 2021 Final PS&E June 30, 2021 Bid Phase October 31, 2021 Construction December 31, 2022 5. Payments to Engineer A. Owner shall pay Engineer for services rendered as follows (See Exhibit “B” for additional details): Category of Services Compensation Method Lump Sum or Not to Exceed Amount of Compensation for Services Professional Engineering and Project Management Services Lump Sum $ 706,991.75 Total Compensation (not to Exceded): $ 706,991.75 Page 67 of 150 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 3 of 5 B. The terms of payment are set forth in Article 4 of the Agreement unless modified in this Task Order. 6. Consultants: Prime consultant is Aguirre & Fields, LP. Qualified subconsultants selected to assist with the development of the project are SWCA Environmental Consultants, All County Surveying, Terracon Consultants, Inc., Kasberg, Patrick, & Associates, LP, Alliance Transportation Group, and Cobb Fendley and Associates. 7. Other Modifications to Agreement: None 8. Attachments: Exhibit “A” – Detailed Scope of Services Provided by Engineer Exhibit “B” – Fee Schedule Exhibit “C” – Location Map 9. Documents Incorporated By Reference: The Agreement. Page 68 of 150 Page 69 of 150 TASK ORDER Georgetown – Revised 3.11 EJCDC E-505 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Engineer Professional Services—Task Order Edition Copyright ©2004 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved. Attachment 1 – Task Order Form Page 5 of 5 DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR TASK ORDER: Name: Joel Weaver Name: John Mutchler, PE Title: Project Manager Title: Director, Transportation Services Address: 300-1 Industrial Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Address: 12708 Riata Vista Circle Suite A-109 Austin, TX 78727 E-Mail Address: Joel.weaver@georgetown.org E-Mail Address: John.mutchler@aguirre-fields.com Phone: 512-931-7698 Phone: 512-609-1512 Fax: 512-930-3559 Fax: 512-610-8903 Page 70 of 150 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT A DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE of SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER AGUIRRE & FIELDS, LP SUGAR LAND, TEXAS Project Description: The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing final plans, specifications, bidding and construction administration services for the SW Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 Connection project (See Attached Exhibit C). The professional services will consist of providing final roadway, drainage, and incidental designs, as well as Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) coordination between the Owner and the State, utility coordination, environmental investigations and reports, survey, geotechnical investigations, Right of Way (ROW) and Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) metes and bounds documents, bidding documents, bidding services, and construction administration services. Scope of Services: The scope of services includes: I. Project Management/Coordination a. The ENGINEER shall mobilize resources to set up the project, including preparing and executing subconsultant agreements, and establishing project controls. b. The ENGINEER shall coordinate, conduct and document a Project Kickoff Meeting with City staff, internal staff, and subconsultant team members. The ENGINEER shall discuss the project overview, design criteria, communication plan, team member responsibilities, and project schedule. c. The ENGINEER shall attend 30%, 90% and 100% Milestone Submittal Meetings with City staff. The ENGINEER shall review the submittal package with City staff, record written questions and comments, and provide recommended resolutions to City staff for approval and discussion. d. The ENGINEER shall provide management and coordination for all activities included in the contract, including preparing a design schedule and providing monthly updates, developing monthly invoices and progress reports, maintaining the project file and records, subconsultant coordination, and coordination with the City. e. The ENGINEER shall obtain and review the existing data provided from the City including, but not limited to, as-built plans, planning studies along the proposed and/ or connecting routes, documents for existing and proposed development along the proposed route, ROW maps, existing survey data, and floodplain information and studies. The ENGINEER shall conduct field reconnaissance and collect data. The ENGINEER shall notify the City in writing whenever the ENGINEER finds disagreement with the information or documents. f. The ENGINEER shall establish project design criteria in coordination with the City. Page 71 of 150 Page 2 of 19 The criteria will comply with City of Georgetown, TxDOT and AASHTO design criteria. g. The ENGINEER shall coordinate preparation of an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City and TxDOT. The AFA is anticipated to include construction of a right-turn lane from southbound SH 29 to SW Bypass, construction of signal and illumination hardware (excluding signal heads and mast arms) at the intersection of SH 29 and SW Bypass, a signal warrant study at the intersection of SH 29 and SW Bypass, and relocation of utilities within TxDOT ROW. The ENGINEER shall provide a preliminary plan-view layout and a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed work within TxDOT ROW to facilitate the AFA. Up to three (3) meetings with the City and TxDOT shall be required. h. The ENGINEER shall perform Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) reviews of all submittal documents at each Milestone Submittal: Preliminary Alternatives Submittal, 30% PS&E Submittal, 95% PS&E Submittal, and Final PS&E Submittal (100%). i. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to three (3) exhibits to the to facilitate up to three (3) meetings with agencies. II. Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support a. The ENGINEER shall research the current property ownership along the proposed route and provide a property ownership map and list of impacted property owners to the City for their use in obtaining right of entry. b. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to four (4) exhibits to the City’s ROW agent to facilitate up to four (4) meetings with affected property owners. c. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to two (2) exhibits to the City’s ROW agent to facilitate up to two (2) meetings with Williamson County to coordinate between the City and Williamson County to facilitate sale to the City of any ROW needed for the project which is owned by the County. The City will secure the necessary legal instruments. d. The ENGINEER shall prepare a proposed ROW map, metes and bounds documents and field sketches for either permanent or temporary acquisition of up to two (2) parcels. The ENGINEER shall review the field sketches and metes and bounds documents to verify document accuracy. The City will secure the necessary legal instruments. e. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with existing Utility Owners within and adjacent to the Project and create a utility contact list to be maintained throughout the project. This coordination includes preparing and mailing written notification of proposed construction letters to all known Utility Owners within and adjacent to the project site. f. The ENGINEER shall contact all known Utility Owners in and adjacent to the project area and request maps and/or as-builts of their existing facilities. This information will be the basis of the existing utility layout created to assist in conflict Page 72 of 150 Page 3 of 19 assessment, monitor necessity of relocations and evaluate alternatives. A field visit shall be scheduled to verify the existing utility layout drawing with actual field conditions. The utility layout map will be used to create the Utility Conflict Map and Conflict Matrix which shall be updated after the 30% and 95% Design Submittals. g. The ENGINEER shall coordinate and attend a Utility Coordination Meeting with the existing Utility Owners to discuss concepts and options based upon the milestone design plans. The meeting will be documented with meeting minutes. Two (2) meetings will be held at the following stages: 30% Submittal, 95% Submittal. In concert with said meetings the ENGINEER shall review proposed utility relocation designs and evaluate alternatives while balancing the needs of the project as well as the utility. h. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with the City and TxDOT to determine appropriate agreement forms and permits to be used on this project for both reimbursable and non-reimbursable utility adjustments. The relevant project information will be filled- in on the agreed upon forms and forwarded on to each respective Utility Owner impacted on the project for review/use. Up to two (2) Agreements at the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection shall be prepared. i. The ENGINEER shall obtain Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE), Quality Levels D through A for all utilities impacted by the project within TxDOT ROW. Up to 2200 LF of Q LB and up to 5 QL A Test Holes shall be obtained. The ENGINEER shall follow ASCE 38-02 “The Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data”- see below. Utility Quality Levels are defined in cumulative order (least to greatest): Quality Level D - Existing Records: Utilities are plotted from review of available existing records Quality Level C - Surface Visible Feature Survey: Quality Level "D" information from existing records is correlated with surveyed surface-visible features. Quality Level B - Designate: Two-dimensional horizontal mapping. This information is obtained through the application and interpretation of appropriate non-destructive surface geophysical methods. Utility indications may be referenced to established survey control. Additional description of services, methodology and equipment is below. Quality Level A - Locate (Test Hole): Three-dimensional mapping and other characterization data. This information is obtained through exposing utility facilities through test holes and measuring and recording (to appropriate survey control) utility/environment data. Utility Designating (Level B) 1. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with the City and/or TxDOT to schedule work. The City will provide permission or right of entry to property and any utility easements to perform work. Page 73 of 150 Page 4 of 19 2. The ENGINEER shall designate (means to record and mark) the horizontal location of the existing tone-able utility facilities using non- destructive surface geophysical techniques. Tone-able utilities are typically utilities that are conductive or internally accessible with a traceable fish tape or sonde. Water and communication vaults can be investigated from above ground. The ENGINEER does not enter buried power vaults or manholes. 3. If internally accessible (e.g. via a cleanout), nonconductive lines can often be traced out with a fish tape or sonde. Under ideal circumstances nonconductive buried lines can be investigated successfully with Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Soil conditions in Texas are however generally not suitable for GPR. The ENGINEER has had success using GPR for SUE work but non-conductive features can remain undetected. 4. A non-water base paint, utilizing the APWA color code scheme and pin flags will be used on all surface markings of underground features. 5. The ENGINEER shall provide a field sketch of designated utilities. 6. Survey and draft designated utilities onto project basemap. Client will provide basemap in Microstation format. 7. Utilities on the basemap shall be identified by owner and type. Utilities that cannot be identified to Quality Level B but have been documented at Quality Level D will be shown using a separate symbology. Vacuum Excavation (Level A) The ENGINEER can perform FHWA Level A vacuum test holes. Holes are excavated using a nondestructive compressed air or hydro vacuum excavation truck. Vacuum excavation is performed as follows: 1) Comply with regulations, and/or policies for the prevention of underground utility damage (i.e., one-call system). The ENGINEER shall request permission and permits from the City and/or TxDOT to perform work. The cost of permits is assumed to be waived for this work and is therefore not included in this proposal. 2) Designate utilities in the immediate vicinity of each proposed test hole. 3) Vacuum excavate to measure and record the depth and location of found items. The ENGINEER accepts no responsibility for contaminated soils should they be encountered during excavation. The ENGINEER does not take ownership of any excavated material. 4) Record depth of the utility, line size, line material, condition of the line, type of soil around the line. Provide markers at each utility location. 5) Backfill the hole. Compact in lifts. Restore pavement if required. 6) Survey of utility test hole locations will be provided by the ENGINEER. Page 74 of 150 Page 5 of 19 Survey will be tied to project survey control. 7) The ENGINEER shall provide drafting to produce test hole data sheets showing utility depth, size and line material, condition of the line, type of soil for each test hole location surveyed. Test hole data sheets include a “snapshot’ from the CAD file showing test hole location and photographs of test hole and found utilities. Depending on the exact location of test holes, it is anticipated that traffic control may be required for Level A work areas. Standard traffic control is performed by the ENGINEER and is included in our standard rates. Standard traffic control can be described as short-term lane closure necessary to access utility features located in the roadway. Should ‘non-standard’ traffic control be required (longer term lane closures, police officer present, arrow board, intersection work etc…) these services will be considered extra. Limitations Above ground geophysical techniques cannot guarantee to find all buried utility lines. This is particularly true with when GPR is being used in unfavorable conditions. Soil conditions may not be conducive to GPR use. As a result, its effectiveness in finding buried utilities can be limited. The ENGINEER shall perform subsurface utility engineering in accordance with ASCE 38/02 Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Subsurface Utility Data. The ENGINEER shall exercise all reasonable and customary care in the performance of SUE services, realizing the safety of personnel and prevention of damage are the prime considerations in the detection and mapping of subsurface utility features. However, a possibility exists that some utilities may not be detected and/or mapped using standard SUE procedures previously described. While uncommon, utilities possessing characteristics mentioned below can be missed while using the standard SUE procedures: 1. Utilities buried excessively deep, beyond detection limits of standard locating equipment. 2. Abandoned utilities 3. Utilities with no apparent surface features and no records provided 4. Non-conductive utilities. 5. Utilities buried in soil unsuitable for GPR detection a. III. Survey a. The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall perform a design survey. Design Surveys include performance of surveys associated with the gathering of survey data for topography, cross-sections, and other related work to design a project. The City will provide access to adjacent properties and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization. Definitions: Page 75 of 150 Page 6 of 19 A design survey is defined as the combined performance of research, field work, analysis, computation, and documentation necessary to provide detailed topographic (3-dimensional (3D)) mapping of a project site. A design survey may include, but need not be limited to locating existing right-of-way, cross- sections or data to create cross-sections and Digital Terrain Models (.dtm), horizontal and vertical location of utilities and improvements, detailing of bridges and other structures, review of right-of-way maps, establishing control points, etc. Technical Requirements: 1. Design surveys must be performed under the supervision of a Registered Professional Land Surveyor (RPLS) currently registered with the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveyors (TBPLS). 2. Horizontal ground control used for design surveys furnished to the Engineer’s Surveyor by the State or based on acceptable methods conducted by the Engineer’s Surveyor, must meet the standards of accuracy required by the State. Reference may be made to standards of accuracy for horizontal control traverses, as described in the TxDOT Survey Manual, latest edition, or the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors (TSPS) Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in the State of Texas, as may be applicable. 3. Vertical ground control used for design surveys furnished to the Engineer’s Surveyor by the State or based on acceptable methods conducted by the Engineer’s Surveyor, must meet the standards of accuracy required by the State. Reference may be made to standards of accuracy for vertical control traverses, as described in the TxDOT Survey Manual, latest edition, or the TSPS Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in the State of Texas, as may be applicable. 4. Side shots or short traverse procedures used to determine horizontal and vertical locations must meet the following criteria: a. Side shots or short traverses must begin and end on horizontal and vertical ground control as described above. b. Standards, procedures, and equipment (may include but is not limited to GPS Equipment, LiDAR, Total Stations) used must be such that horizontal locations relative to the control may be reported within the following limits: 1) Bridges and other roadway structures: less than 0.1 of one (1) foot. 2) Utilities and improvements: less than 0.2 of one (1) foot. 3) Cross-sections and profiles: less than 1 foot. 4) Bore holes: less than 3 feet. c. Standards, procedures, and equipment (may include but is not limited to GPS Equipment, LiDAR, Total Stations) used must be such that vertical locations relative to the control may be reported within the following limits: Page 76 of 150 Page 7 of 19 1) Bridges and other roadway structures: less than 0.02 of one (1) foot. 2) Utilities and improvements: less than 0.1 of one (1) foot. 3) Cross-sections and profiles: less than 0.2 of one (1) foot. 4) Bore holes: less than 0.5 of one (1) foot. Automation Requirements: 1. Planimetric design files (DGN) must be fully compatible with TxDOT’s MicroStation V8i graphics program without further modification or conversion. 2. Electronically collected and processed field survey data files must be fully compatible with TxDOT’s computer systems without further modification or conversion. All files must incorporate only those feature codes currently being used by TxDOT. 3. DTM must be fully compatible with the State’s GEOPAK system without further modification or conversion. All DTM must be fully edited and rectified to provide a complete digital terrain model with all necessary break lines.The Engineer’s Surveyor shall perform tasks including, but not limited to the following: Tasks to be Completed: The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall perform tasks including, but not limited to the list below. The use of ground-based Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is approved by the City. 1. Obtain or collect data to create cross-sections and digital terrain models. 2. Locate existing utilities including flow line dimensions and or structure invert dimensions. Request a utility location services through Texas 811 and locate marked utilities. 3. Locate topographical features and existing improvements. 4. Provide details of existing drainage features, (including but not limited to culverts and manholes with flow line and structure invert dimensions.). 5. Establish additional and verify existing control points. 6. Locate existing ROWs. 7. Review ROW maps. 8. Locate boreholes. 9. Perform hydrographic surveys. 10. Perform tree surveys. The limits of survey shall be as follows: 1. A 200’-wide swath along proposed SW Bypass alignment 2. Full swath of existing City ROW along proposed SW Bypass alignment 3. Survey at the Intersection of SW Bypass with Wolf Ranch Parkway a. 1000’ south along existing SW Bypass and 1000’ east along existing Wolf Ranch Parkway from the anticipated SW Bypass intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway b. Full width of existing City ROW within those limits 4. Survey at the Intersection of SW Bypass with SH 29 a. 1000’ north and 1000’ south from the anticipated SW Bypass intersection with SH 29 Page 77 of 150 Page 8 of 19 b. Full width of TxDOT ROW within those limits b. The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall prepare a Survey Control Index Sheet and a Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet(s), signed, sealed and dated by the professional engineer in direct responsible charge of the surveying and the responsible RPLS for insertion into the plan set. The Survey Control Index Sheet shows an overall view of the project control and the relationship or primary monumentation and control used in the preparation of the project; whereas, the Horizontal and Vertical Control sheet(s) identifies the primary survey control and the survey control monumentation used in the preparation of the project. Both the Survey Control Index Sheet and the Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet(s) must be used in conjunction with each other as a set. The following information shall be shown on the Survey Control Index Sheet: 1. Overall view of the project and primary control monuments set for control of the project 2. Identification of the control point 3. Baseline or centerline 4. Graphic (Bar) Scale 5. North Arrow 6. RPLS signature, seal, and date The following information shall be shown on all Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheets: 1. Location for each control point, showing baseline or centerline alignment and North arrow. 2. Station and offset (with respect to the baseline or centerline alignments) of each identified control point. 3. Basis of Datum for horizontal control (base control monument/benchmark name, number, datum). 4. Basis of Datum for the vertical control (base control monument, benchmark name, number, datum). 5. Date of current adjustment of the datum. 6. Monumentation set for Control (Description, District name/number and Location ties). 7. Surface Adjustment Factor and unit of measurement. 8. Coordinates (State Plan Coordinates [SPC] Zone and surface or grid). 9. Relevant metadata. 10. Graphic (Bar) Scale. 11. RPLS signature, seal and date. IV. Environmental Studies a. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment and Report. The ENGINEER shall conduct a habitat assessment of the project area for federal or state-listed threatened and endangered species and assess the impacts to the habitat. This will be completed through a desktop analysis, with a site visit to visually confirm the desktop findings and gather on-site observations of current habitat conditions. The ENGINEER shall consider the environmental information collected and reviewed in previous geologic assessments and any other applicable and readily available desktop information related to listed species with the Page 78 of 150 Page 9 of 19 potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area. The ENGINEER shall perform an in-situ habitat assessment for the golden- cheeked warbler (GCWA; Setophaga chrysoparia). Aerial imagery is inconclusive in determining potential habitat for the species within the project area and the adjacent forested area within 250 feet of the project area. The Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (WCRHCP) considers construction activity within 250 feet of GCWA habitat as “indirect impacts.” Therefore, the ENGINEER shall characterize habitat potential for GCWA within the project area and will characterize adjacent tracts without trespassing. Information collected during the site visit will include notes about current site conditions, as well as visual observations and photographs of vegetation, water flows, and landscape context (such as the extent of existing development or other habitat disturbance nearby). The ENGINEER shall prepare a report that describes the desktop and field findings and provides our opinion of the potential for the habitats present within the project area to support protected species. The threatened and endangered species report will be attached to the WCRHCP application for Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance (see Section IV, Task c) as an appendix. Upon completion of this report, the ENGINEER shall provide a draft electronic version to the City for review and comment, and upon completion of City review shall complete the final report. The ENGINEER shall submit to the City one electronic PDF of the final report. b. Geologic Assessment (GA) and Karst Survey. A majority of the project area is already covered under a previously conducted GA and karst survey. However, approximately 2 acres of project area within TxDOT ROW adjacent to State Highway 29 is not covered by these investigations. The ENGINEER shall search the project area under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional Geologist for the presence of surface features that TCEQ considers aquifer recharge points. The GA will conform to the “Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Transition Zones” as written by the TCEQ (2004). The ENGINEER shall conduct the pedestrian survey by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 30-50 feet apart within the project area. Based on the results of the field survey, The ENGINEER shall prepare a GA report to be submitted to TCEQ for review and permitting under the Edwards Aquifer Rules. This GA is intended for inclusion in the Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). GA field work results will also inform compliance efforts related to USFWS karst due diligence (karst survey) and provide the data required to support participation in the WCRHCP. Concurrent with the GA field assessment, the ENGINEER shall conduct a karst feature survey, by personnel holding a 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit from the USFWS for conducting all levels of karst investigation. The ENGINEER shall identify all potential karst features during the field survey and investigate for potential association with karst invertebrate habitat. Survey methods consist primarily of reconnaissance excavation with hand tools and will conform to Page 79 of 150 Page 10 of 19 current USFWS requirements. The ENGINEER shall generate a karst survey report for submittal to USFWS and/or the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF) as part of an RHCP application. c. Karst Feature Excavation. Based on experience in the immediate area, up to one (1) feature will be located during the GA which the ENGINEER shall manual ly excavate with a backhoe. The ENGINEER shall perform biotic surveys on this feature to identify what, if any, karst invertebrates may occupy the feature. Current USFWS karst invertebrate survey protocols require 14 separate visits to determine presence or probably absence of listed karst invertebrates. The ENGINEER shall include the results of the excavation in the Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment Report, Karst Survey Report, and RHCP application d. Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Application. Based on the results of Section IV, Tasks a and b, the ENGINEER shall draft a WCRHCP participation application for potential impacts to covered species within eligible portions of the project area. The ENGINEER shall provide the City with an electronic copy of the draft participation application within 30 days of the finalization of reports under Section IV, Tasks a and b, and receipt of Final PS&E (100%) plans. Once comments are received, the ENGINEER shall incorporate all comments, and provide the final participation application to the City for their submittal to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation. e. Cultural Resources. As Project construction will occur on land owned or managed by TxDOT and the City of Georgetown (a subdivision of the State of Texas), it is subject to the Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT) and the accompanying Rules of Practice and Procedure, which protects archaeological sites and historic buildings on public land. This scope of work is designed to meet all requirements of the ACT and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and includes a background review, the preparation of a Texas Antiquities Permit application for submittal to the Texas Historical Commission (THC), an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey with shovel testing, and a results report for review by the THC. Background Review. The ENGINEER shall conduct a thorough background archaeological literature and records review of the project area. For this research, the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall search the THC’s online Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (Atlas) database for previously recorded surveys and historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located in or near the project area. If necessary, the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall search site files, records, and map files housed at the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) and the THC Library. In addition to identifying previously recorded archaeological sites, the Atlas review will include the following types of information: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, State Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), Official Texas Historical Markers, Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks, cemeteries, and local neighborhood surveys. This task will allow the ENGINEER to identify any areas within the project area that have the potential to contain significant, undocumented cultural resources. As part of the review, the ENGINEER shall examine the Texas Department of Transportation Historic Page 80 of 150 Page 11 of 19 Overlay, a mapping/geographic information system (GIS) database with historic maps and resource information covering most portions of the state. Other critical factors that the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall examine include the level of previous disturbances, types of soils present, and any obvious standing structures which appear on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The ENGINEER’s archeologist shall evaluate archaeological potential prior to performing fieldwork with this information. A preliminary review of the Atlas indicates that portions of the corridor have been previously assessed in 2004 for the SW Bypass project; as a result of those investigations, archaeological site 41WM1148, a prehistoric lithic scatter, was identified. The THC indicated that the site was considered not eligible for the NRHP. Texas Antiquities Permit Application. The archaeological field investigations will require a Texas Antiquities Permit; therefore, the ENGINEER’s Principal Investigator will prepare a THC permit scope of work and application and submit it to the City for review and signatures. Once complete, the ENGINEER shall submit the application with all pertinent project documentation to the THC, the permitting and reviewing agency. The ENGINEER shall incorporate the results of the background review in the permit application. Cultural Resources Field Investigations. The ENGINEER shall perform an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey investigation of the project area with subsurface investigations as necessary based on field conditions. The survey will be of sufficient intensity to determine the nature, extent, and, if possible, potential significance of all cultural resources located within the project area. The survey will meet or exceed THC archaeological survey standards. The ENGINEER shall perform excavation for shovel test subsurface investigations, the location of which will be dependent upon variables such as previous disturbances and exposed bedrock. Shovel tests will be approximately 30 centimeters (cm) in diameter and excavated by hand in arbitrary 20-cm levels to 100 cm below surface unless soil characteristics or bedrock preclude reaching that depth. The ENGINEER shall screen the matrix from each shovel test through ¼-inch mesh, and the location of each excavation will be plotted using a hand- held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. The ENGINEER’s archeologist shall record each shovel test on a standardized form to document the excavations. The ENGINEER shall define and record all discovered cultural resources following standard state and federal guidelines. The ENGINEER shall map recorded sites in detail with a GPS unit and plotted on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps with a GPS unit and appropriate maps for planning purposes. The ENGINEER shall photograph existing standing structures within the project area. The ENGINEER shall conduct a review of historic aerial maps and county records as needed to determine the significance and age of any historic-age resources. The ENGINEER assumes that up to one cultural resources site may be identified within the project area and site 41WM1148 will be revisited. The ENGINEER shall perform a non-collection survey; artifacts will be tabulated, analyzed, and documented in the field, but not collected. Temporally diagnostic artifacts will be described in detail and photographed in the field, then left in place. This policy may reduce curation costs once the fieldwork is concluded. Page 81 of 150 Page 12 of 19 However, the THC’s review process requires that all original paperwork and copies of photographs be curated at an approved repository before the THC will clear the Antiquities Permit. The ENGINEER shall curate the required paperwork and photographs at TARL at the University of Texas-Austin. Reporting and Agency Coordination. Upon completion of the fieldwork phase, the ENGINEER shall prepare a report of the survey findings that will conform to THC and Council of Texas Archeologists standards. The report will document previous investigations in the area, background cultural and environmental settings, the methodology used in the investigations, the presence and condition of any previously recorded sites revealed in the records review, the general nature and extent of cultural resources encountered during the field investigations, recommendations on the need for any further work, and the potential significance of the cultural resources in regards to future development and eligibility for designation as State Archeological Landmarks (SALs) or for listing on the NRHP. The ENGINEER shall submit a digital draft copy of the report to the City for review and comment prior to agency submittal. Once this has been accomplished, the ENGINEER shall incorporate all appropriate edits and will submit a draft report to THC for review and comment. Once the draft report has been reviewed and accepted by the THC, the ENGINEER shall prepare one unbound copy and two tagged PDF copies of the report on archival-quality CD or DVD for submittal to the THC; if sites are discovered during the survey, one PDF will retain sensitive site maps and the other will not. Finally, the ENGINEER shall submit 12 bound copies to various designated libraries around the state, in fulfillment of permit requirements. f. TxDOT Scope Development Tool. The ENGINEER shall use the Scope Development Tool (SDT) to determine which human and natural resources must be analyzed based on project designs. This form includes a series of questions to provide general project information and identify potential impacts and anticipated regulatory requirements for the proposed project. Based on information provided by the City, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final SDT form. g. TxDOT Project Scoping Form. The Project Scoping Form is used to define the Project, identify required regulatory coordination/environmental permits, identify applicable public involvement, and identify applicable environmental studies/surveys. Based on information provided by the City, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final TxDOT Project Scoping Form. h. NEPA Classification Memo. The TxDOT Austin District will request concurrence with TxDOT Environmental Affairs to classify the Project as an expedited (c)(22) CE based, in part, on a previous FHWA-TxDOT programmatic agreement regarding the processing of certain types of projects, and an existing programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer (i.e., the Texas Historical Commission), FHWA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final NEPA Classification Memo in coordination with TxDOT. Page 82 of 150 Page 13 of 19 i. Tier I Site Assessment. The Tier I Site Assessment (version April 2017) covers the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) Analysis for a project (formerly this form was incorporated into the Biological Evaluation Form) and determines if early TPWD coordination is required for a project. Based on spatial and design information, as well as desktop and field survey data, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final Tier I Site Assessment and suggested attachments, including: i. Aerial map with delineated project boundaries. ii. USFWS T&E List for Williamson County iii. TPWD T&E List for Williamson County iv. Species Impact Table v. TPWD SGCN List vi. NDD EOID List and Tracked Managed Areas (required for TPWD Coordination) vii. EMST Project MOU Summary Table (required for TPWD Coordination) viii. Photos (required for TPWD Coordination) j. TxDOT Biological Evaluation Form. The Biological Evaluation Form (version December 2016) is used to identify and gather information related to federal ESA compliance and related federal requirements Based on spatial and design information, as well as desktop and field survey data, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final Biological Evaluation Form and suggested attachments, including: i. Aerial Map (with delineated project boundaries) ii. USFWS T&E List iii. TPWD T&E List iv. Species Impact Table v. NDD EOID List and Tracked Managed Areas (Required for TPWD Coordination) vi. EMST Project MOU Summary Table (Required for TPWD Coordination) vii. TPWD SGCN List viii. FPPA Documentation ix. NRCS Web Soil Survey Map x. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Map xi. Landscaping Plans xii. Photos (Required for TPWD Coordination) xiii. Previous TPWD Coordination Documentation (if applicable) k. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment. The ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final TxDOT Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Report (version April 2017). The ISA is a process that identifies potential hazardous materials impacts to TxDOT projects. The report will include, but is not limited to the following: i. Current and historic aerial and topographic maps. ii. Right-of-Way Maps, if available. Page 83 of 150 Page 14 of 19 iii. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, if available. iv. Current and historic land use information. v. Regulatory database search. vi. Oil/gas well database search. vii. Site reconnaissance results. viii. Regulatory staff interviews, if needed. l. Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments. The ENGINEER shall prepare an Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments (EPIC) sheet which will discuss any permit, issue, coordination commitment, or mitigation obligation necessary to address, offset, or compensate for the environmental impacts of the project, including aquifer coordination, wetland permits, stormwater permits, threatened or endangered species coordination, or archeological permits, and any mitigation or other commitment associated with the project. m. Right-of-Entry. The City will provide access to adjacent properties and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization. V. Final Design Roadway Design a. Roadway Geometric Design. The ENGINEER shall develop up to four (4) total preliminary alternatives for the intersections of SW Bypass with SH 29 and with Wolf Ranch Parkway, including proposed horizontal and vertical alignments. The ENGINEER shall develop up to two (2) preliminary alternatives for the SW Bypass alignment between Wolf Ranch Parkway and SH 29. The alternatives will comply with the design criteria established for the project. The ENGINEER shall review the alternatives with City staff and recommend preferred alternatives at one (1) meeting with City staff. The ENGINEER shall provide minor updates to the Ultimate SW Bypass schematic design CADD files to accommodate this project. Bicycle and pedestrian elements are excluded from this project. b. Typical Sections. The ENGINEER shall develop existing and proposed typical roadway sections for project. Typical sections must include width of travel lanes, shoulders, ROW, Proposed Profile Grade Line (PGL), centerline, pavement design, side slopes, sodding or seeding limits, and station limits. c. Plan & Profile Sheets – Roadway. The ENGINEER shall prepare plan & profile sheets for the project, beginning with the 30% Milestone submittal. The sheets shall include existing topography, ROW lines, utilities, survey control data, roadway geometry (vertical and horizontal), and drainage improvements. d. Intersection Layouts. The ENGINEER shall prepare intersection layouts that identify all horizontal and vertical geometry at the SW Bypass intersections with SH 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway. e. Cross Sections for Roadway. Using Bentley GEOPAK SS4 software, the ENGINEER shall develop and maintain a 3D model and roadway cross sections at 100-foot intervals along the proposed roadway alignment. The 3D model and cross sections Page 84 of 150 Page 15 of 19 shall include the proposed roadway improvements, and related drainage improvements. The ENGINEER shall develop an earthwork analysis to determine cut and fill quantities. f. Pavement Design. The ENGINEER shall obtain, log, and analyze 6 borings to a depth of approximately 10 feet. These services do not include clearing of trees or bushes along the planned alignment. The City will provide access to the boring locations and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization of drilling equipment. Prior to mobilization, the ENGINEER shall comply with local regulations to request a utility location services through Texas 811. The ENGINEER shall perform laboratory testing on soil samples limited to moisture content, Atterberg limits, percent retained on the no. 40 sieve, and soluble sulfate testing. The ENGINEER shall prepare a pavement design based on analysis of the borings. It is assumed that the new connecting pavement will match the existing asphalt pavement along Wolf Ranch Parkway and SH 29. The ENGINEER shall prepare a geotechnical pavement report and include provision of potential vertical rise (PVR) calculations per TxDOT procedure Tex-124-E along with flexible pavement recommendations based on the TxDOT FPS 21 software and rigid pavement recommendations based on the mechanistic empirical analysis. The ENGINEER shall provide depth of coverage computations for limiting post-construction PVR of 1, 1.5, and 2 inches. g. Incidental Sheets. The ENGINEER shall prepare the following sheets: Title Sheet, Index Sheet, Project Layout Sheet, and Horizontal Alignment Data Sheet. Drainage Design a. The ENGINEER shall perform hydrologic analysis. The ENGINEER shall develop drainage areas. The ENGINEER shall develop storm water hydrology for the roadway section for the project area. The hydrology will be modeled utilizing HEC-HMS with City of Georgetown drainage criteria. The ENGINEER shall incorporate the 10%, 4%, 2% and 1% annual chance storm events into the model. The ENGINEER shall model storm water flows to all cross culverts and roadway conveyances. Based on the data developed, The ENGINEER shall design drainage infrastructure for the project area. The ENGINEER shall employ ATLAS 14 rainfall frequencies. b. The ENGINEER shall develop hydraulic analysis to all cross-drainage structures conveyances and the roadway system using Culvert Master. The hydraulic analysis for all cross-drainage structures will be designed for the ultimate alignment/configuration of the roadway extension. The ENGINEER shall prepare Hydraulic Data Sheets. c. The ENGINEER shall develop final design for all cross drainage for the project. The ENGINEER shall illustrate all cross-drainage structures in plan profile sheets as well as detail sheets. The ENGINEER shall detail grading to existing ground elevations as well as elevations for flow lines and headwalls. The ENGINEER shall illustrate hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% annual chance storm event in the plans. The ENGINEER shall design and detail conveyance to reduce erosion. d. The ENGINEER shall develop final storm water collection systems for the project area, in conjunction with elements for water quality for new impervious cover within Page 85 of 150 Page 16 of 19 the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer. The ENGINEER shall review curb and gutter systems, roadside channels, extended detention basins, etc. and include the most applicable and cost-effective system in the project. The ENGINEER shall detail flow lines as well as hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% annual chance storm event. The ENGINEER shall design and present all drainage infrastructure in both plan and profile. e. The ENGINEER shall design storm water conveyance to existing streams and channel ways. The ENGINEER shall design conveyance for positive drainage and check current water surface elevations against proposed water surface elevations after project completion. f. The ENGINEER shall determine the requirements for water quality for the project. Designs will be based on the additional impervious cover proposed for this project and current TCEQ requirements for construction within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The ENGINEER shall endeavor to combine conveyance infrastructure with water quality to minimize project costs. Options will be designed and presented to Staff(s) for review. The option agreed upon will be included in the final design and submitted to the TCEQ for review and acceptance. The ENGINEER is not responsible for any fees from the TCEQ. g. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). Incidentals Design a. The ENGINEER shall design temporary erosion control measures to minimize potential impact to receiving waterways and shall develop plan sheets and details with the locations of the measures to be installed identified. b. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed small sign and pavement marking plan for the project route in accordance with City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. The sheets shall include existing signs to remain, to be removed, to be relocated or replaced, stationing to be annotated for existing and proposed sign locations, proposed signs (illustrated, numbered and sized), and designation of the shields to be attached to guide signs. The sheets shall include proposed pavement markings, object markings and delineation (illustrated and quantified), quantities of existing pavement markings to be removed, and proposed mailboxes. The ENGINEER shall prepare Sign Detail Sheets and Small Sign Summary Sheets. c. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed traffic control plan (TCP) in accordance with the City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. The ENGINEER shall provide a written narrative of the construction sequencing and work activities per phase, and determine the existing and proposed traffic control devices to be used to handle traffic during each construction sequence. The ENGINEER shall show temporary roadways and detours required to maintain lane continuity throughout the construction phasing. The ENGINEER shall develop the TCP to provide continuous, safe access to each adjacent property during all phases of construction and to preserve existing access. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Sequence of Work Narrative Sheet, Traffic Control Typical Page 86 of 150 Page 17 of 19 Section Sheets, Intersection Staging Sheets, and Detour Sheets, as needed. The ENGINEER shall prepare an Estimate of Construction Duration. d. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis (TSWA) for the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection for the existing conditions and opening year projected conditions. The TSWA will be conducted based on the guidelines established in the most recent Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and follow TxDOT policies and procedures considering anticipated future conditions. The TSWA will consider development anticipated to occur along SH 29 in the vicinity of SW Bypass using information in available in Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA). The known developments with TIAs anticipated to significantly impact the study area include Wolf Ranch, Wolf Lakes, and Urgent Care Center. The ENGINEER shall collect existing traffic volumes using automatic traffic counters to determine the existing traffic volumes. Automatic Traffic Recorders to record 24-hour traffic volumes will be placed at locations along SH 29 (up to two (2) locations) during a weekday. 12-hour turning movement count (TMC) will be collected at one intersection on SH 29 in the vicinity of SW Bypass. Traffic volumes for SW Bypass will be developed based on available traffic volumes projections and information contained within the available TIAs. The ENGINEER shall deliver a traffic signal warrant analysis report, signed and sealed by a Texas registered Professional Engineer. Up to one (1) meeting is anticipated to discuss the results of the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis. e. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed traffic signal design at the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection. Mast arms and signal heads shall be designed, but not included for construction; whether to construct pedestrian facilities will be at the discretion of the City. The ENGINEER shall include illumination on the traffic signal poles. The signal design will be prepared in accordance with TxDOT design standards and guidelines. The ENGINEER shall prepare a proposed signal layout with intersection striping. The signal layout shall include a traffic signal design consisting of a fully-actuated traffic signal with pedestrian facilities. The pedestrian facilities will include ramps and pedestrian signals. The design will follow ADA requirements and guidelines. The ENGINEER shall deliver a signal layout in accordance with the latest edition of the State’s PS&E Preparation Manual. f. The ENGINEER shall provide custom and standard (City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and/or TxDOT, as appropriate) miscellaneous construction details required to construct the project. g. The ENGINEER shall develop and prepare project specific technical specifications (City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and/or TxDOT, as appropriate). h. The ENGINEER shall prepare a project bid schedule. The ENGINEER shall perform a quantity take off for the project and will prepare an opinion of probable construction cost at each Milestone Submittal. The ENGINEER shall prepare Quantity Summary Sheets for inclusion in the PS&E package. i. The ENGINEER shall prepare Contract Documents and Technical Specification books and 100% Plan Sets and deliver to the City. Page 87 of 150 Page 18 of 19 j. The ENGINEER shall provide the following Milestone Submittals to the City: Preliminary Alternatives Submittal, 30% PS&E Submittal, 90% PS&E Submittal, Final PS&E Submittal. VI. Bidding a. The ENGINEER shall develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City staff for advertising the project for public bidding. b. The ENGINEER shall manage and distribute bidding documents. c. The ENGINEER shall prepare for the Pre-Bid Conference, develop an agenda and sign in sheet, attend the Pre-Bid Conference, take notes at the conference, prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda. d. The ENGINEER shall receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and answer in the form of an addenda. e. The ENGINEER shall conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids and certify them. f. The ENGINEER shall research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend award to the City of Georgetown. VII. Construction Administration a. The ENGINEER shall prepare contract documents and provide them to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, the ENGINEER shall check them for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution. b. The ENGINEER shall prepare and distribute construction plan sets, incorporating information and changes to the plans and specifications that were addressed in the Addenda. c. The ENGINEER shall attend the Pre-Construction Conference. The ENGINEER shall take and distribute minutes. d. The ENGINEER shall receive and review all shop drawings and material samples submittals for the project. Anticipated material samples include: Up to two (2) concrete batch design submittals, up to two (2) reinforcing steel submittals, up to two (2) flexible base submittals, and up to two (2) hot mix asphalt submittals, as well as up to three (3) other miscellaneous submittals. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City and the contractor. e. The ENGINEER shall attend twice-monthly construction progress meetings to discuss project specifics and schedules. The ENGINEER shall develop and distribute minutes to City staff and the contractor. Page 88 of 150 Page 19 of 19 f. The ENGINEER shall make monthly visits to the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City will provide daily on-site representation for the project. g. The ENGINEER shall make up to three (3) visits to the project site should any voids (karst features) lacking surface expression be encountered during construction. The ENGINEER shall document dimensions and assist the City in drafting a void closure plan for submittal to TCEQ, if necessary. Project coverage for incidental take of federally protected karst invertebrates by the Williamson County RHCP precludes presence/absence surveys to determine if listed species occur in these voids; therefore, the ENGINEER only anticipates a single site visit per encountered feature. h. The ENGINEER shall conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well. i. The ENGINEER shall develop final record drawings for the City. The record drawings will be presented in the form of a pdf of each plan sheet and a full 11x17 hard copy. Page 89 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SB Bypass from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 LABOR TASK NAME A&F SWCA ACS Terra KPA ATG CFA TOTAL FUNCTION CODE Section I Project Management/Coordination 76,750.00$ 17,695.00$ 10,510.00$ 509.57$ 12,095.00$ 5,480.00$ 7,540.00$ 130,579.57$ Section II Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 23,380.00$ -$ 14,600.00$ -$ -$ -$ 40,235.00$ 78,215.00$ Section III Survey -$ -$ 38,600.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 38,600.00$ Section IV Environmental Studies -$ 56,811.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 56,811.00$ Section V Final Design 146,836.00$ -$ -$ 7,616.18$ 58,575.00$ 28,555.00$ -$ 241,582.18$ Section VI Bidding 20,714.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3,550.00$ 5,240.00$ -$ 29,504.00$ Section VII Construction Administration 95,370.00$ 6,535.00$ -$ -$ 5,465.00$ 5,695.00$ -$ 113,065.00$ ODE 4,007.00$ 3,784.50$ -$ 5,068.40$ -$ 2,060.50$ 3,714.60$ 18,635.00$ 367,057.00$ 84,825.50$ 63,710.00$ 13,194.15$ 79,685.00$ 47,030.50$ 51,489.60$ 706,991.75$ PAGE 1 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 90 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 4006001401236$4,560.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 2 2 6 12 22 $2,456.00 Establish Project Controls 2 4 8 14 $2,104.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 60800400018$3,368.00 Prepare for Kickoff Meeting 3 3 6 $1,266.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 3 3 6 $1,266.00 Prepare Minutes for Kickoff Meeting 2 4 6 $836.00 c. Submittal Meetings 1201260600036$6,744.00 30% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 90% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 100% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 d. Contract Management 96 0 36 24 0 0 0 48 24 228 $39,624.00 Design Schedule (monthly) 24 24 $5,376.00 Invoices (monthly) 24 24 48 $7,248.00 Progress Reports (monthly) 12 12 $2,688.00 Project Records 24 48 72 $9,120.00 Subconsultant Coordination 24 24 48 $10,128.00 City of Georgetown Coordination 12 12 24 $5,064.00 e. Collect Data 208461200032$4,860.00 Collect and Review Data 2 4468 24$3,628.00 Field Reconnaissance 4 4 8 $1,232.00 f. Design Criteria 1 2 7 10 $1,810.00 g. Coordinate AFA 1701460600043$8,260.00 Coordinate Between Georgetown and TxDOT 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare AFA Exhibits 3 6 6 15 $2,352.00 Coordination Meetings (up to 3) 6 6 12 $2,532.00 h. QAQC 024000000024$4,992.00 Preliminary Alternatives Submittal 4 4 $832.00 30% Submittal 8 8 $1,664.00 90% Submittal 8 8 $1,664.00 100% Submittal 4 4 $832.00 i. Agency Meetings (up to 3) 6 6 12 $2,532.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 144 24 86 53 6 28 14 48 36 439 $76,750.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $32,256.00 $4,992.00 $17,028.00 $9,010.00 $828.00 $3,080.00 $1,708.00 $5,040.00 $2,808.00 $76,750.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 32.80% 5.47% 19.59% 12.07% 1.37% 6.38% 3.19% 10.93% 8.20% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 42.03% 6.50% 22.19% 11.74% 1.08% 4.01% 2.23% 6.57% 3.66% Subtotal Section I $76,750.00 $76,750.00 PAGE 2 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 91 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support a. Property Owner Map 0 $0.00 b. Assist ROW Agent 28 0 32 0 0 16 0 0 0 76 $14,368.00 Prepare for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare Exhibits for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 32 $5,136.00 Conduct Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare Minutes for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 4 8 12 $2,480.00 c. Coordinate WilCo ROW 1401600000030$6,304.00 Prepare for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Exhibits for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Conduct Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Minutes for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 2 4 6 $1,240.00 d. Prepare ROW Documents (up to 2 parcels) 0006000006$1,020.00 Prepare Proposed ROW Map 4 4 $680.00 Prepare Metes and Bounds Documents 1 1 $170.00 Prepare Field Sketches 1 1 $170.00 g. Attend Utility Conflict Meetings 4040000008$1,688.00 30% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 4 $844.00 95% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 4 $844.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 46 0 52 6 0 16 0 0 0 120 $23,380.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $10,304.00 $0.00 $10,296.00 $1,020.00 $0.00 $1,760.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,380.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 38.33% 0.00% 43.33% 5.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 44.07% 0.00% 44.04% 4.36% 0.00% 7.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section II $23,380.00 $23,380.00 PAGE 3 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 92 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Roadway Design 18 0 34 83 112 130 87 142 0 606 $80,154.00 a. Roadway Geometric Design 6088163236079$11,012.00 SW Bypass at SH 29 Intersection Alternatives (up to 2) 1 124812 19$2,526.00 SW Bypass at Wolf Ranch Parkway Intersection Alternatives (up to 2)124812 18$2,302.00 SW Bypass Alignment Alternatives (up to 2) 1 124812 19$2,526.00 Meet with Georgetown to Select Alternatives 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Minor Updates to Ultimate SW Bypass (cadd files only)1248 15$1,970.00 b. Typical Sections 00124608021$2,590.00 Existing Typical Sections (SH 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway only)1 2 2 4 9 $1,086.00 Proposed Typical Sections 1124 4 12$1,504.00 c. Plan & Profile Sheets (50 scale, assume 8 sheets) 4 8 16 32 32 32 64 188 $23,760.00 d. Intersection Layouts 10248848035$4,612.00 SW Bypass at SH 29 1 124424 18$2,418.00 SW Bypass at Wolf Ranch Parkway 124424 17$2,194.00 e. Cross Sections 7 0 11 45 52 52 45 28 0 240 $32,722.00 Develop and Maintain 3D Model 4 8 40 40 40 40 16 188 $25,760.00 Prepare 100-fot Cross Sections 2 248848 36$4,836.00 Develop Earthwork Analysis 1 114414 16$2,126.00 g. Incidental Sheets 004800328043$5,458.00 Title Sheet 1 1 1 4 7 $910.00 Index Sheet 4 8 12 $1,520.00 Project Layout 1 2 1 8 12 $1,500.00 Horizontal Alignment Data 2 1 1 8 12 $1,528.00 PAGE 4 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 93 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP Incidentals Design 30 0 34 96 82 88 22 126 0 478 $66,682.00 b. Signing and Pavement Marking 2038142410440105$12,814.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts (50 scale, double banked, assume 4 sheets)1 2 4 8 16 8 16 55 $6,820.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Intersection Layouts (50 scale, assume 2 sheets)1 1248212 30$3,698.00 Prepare Sign Details 1 1 8 10 $1,148.00 Prepare Small Sign Summary Sheet 1 1 8 10 $1,148.00 c. Traffic Control 8 0 15 46 20 20 10 40 0 159 $22,962.00 Prepare Narrative 1 2 8 4 15 $2,400.00 Prepare TCP Typical Sections (assume 2 Phases) 2 4 4 8 18 $2,172.00 Prepare Intersection Staging Layouts (50 scale, assume 2 Phases each intersection)2 4 6 16 16 8 16 68 $8,884.00 Prepare Detour Layouts (assume 1 per intersection) 1 1 2 2 12 18 $2,266.00 Prepare Estimate of Construction Duration 4 8 28 40 $7,240.00 f. Construction Details 1 0 5 15 0 2 2 30 0 55 $7,378.00 Prepare Roadway Custom Details 1 2 4 2 2 4 15 $2,184.00 Prepare Roadway Standard Details 1 1 6 8 $998.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Standard Details 1 5 10 16 $2,098.00 Prepare TCP Standard Details 1 5 10 16 $2,098.00 g. Technical Specifications 1 4 16 16 37 $5,496.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 2 0 7 11 24 26 0 12 0 82 $11,136.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 2 4 8 12 14 40 $5,796.00 Prepare Roadway Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 Prepare TCP Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 i. Contract Documents 16 24 40 $6,896.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 48 0 68 179 194 218 109 268 0 1084 $146,836.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $10,752.00 $0.00 $13,464.00 $30,430.00 $26,772.00 $23,980.00 $13,298.00 $28,140.00 $0.00 $146,836.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.43% 0.00% 6.27% 16.51% 17.90% 20.11% 10.06% 24.72% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 7.32% 0.00% 9.17% 20.72% 18.23% 16.33% 9.06% 19.16% 0.00% Subtotal Section V $146,836.00 $146,836.00 PAGE 5 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 94 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding a. Invitation to Bid 2222 2 212$1,976.00 b. Manage Bid Documents 2 2 4 4 4 16 $2,116.00 c. Pre-Bid Conference 6176121628260$8,614.00 Prepare for Conference 2 2222 10$1,680.00 Attend Conference 2 2 2 6 $1,064.00 Prepare Minutes for Conference 1 1 2 4 $642.00 Prepare Addenda 1124101028240$5,228.00 d. Respond to Questions 2 4444 220$3,068.00 e. Bid Letting 4 4 4 12 $2,128.00 f. Research Qualifications 112444 420$2,812.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 15 6 21 16 24 34 2 8 14 140 $20,714.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $3,360.00 $1,248.00 $4,158.00 $2,720.00 $3,312.00 $3,740.00 $244.00 $840.00 $1,092.00 $20,714.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 10.71% 4.29% 15.00% 11.43% 17.14% 24.29% 1.43% 5.71% 10.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 16.22% 6.02% 20.07% 13.13% 15.99% 18.06% 1.18% 4.06% 5.27% Subtotal Section VI $20,714.00 $20,714.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration a. Contract Documents 2 4 6 $760.00 b. Construction Plan Sets 1 1 2 8 12 $1,642.00 c. Pre-Construction Conference 60600000012$2,532.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Minutes for Conference 2 2 4 $844.00 d. Submittal Review 0404000000080$16,240.00 Review Shop Drawings 20 20 40 $8,120.00 Review Material Samples (up to 11 total submittals) 20 20 40 $8,120.00 e. Consturction Progress Meetings 104 0 104 000000208$43,888.00 Prepare for Construction Meetings 26 26 52 $10,972.00 Attend Construction Meetings (Bi-Weekly) 52 52 104 $21,944.00 Prepare Minutes for Construction Meetings 26 26 52 $10,972.00 f. Project Site Visits (monthly) 48 48 96 $16,032.00 g. Unanticipated Void Clusure Plans (up to 3) 6 10 24 40 $5,964.00 h. Final Walk Through 60060400016$2,804.00 Final Walk Through 4 4 8 $1,576.00 Prepare Punch List 2 2 4 8 $1,228.00 i. Record Drawings 1 1 2 12 32 48 $5,508.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 174 41 163 8 0 96 0 32 4 518 $95,370.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $38,976.00 $8,528.00 $32,274.00 $1,360.00 $0.00 $10,560.00 $0.00 $3,360.00 $312.00 $95,370.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 33.6% 7.9% 31.5% 1.5% 0.0% 18.5% 0.0%6.2% 0.8% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 40.9% 8.9% 33.8% 1.4% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%3.5% 0.3% Section VII Subtotal $95,370.00 $95,370.00 PAGE 6 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 95 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 439 $76,750.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 120 $23,380.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 1,084 $146,836.00 Section VI - Bidding 140 $20,714.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 518 $95,370.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 2301 $363,050.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 400 $0.580 $232.00 Toll Charges each 10 $5.00 $50.00 Photocopies B/W (11" X 17") each 3000 $0.15 $450.00 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 500 $0.15 $75.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 1000 $1.50 $1,500.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 200 $1.50 $300.00 Plots (B/W on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 200 $3.00 $600.00 Plots (Color on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 200 $4.00 $800.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $4,007.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $363,050.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $4,007.00 GRAND TOTAL $367,057.00 PAGE 7 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 96 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: SWCA TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 040000060818$2,914.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 4 8 12 $1,996.00 Establish Project Controls 6 6 $918.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 050000000712$1,880.00 Prepare for Kickoff Meeting 2 4 6 $998.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 2 2 4 $588.00 Prepare Minutes for Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2 $294.00 d. Contract Management 1830100112035$5,631.00 Invoices (monthly)8 8 $1,640.00 Progress Reports (monthly)8 8 $1,640.00 Project Records 2 2 $410.00 Subconsultant Coordination 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 14 $1,538.00 City of Georgetown Coordination 2 1 3 $403.00 i. Agency Meetings (up to 3)03820000001858$7,270.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 155501007153123$17,695.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $79.00 $4,895.00 $495.00 $0.00 $119.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,071.00 $171.00 $10,865.00 $17,695.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.81% 44.72% 4.07% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00%0.00% 5.69% 0.81% 43.09% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.45% 27.66% 2.80% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%0.00% 6.05% 0.97% 61.40% Subtotal Section I $17,695.00 $17,695.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section IV - Environmental Studies a. T&E Report 02012000086248$5,628.00 b. Geologic Assessment & Karst Survey 0 44 40000016266$7,458.00 c. Karst Feature Excavation 148 2 16 2 168 $16,516.00 d. RHCP Application 0184000006028$3,024.00 e. Cultural Resources 34344060000381$7,437.00 Background Review 44 8 $672.00 Texas Antiquities Permit Application 6 4 2 12 $1,068.00 Curation of Permit 10 6 1 17 $1,443.00 Cultural Resources Field Investigations 8 8 1 1 18 $1,668.00 Reporting and Agency Coordination 6 12 4 2 2 26 $2,586.00 f. Scope Development Tool 06000000028$944.00 g. Project Scoping Form 0120000000214$1,478.00 h. NEPA Classification Memo 0 12 0000000214$1,478.00 i. Tier I Site Assessment 0242000000430$3,154.00 j. Biological Evaluation Form 0 24 2000000430$3,154.00 k. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment 0 34 4000000846$5,062.00 l. EPIC Sheet(s)12 2 14 $1,478.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 3438834060084433547$56,811.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $2,686.00 $34,532.00 $3,366.00 $0.00 $714.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,224.00 $7,524.00 $6,765.00 $56,811.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 6.2% 70.9% 6.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 8.0% 6.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 4.7% 60.8% 5.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 13.2% 11.9% Subtotal Section IV $56,811.00 $56,811.00 PAGE 8 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 97 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: SWCA TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration g. Unanticipated Void Clusure Plans (up to 3) 03500000020055$6,535.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 03500000020055$6,535.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $3,115.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,420.00 $0.00 $6,535.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.0% 63.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.0% 47.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52.3% 0.0% Section VII Subtotal $6,535.00 $6,535.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 123 $17,695.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 547 $56,811.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 55 $6,535.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 725 $81,041.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 3275 $0.580 $1,899.50 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 600 $0.15 $90.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 450 $1.50 $675.00 HazMat Report from Banks each 1 $200.00 $200.00 GPS each 6 $70.00 $420.00 Archaeology Curations each 500 $1.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $3,784.50 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $81,041.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $3,784.50 GRAND TOTAL $84,825.50 PAGE 9 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 98 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum EXHIBIT B SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: All County Surveying, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 5240400015$1,620.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 4 4 8 $840.00 Establish Project Controls 124 7 $780.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 220000004$550.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 22 4 $550.00 d. Contract Management 36 12 0 0 24 0 0 0 72 $8,340.00 Invoices (monthly)12 12 24 $2,520.00 Progress Reports (monthly)12 12 24 $2,520.00 Subconsultant Coordination 12 12 24 $3,300.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 43 16 4 0 28 0 0 0 91 $10,510.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $6,450.00 $2,000.00 $380.00 $0.00 $1,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,510.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 47.25% 17.58% 4.40% 0.00% 30.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 61.37% 19.03% 3.62% 0.00% 15.98% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $10,510.00 $10,510.00 TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support a. Property Owner Map 12416 23 $2,140.00 b. Assist ROW Agent 2208000012$1,230.00 Prepare for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 2 2 8 12 $666.00 c. Coordinate WilCo ROW 110400006$615.00 Prepare for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 1 1 4 6 $333.00 d. Prepare ROW Documents (up to 2 parcels) 6 6 10 50 5 21 0 0 98 $10,615.00 Prepare Proposed ROW Map 4 3 5 10 2 24 $2,420.00 Prepare Metes and Bounds Documents 2 3 5 38 3 51 $4,560.00 Prepare Field Sketches 0002 21 23$3,635.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 10 11 14 78 5 21 0 0 139 $14,600.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $1,500.00 $1,375.00 $1,330.00 $6,630.00 $300.00 $3,465.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,600.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 7.19% 7.91% 10.07% 56.12% 3.60% 15.11% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 10.27% 9.42% 9.11% 45.41% 2.05% 23.73% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section II $14,600.00 $14,600.00 PAGE 10 OF 20 EXHIBIT DPage 99 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum EXHIBIT B SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: All County Surveying, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section III - Survey a. Perform Design Survey 0 0 25 90 0 132 0 0 247 $31,805.00 Survey 200' Swath Along Proposed SW Bypass Alignment 5 18 27 50 $6,460.00 Survey Full Existing ROW Width Along Proposed SW Bypass Alignment 10 36 50 96 $12,260.00 Survey Along Wolf Ranch Parkway 5 18 27 50 $6,460.00 Survey Along SH 29 5 18 28 51 $6,625.00 b. Prepare Survey Control Sheets 2 8 14 49 73 $6,795.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 2 8 39 139 0 132 0 0 320 $38,600.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $300.00 $1,000.00 $3,705.00 $11,815.00 $0.00 $21,780.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,600.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.63% 2.50% 12.19% 43.44% 0.00% 41.25% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.78% 2.59% 9.60% 30.61% 0.00% 56.42% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section III $38,600.00 $38,600.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 91 $10,510.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 139 $14,600.00 Section III - Survey 320 $38,600.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 550 $63,710.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $63,710.00 GRAND TOTAL $63,710.00 PAGE 11 OF 20 EXHIBIT DPage 100 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Terracon Consultants, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Project Engineer Engineer in Training Engineer Tech Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination d. Contract Management 0120003$509.57 Subconsultant Coordination 1 2 3 $509.57 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 0120003$509.57 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $225.21 $209.47 $150.05 $100.11 $89.33 $64.69 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $209.47 $300.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $509.57 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 41.11% 58.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $509.57 $509.57 Curation of Permit $0.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Project Engineer Engineer in Training Engineer Tech Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Roadway Design 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 f. Pavement Design 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 Utility Clearances 1 2 2 5 $528.93 Drilling Coordination 2 4 2 8 $879.20 Logging Drilling Activities 12 12 $1,071.96 Review field logs & Assign Laboratory Testing 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Laboratory Data Review 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Boring Log Preparation 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Flexible Pavement Design 2 8 10 $1,650.82 Rigid Pavement Design 2 8 10 $1,650.82 Report Preparation 1 2 4 1 8 $1,309.04 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $225.21 $209.47 $150.05 $100.11 $89.33 $64.69 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $1,126.05 $418.94 $3,676.23 $900.99 $1,429.28 $64.69 $7,616.18 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 8.70% 3.48% 42.61% 15.65% 27.83% 1.74% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 14.78% 5.50% 48.27% 11.83% 18.77% 0.85% Subtotal Section V $7,616.18 $7,616.18 PAGE 12 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 101 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Terracon Consultants, Inc. DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 3 $509.57 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 58 $7,616.18 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 60.5 $8,125.75 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 80 $0.580 $46.40 Soil Boring with TCP (< 60 ft.) [Truck Rig] linear foot 60 $37.00 $2,220.00 Mobilization of Drilling Rig (Trips < 100 miles from office to site) each 1 $450.00 $450.00 Determining Moisture Content in Soil Materials each 12 $10.00 $120.00 Atterberg Limits (TEX-104-E) each 12 $91.00 $1,092.00 Amount of Minus No. 40 Sieve Material of Soils each 12 $45.00 $540.00 Determining Sulphate Content in Soils - Colorimetric Method each 12 $50.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $5,068.40 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $8,125.75 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $5,068.40 GRAND TOTAL $13,194.15 PAGE 13 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 102 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 $1,200.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 $1,200.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 d. Contract Management 7 5 7 13 4 8 8 52 $5,890.00 Invoices (monthly)2 8 10 $840.00 Progress Reports (monthly)3 3 3 5 14 $2,010.00 Subconsultant Coordination 2 2 4 8 4 8 28 $3,040.00 e. Collect Data 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 8 $825.00 Field Reconnaissance 1 1 2 2 2 8 $825.00 f. Design Criteria 1 1 2 4 $505.00 h. QAQC 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 15 $2,475.00 30% Submittal 111 3 $495.00 90% Submittal 222 6 $990.00 100% Submittal 222 6 $990.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 16 16 18 21 6 10 8 95 $12,095.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $3,200.00 $2,560.00 $2,430.00 $2,205.00 $510.00 $750.00 $440.00 $12,095.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 16.84% 16.84% 18.95% 22.11% 6.32% 10.53% 8.42% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 26.46% 21.17% 20.09% 18.23% 4.22% 6.20% 3.64% Subtotal Section I $12,095.00 $12,095.00 PAGE 14 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 103 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Drainage Design 20 34 72 114 44 124 0 408 $44,170.00 a. Hydrologic Analysis 2 4 10 14 4 14 0 48 $5,250.00 Drainage Area Sheets 2 4 2 8 16 $1,460.00 Hydrologic Modeling (HEC-HMS) 2 4 8 10 2 6 32 $3,790.00 b. Hydraulic Analysis 2 6 10 16 2 6 0 42 $5,010.00 Hydraulic Calculations 2 4 8 12 2 4 32 $3,850.00 Hydraulic Data Sheets 2 2 4 2 10 $1,160.00 c. Culvert Layout Sheets 2 4 8 14 4 18 50 $5,280.00 d. Storm Conveyance Plan & Profile Sheets (100 scale) 4 4 18 28 16 48 118 $11,770.00 f. Water Quality Design 6 12 18 30 16 30 0 112 $12,310.00 Water Quality Analysis & Calculations 2 4 8 2 2 18 $2,020.00 Water Quality Elements Evaluation 2 2 2 4 2 4 16 $1,880.00 Water Quality Element Design 4 8 12 18 12 24 78 $8,410.00 k. WPAP 4 4 8 12 2 8 38 $4,550.00 Incidentals Design 6 13 21 34 22 38 0 134 $14,405.00 a. Temporary Erosion Control 2 3 3 6 6 10 0 30 $3,175.00 Erosion Control Plan Layout 2 2 2 4 4 8 22 $2,350.00 Erosion Control Details 1 1 2 2 2 8 $825.00 f. Construction Details 2 6 14 18 12 20 0 72 $7,660.00 Prepare Drainage Custom Details 2 6 6 4 8 26 $2,700.00 Prepare Drainage Standard Details 2 4 8 12 8 12 46 $4,960.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 2 4 4 10 4 8 0 32 $3,570.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 1 2 2 4 2 4 15 $1,680.00 Prepare Drainage, Water Quality, and SW3P Quantity Summary Sheet 1 2 2 6 2 4 17 $1,890.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 26 47 93 148 66 162 0 542 $58,575.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $5,200.00 $7,520.00 $12,555.00 $15,540.00 $5,610.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $58,575.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.80% 8.67% 17.16% 27.31% 12.18% 29.89% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 8.88% 12.84% 21.43% 26.53% 9.58% 20.74% 0.00% Subtotal Section V $58,575.00 $58,575.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding c. Pre-Bid Conference 1 3 4 2 2 2 0 14 $1,750.00 Attend Conference 22 4 $590.00 Prepare Addenda 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 $1,160.00 d. Respond to Questions 1 2 4 4 2 2 15 $1,800.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 2 5 8 6 4 4 0 29 $3,550.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $400.00 $800.00 $1,080.00 $630.00 $340.00 $300.00 $0.00 $3,550.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 6.90% 17.24% 27.59% 20.69% 13.79% 13.79% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 11.27% 22.54% 30.42% 17.75% 9.58% 8.45% 0.00% Subtotal Section VI $3,550.00 $3,550.00 PAGE 15 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 104 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration d. Submittal Review 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 8 $1,010.00 Review Shop Drawings 2 2 4 8 $1,010.00 f. Project Site Visits (monthly)4 4 4 12 $1,600.00 h. Final Walk Through 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 12 $1,680.00 Final Walk Through 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 Prepare Punch List 2 2 4 $480.00 i. Record Drawings 1 1 1 2 2 4 11 $1,175.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 3 9 11 14 2 4 0 43 $5,465.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $600.00 $1,440.00 $1,485.00 $1,470.00 $170.00 $300.00 $0.00 $5,465.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 7.0% 20.9% 25.6% 32.6% 4.7% 9.3% 0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 11.0% 26.3% 27.2% 26.9% 3.1% 5.5% 0.0% Section VII Subtotal $5,465.00 $5,465.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 95 $12,095.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 542 $58,575.00 Section VI - Bidding 29 $3,550.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 43 $5,465.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 709 $79,685.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $79,685.00 GRAND TOTAL $79,685.00 PAGE 16 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 105 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Alliance Transportation Group TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 002000002$550.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 1 1 $275.00 Establish Project Controls 1 1 $275.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 001001002$445.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2 $445.00 c. Submittal Meetings 001001002$445.00 90% Milestone 1 1 2 $445.00 d. Contract Management 001000001$275.00 Invoices (monthly)1 1 $275.00 e. Collect Data 00008010018$2,530.00 Collect and Review Data 2 2 $250.00 Field Reconnaissance 8 8 16 $2,280.00 f. Design Criteria 2 2 $320.00 h. QAQC 001040005$915.00 90% Submittal 1 2 3 $595.00 100% Submittal 2 2 $320.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 006014210032$5,480.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $1,650.00 $0.00 $2,240.00 $340.00 $1,250.00 $0.00 $5,480.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 0.00% 18.75% 0.00% 43.75% 6.25% 31.25% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 0.00% 30.11% 0.00% 40.88% 6.20% 22.81% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $5,480.00 $5,480.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Incidentals Design 1 5 9 15 17 21 86 24 178 $28,555.00 d. Traffic Signal Warrant 104241032053$8,125.00 Analysis 4 24 28 $3,680.00 Report 1 22448 21$3,555.00 Meeting 2 2 4 $890.00 e. Traffic Signal and Illumination 022885482093$14,520.00 Proposed Layout Sheet 11444321662$9,625.00 Proposed Wiring Sheet 1144116431$4,895.00 f. Construction Details 0112224012$2,095.00 Prepare Signal Standard Details 112224 12$2,095.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 0223342420$3,815.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 11112 6$1,230.00 Prepare Signal and Illumination Quantity Summary Sheet 112222414$2,585.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 1 5 9 15 17 21 86 24 178 $28,555.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $275.00 $1,250.00 $2,475.00 $3,075.00 $2,720.00 $3,570.00 $10,750.00 $4,440.00 $28,555.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.56% 2.81% 5.06% 8.43% 9.55% 11.80%48.31% 13.48% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.96% 4.38% 8.67% 10.77% 9.53% 12.50% 37.65% 15.55% Subtotal Section V $28,555.00 $28,555.00 PAGE 17 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 106 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Alliance Transportation Group TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding c. Pre-Bid Conference 004004008$1,780.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,780.00 d. Respond to Questions 4 8 8 20 $3,460.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 00800128028$5,240.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,040.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $5,240.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 28.57% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 0.00% 41.98% 0.00% 0.00% 38.93% 19.08% 0.00% Subtotal Section VI $5,240.00 $5,240.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration c. Pre-Construction Conference 004004008$1,780.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,780.00 d. Submittal Review 0010048013$1,955.00 Review Shop Drawings 1 4 8 13 $1,955.00 i. Record Drawings 1 2 2 2 4 11 $1,960.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 017021012032$5,695.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $250.00 $1,925.00 $0.00 $320.00 $1,700.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $5,695.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.0% 3.1% 21.9% 0.0% 6.3% 31.3% 37.5%0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.0% 4.4% 33.8% 0.0% 5.6% 29.9% 26.3%0.0% Section VII Subtotal $5,695.00 $5,695.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 32 $5,480.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 178 $28,555.00 Section VI - Bidding 28 $5,240.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 32 $5,695.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 270 $44,970.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 600 $0.580 $348.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 15 $1.50 $22.50 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 60 $1.50 $90.00 Data Collection - 12-hour TMC each 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Data Collection - 24-Hour Bi-Directional Traffic Count each 2 $300.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $2,060.50 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $44,970.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $2,060.50 GRAND TOTAL $47,030.50 PAGE 18 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 107 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Cobb Fendley TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager II Project Engineer III Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Senior Technician Technician II Utility Specialist 2-Man Designating Crew Vac Truck & Crew RPLS Technician I Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 20000000000103$520.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 1 1 2 $300.00 Establish Project Controls 1 1 $220.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 20200000000004$750.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 22 4 $750.00 c. Submittal Meetings 606000000000012$2,250.00 30% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 90% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 100% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 d. Contract Management 1200000000001013$2,720.00 Progress Reports (monthly)12 1 13 $2,720.00 e. Collect Data 04400000000008$1,300.00 Field Reconnaissance 44 8 $1,300.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 22412000000002040$7,540.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $220.00 $170.00 $155.00 $135.00 $145.00 $115.00 $150.00 $170.00 $300.00 $175.00 $95.00 $80.00 $150.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $4,840.00 $680.00 $1,860.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160.00 $0.00 $7,540.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 55.00% 10.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 64.19% 9.02% 24.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.12% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $7,540.00 $7,540.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager II Project Engineer III Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Senior Technician Technician II Utility Specialist 2-Man Designating Crew Vac Truck & Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support e. Utility Coordination 1004004200002049$7,220.00 Compile Utility Contact List 0.5 2 1 3.5 $460.00 Initial Project Notification Letter 0.5 2 2 1 5.5 $760.00 Communications with Utilities - Duration of Project 40 40 $6,000.00 f. Develop Utility Conflict Map 1 3 4 16 2 12 200000040$5,480.00 As-Builts/Record Research 0.5 2 2.5 $355.00 Create Existing Utility Layout 0.5 2 2 12 16.5 $2,025.00 Create 30% Conflict Matrix and Utility Conflict Map (Based upon 30% Design Submittal) 0.5 1 2 8 1 12.5 $1,820.00 Create 95% Conflict Matrix and Utility Conflict Map (Based upon 95% Design Submittal) 0.5 1 2 4 1 8.5 $1,280.00 g. Attend Utility Conflict Meetings 428824600002036$5,350.00 30% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 2 1 7 $1,130.00 Review and Evaluate Utility Relocation Plans 124121 11 $1,545.00 95% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 2 1 7 $1,130.00 Review and Evaluate Utility Relocation Plans 124121 11 $1,545.00 h. Prepare Utility Agreements 0.5 100001600001018.5$2,760.00 Prepare Agreements (Up to 2) 0.5 1 12 1 14.5 $2,160.00 Meet with Utilities for Agreement Review 4 4 $600.00 i. Obtain SUE 400015012242424216103$19,425.00 Obtain QL B Data (up to 2200 LF) 2 10 8 24 1 2 1 12 60 $9,415.00 Obtain QL A Data (up to 5 Test Holes) 2 5 4 24121443$10,010.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 10.5 6 12 28 19 16 78 24 24 2 4 7 16 246.5 $40,235.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $220.00 $170.00 $155.00 $135.00 $145.00 $115.00 $150.00 $170.00 $300.00 $175.00 $95.00 $80.00 $150.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $2,310.00 $1,020.00 $1,860.00 $3,780.00 $2,755.00 $1,840.00 $11,700.00 $4,080.00 $7,200.00 $350.00 $380.00 $560.00 $2,400.00 $40,235.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.26% 2.43% 4.87% 11.36% 7.71% 6.49%31.64% 9.74% 9.74% 0.81% 1.62% 2.84% 6.49% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 5.74% 2.54% 4.62% 9.39% 6.85% 4.57% 29.08% 10.14% 17.89% 0.87% 0.94% 1.39% 5.96% Subtotal Section II $40,235.00 $40,235.00 PAGE 19 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 108 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Cobb Fendley DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 40 $7,540.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 246.5 $40,235.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 286.5 $47,775.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 70 $0.580 $40.60 Certified Letter Return Receipt each 4 $10.00 $40.00 Photocopies B/W (11" X 17") each 50 $0.15 $7.50 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 100 $0.15 $15.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 100 $1.50 $150.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 75 $1.50 $112.50 Plots (B/W on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 72 $3.00 $216.00 CDs each 4 $2.00 $8.00 Vac Truck Mobilization mile 50 $6.50 $325.00 Traffic Control Setup each 4 $700.00 $2,800.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $3,714.60 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $47,775.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $3,714.60 GRAND TOTAL $51,489.60 PAGE 20 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 109 of 150 Page 110 of 150 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT A DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE of SERVICES PROVIDED BY ENGINEER AGUIRRE & FIELDS, LP SUGAR LAND, TEXAS Project Description: The work to be performed by the Engineer under this contract consists of providing final plans, specifications, bidding and construction administration services for the SW Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 Connection project (See Attached Exhibit C). The professional services will consist of providing final roadway, drainage, and incidental designs, as well as Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) coordination between the Owner and the State, utility coordination, environmental investigations and reports, survey, geotechnical investigations, Right of Way (ROW) and Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) metes and bounds documents, bidding documents, bidding services, and construction administration services. Scope of Services: The scope of services includes: I. Project Management/Coordination a. The ENGINEER shall mobilize resources to set up the project, including preparing and executing subconsultant agreements, and establishing project controls. b. The ENGINEER shall coordinate, conduct and document a Project Kickoff Meeting with City staff, internal staff, and subconsultant team members. The ENGINEER shall discuss the project overview, design criteria, communication plan, team member responsibilities, and project schedule. c. The ENGINEER shall attend 30%, 90% and 100% Milestone Submittal Meetings with City staff. The ENGINEER shall review the submittal package with City staff, record written questions and comments, and provide recommended resolutions to City staff for approval and discussion. d. The ENGINEER shall provide management and coordination for all activities included in the contract, including preparing a design schedule and providing monthly updates, developing monthly invoices and progress reports, maintaining the project file and records, subconsultant coordination, and coordination with the City. e. The ENGINEER shall obtain and review the existing data provided from the City including, but not limited to, as-built plans, planning studies along the proposed and/ or connecting routes, documents for existing and proposed development along the proposed route, ROW maps, existing survey data, and floodplain information and studies. The ENGINEER shall conduct field reconnaissance and collect data. The ENGINEER shall notify the City in writing whenever the ENGINEER finds disagreement with the information or documents. f. The ENGINEER shall establish project design criteria in coordination with the City. Page 111 of 150 Page 2 of 19 The criteria will comply with City of Georgetown, TxDOT and AASHTO design criteria. g. The ENGINEER shall coordinate preparation of an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City and TxDOT. The AFA is anticipated to include construction of a right-turn lane from southbound SH 29 to SW Bypass, construction of signal and illumination hardware (excluding signal heads and mast arms) at the intersection of SH 29 and SW Bypass, a signal warrant study at the intersection of SH 29 and SW Bypass, and relocation of utilities within TxDOT ROW. The ENGINEER shall provide a preliminary plan-view layout and a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed work within TxDOT ROW to facilitate the AFA. Up to three (3) meetings with the City and TxDOT shall be required. h. The ENGINEER shall perform Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) reviews of all submittal documents at each Milestone Submittal: Preliminary Alternatives Submittal, 30% PS&E Submittal, 95% PS&E Submittal, and Final PS&E Submittal (100%). i. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to three (3) exhibits to the to facilitate up to three (3) meetings with agencies. II. Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support a. The ENGINEER shall research the current property ownership along the proposed route and provide a property ownership map and list of impacted property owners to the City for their use in obtaining right of entry. b. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to four (4) exhibits to the City’s ROW agent to facilitate up to four (4) meetings with affected property owners. c. The ENGINEER shall provide project data and up to two (2) exhibits to the City’s ROW agent to facilitate up to two (2) meetings with Williamson County to coordinate between the City and Williamson County to facilitate sale to the City of any ROW needed for the project which is owned by the County. The City will secure the necessary legal instruments. d. The ENGINEER shall prepare a proposed ROW map, metes and bounds documents and field sketches for either permanent or temporary acquisition of up to two (2) parcels. The ENGINEER shall review the field sketches and metes and bounds documents to verify document accuracy. The City will secure the necessary legal instruments. e. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with existing Utility Owners within and adjacent to the Project and create a utility contact list to be maintained throughout the project. This coordination includes preparing and mailing written notification of proposed construction letters to all known Utility Owners within and adjacent to the project site. f. The ENGINEER shall contact all known Utility Owners in and adjacent to the project area and request maps and/or as-builts of their existing facilities. This information will be the basis of the existing utility layout created to assist in conflict Page 112 of 150 Page 3 of 19 assessment, monitor necessity of relocations and evaluate alternatives. A field visit shall be scheduled to verify the existing utility layout drawing with actual field conditions. The utility layout map will be used to create the Utility Conflict Map and Conflict Matrix which shall be updated after the 30% and 95% Design Submittals. g. The ENGINEER shall coordinate and attend a Utility Coordination Meeting with the existing Utility Owners to discuss concepts and options based upon the milestone design plans. The meeting will be documented with meeting minutes. Two (2) meetings will be held at the following stages: 30% Submittal, 95% Submittal. In concert with said meetings the ENGINEER shall review proposed utility relocation designs and evaluate alternatives while balancing the needs of the project as well as the utility. h. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with the City and TxDOT to determine appropriate agreement forms and permits to be used on this project for both reimbursable and non-reimbursable utility adjustments. The relevant project information will be filled- in on the agreed upon forms and forwarded on to each respective Utility Owner impacted on the project for review/use. Up to two (2) Agreements at the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection shall be prepared. i. The ENGINEER shall obtain Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE), Quality Levels D through A for all utilities impacted by the project within TxDOT ROW. Up to 2200 LF of Q LB and up to 5 QL A Test Holes shall be obtained. The ENGINEER shall follow ASCE 38-02 “The Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data”- see below. Utility Quality Levels are defined in cumulative order (least to greatest): Quality Level D - Existing Records: Utilities are plotted from review of available existing records Quality Level C - Surface Visible Feature Survey: Quality Level "D" information from existing records is correlated with surveyed surface-visible features. Quality Level B - Designate: Two-dimensional horizontal mapping. This information is obtained through the application and interpretation of appropriate non-destructive surface geophysical methods. Utility indications may be referenced to established survey control. Additional description of services, methodology and equipment is below. Quality Level A - Locate (Test Hole): Three-dimensional mapping and other characterization data. This information is obtained through exposing utility facilities through test holes and measuring and recording (to appropriate survey control) utility/environment data. Utility Designating (Level B) 1. The ENGINEER shall coordinate with the City and/or TxDOT to schedule work. The City will provide permission or right of entry to property and any utility easements to perform work. Page 113 of 150 Page 4 of 19 2. The ENGINEER shall designate (means to record and mark) the horizontal location of the existing tone-able utility facilities using non- destructive surface geophysical techniques. Tone-able utilities are typically utilities that are conductive or internally accessible with a traceable fish tape or sonde. Water and communication vaults can be investigated from above ground. The ENGINEER does not enter buried power vaults or manholes. 3. If internally accessible (e.g. via a cleanout), nonconductive lines can often be traced out with a fish tape or sonde. Under ideal circumstances nonconductive buried lines can be investigated successfully with Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Soil conditions in Texas are however generally not suitable for GPR. The ENGINEER has had success using GPR for SUE work but non-conductive features can remain undetected. 4. A non-water base paint, utilizing the APWA color code scheme and pin flags will be used on all surface markings of underground features. 5. The ENGINEER shall provide a field sketch of designated utilities. 6. Survey and draft designated utilities onto project basemap. Client will provide basemap in Microstation format. 7. Utilities on the basemap shall be identified by owner and type. Utilities that cannot be identified to Quality Level B but have been documented at Quality Level D will be shown using a separate symbology. Vacuum Excavation (Level A) The ENGINEER can perform FHWA Level A vacuum test holes. Holes are excavated using a nondestructive compressed air or hydro vacuum excavation truck. Vacuum excavation is performed as follows: 1) Comply with regulations, and/or policies for the prevention of underground utility damage (i.e., one-call system). The ENGINEER shall request permission and permits from the City and/or TxDOT to perform work. The cost of permits is assumed to be waived for this work and is therefore not included in this proposal. 2) Designate utilities in the immediate vicinity of each proposed test hole. 3) Vacuum excavate to measure and record the depth and location of found items. The ENGINEER accepts no responsibility for contaminated soils should they be encountered during excavation. The ENGINEER does not take ownership of any excavated material. 4) Record depth of the utility, line size, line material, condition of the line, type of soil around the line. Provide markers at each utility location. 5) Backfill the hole. Compact in lifts. Restore pavement if required. 6) Survey of utility test hole locations will be provided by the ENGINEER. Page 114 of 150 Page 5 of 19 Survey will be tied to project survey control. 7) The ENGINEER shall provide drafting to produce test hole data sheets showing utility depth, size and line material, condition of the line, type of soil for each test hole location surveyed. Test hole data sheets include a “snapshot’ from the CAD file showing test hole location and photographs of test hole and found utilities. Depending on the exact location of test holes, it is anticipated that traffic control may be required for Level A work areas. Standard traffic control is performed by the ENGINEER and is included in our standard rates. Standard traffic control can be described as short-term lane closure necessary to access utility features located in the roadway. Should ‘non-standard’ traffic control be required (longer term lane closures, police officer present, arrow board, intersection work etc…) these services will be considered extra. Limitations Above ground geophysical techniques cannot guarantee to find all buried utility lines. This is particularly true with when GPR is being used in unfavorable conditions. Soil conditions may not be conducive to GPR use. As a result, its effectiveness in finding buried utilities can be limited. The ENGINEER shall perform subsurface utility engineering in accordance with ASCE 38/02 Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Subsurface Utility Data. The ENGINEER shall exercise all reasonable and customary care in the performance of SUE services, realizing the safety of personnel and prevention of damage are the prime considerations in the detection and mapping of subsurface utility features. However, a possibility exists that some utilities may not be detected and/or mapped using standard SUE procedures previously described. While uncommon, utilities possessing characteristics mentioned below can be missed while using the standard SUE procedures: 1. Utilities buried excessively deep, beyond detection limits of standard locating equipment. 2. Abandoned utilities 3. Utilities with no apparent surface features and no records provided 4. Non-conductive utilities. 5. Utilities buried in soil unsuitable for GPR detection a. III. Survey a. The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall perform a design survey. Design Surveys include performance of surveys associated with the gathering of survey data for topography, cross-sections, and other related work to design a project. The City will provide access to adjacent properties and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization. Definitions: Page 115 of 150 Page 6 of 19 A design survey is defined as the combined performance of research, field work, analysis, computation, and documentation necessary to provide detailed topographic (3-dimensional (3D)) mapping of a project site. A design survey may include, but need not be limited to locating existing right-of-way, cross- sections or data to create cross-sections and Digital Terrain Models (.dtm), horizontal and vertical location of utilities and improvements, detailing of bridges and other structures, review of right-of-way maps, establishing control points, etc. Technical Requirements: 1. Design surveys must be performed under the supervision of a Registered Professional Land Surveyor (RPLS) currently registered with the Texas Board of Professional Land Surveyors (TBPLS). 2. Horizontal ground control used for design surveys furnished to the Engineer’s Surveyor by the State or based on acceptable methods conducted by the Engineer’s Surveyor, must meet the standards of accuracy required by the State. Reference may be made to standards of accuracy for horizontal control traverses, as described in the TxDOT Survey Manual, latest edition, or the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors (TSPS) Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in the State of Texas, as may be applicable. 3. Vertical ground control used for design surveys furnished to the Engineer’s Surveyor by the State or based on acceptable methods conducted by the Engineer’s Surveyor, must meet the standards of accuracy required by the State. Reference may be made to standards of accuracy for vertical control traverses, as described in the TxDOT Survey Manual, latest edition, or the TSPS Manual of Practice for Land Surveying in the State of Texas, as may be applicable. 4. Side shots or short traverse procedures used to determine horizontal and vertical locations must meet the following criteria: a. Side shots or short traverses must begin and end on horizontal and vertical ground control as described above. b. Standards, procedures, and equipment (may include but is not limited to GPS Equipment, LiDAR, Total Stations) used must be such that horizontal locations relative to the control may be reported within the following limits: 1) Bridges and other roadway structures: less than 0.1 of one (1) foot. 2) Utilities and improvements: less than 0.2 of one (1) foot. 3) Cross-sections and profiles: less than 1 foot. 4) Bore holes: less than 3 feet. c. Standards, procedures, and equipment (may include but is not limited to GPS Equipment, LiDAR, Total Stations) used must be such that vertical locations relative to the control may be reported within the following limits: Page 116 of 150 Page 7 of 19 1) Bridges and other roadway structures: less than 0.02 of one (1) foot. 2) Utilities and improvements: less than 0.1 of one (1) foot. 3) Cross-sections and profiles: less than 0.2 of one (1) foot. 4) Bore holes: less than 0.5 of one (1) foot. Automation Requirements: 1. Planimetric design files (DGN) must be fully compatible with TxDOT’s MicroStation V8i graphics program without further modification or conversion. 2. Electronically collected and processed field survey data files must be fully compatible with TxDOT’s computer systems without further modification or conversion. All files must incorporate only those feature codes currently being used by TxDOT. 3. DTM must be fully compatible with the State’s GEOPAK system without further modification or conversion. All DTM must be fully edited and rectified to provide a complete digital terrain model with all necessary break lines.The Engineer’s Surveyor shall perform tasks including, but not limited to the following: Tasks to be Completed: The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall perform tasks including, but not limited to the list below. The use of ground-based Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is approved by the City. 1. Obtain or collect data to create cross-sections and digital terrain models. 2. Locate existing utilities including flow line dimensions and or structure invert dimensions. Request a utility location services through Texas 811 and locate marked utilities. 3. Locate topographical features and existing improvements. 4. Provide details of existing drainage features, (including but not limited to culverts and manholes with flow line and structure invert dimensions.). 5. Establish additional and verify existing control points. 6. Locate existing ROWs. 7. Review ROW maps. 8. Locate boreholes. 9. Perform hydrographic surveys. 10. Perform tree surveys. The limits of survey shall be as follows: 1. A 200’-wide swath along proposed SW Bypass alignment 2. Full swath of existing City ROW along proposed SW Bypass alignment 3. Survey at the Intersection of SW Bypass with Wolf Ranch Parkway a. 1000’ south along existing SW Bypass and 1000’ east along existing Wolf Ranch Parkway from the anticipated SW Bypass intersection with Wolf Ranch Parkway b. Full width of existing City ROW within those limits 4. Survey at the Intersection of SW Bypass with SH 29 a. 1000’ north and 1000’ south from the anticipated SW Bypass intersection with SH 29 Page 117 of 150 Page 8 of 19 b. Full width of TxDOT ROW within those limits b. The ENGINEER’s Surveyor shall prepare a Survey Control Index Sheet and a Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet(s), signed, sealed and dated by the professional engineer in direct responsible charge of the surveying and the responsible RPLS for insertion into the plan set. The Survey Control Index Sheet shows an overall view of the project control and the relationship or primary monumentation and control used in the preparation of the project; whereas, the Horizontal and Vertical Control sheet(s) identifies the primary survey control and the survey control monumentation used in the preparation of the project. Both the Survey Control Index Sheet and the Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheet(s) must be used in conjunction with each other as a set. The following information shall be shown on the Survey Control Index Sheet: 1. Overall view of the project and primary control monuments set for control of the project 2. Identification of the control point 3. Baseline or centerline 4. Graphic (Bar) Scale 5. North Arrow 6. RPLS signature, seal, and date The following information shall be shown on all Horizontal and Vertical Control Sheets: 1. Location for each control point, showing baseline or centerline alignment and North arrow. 2. Station and offset (with respect to the baseline or centerline alignments) of each identified control point. 3. Basis of Datum for horizontal control (base control monument/benchmark name, number, datum). 4. Basis of Datum for the vertical control (base control monument, benchmark name, number, datum). 5. Date of current adjustment of the datum. 6. Monumentation set for Control (Description, District name/number and Location ties). 7. Surface Adjustment Factor and unit of measurement. 8. Coordinates (State Plan Coordinates [SPC] Zone and surface or grid). 9. Relevant metadata. 10. Graphic (Bar) Scale. 11. RPLS signature, seal and date. IV. Environmental Studies a. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment and Report. The ENGINEER shall conduct a habitat assessment of the project area for federal or state-listed threatened and endangered species and assess the impacts to the habitat. This will be completed through a desktop analysis, with a site visit to visually confirm the desktop findings and gather on-site observations of current habitat conditions. The ENGINEER shall consider the environmental information collected and reviewed in previous geologic assessments and any other applicable and readily available desktop information related to listed species with the Page 118 of 150 Page 9 of 19 potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area. The ENGINEER shall perform an in-situ habitat assessment for the golden- cheeked warbler (GCWA; Setophaga chrysoparia). Aerial imagery is inconclusive in determining potential habitat for the species within the project area and the adjacent forested area within 250 feet of the project area. The Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (WCRHCP) considers construction activity within 250 feet of GCWA habitat as “indirect impacts.” Therefore, the ENGINEER shall characterize habitat potential for GCWA within the project area and will characterize adjacent tracts without trespassing. Information collected during the site visit will include notes about current site conditions, as well as visual observations and photographs of vegetation, water flows, and landscape context (such as the extent of existing development or other habitat disturbance nearby). The ENGINEER shall prepare a report that describes the desktop and field findings and provides our opinion of the potential for the habitats present within the project area to support protected species. The threatened and endangered species report will be attached to the WCRHCP application for Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance (see Section IV, Task c) as an appendix. Upon completion of this report, the ENGINEER shall provide a draft electronic version to the City for review and comment, and upon completion of City review shall complete the final report. The ENGINEER shall submit to the City one electronic PDF of the final report. b. Geologic Assessment (GA) and Karst Survey. A majority of the project area is already covered under a previously conducted GA and karst survey. However, approximately 2 acres of project area within TxDOT ROW adjacent to State Highway 29 is not covered by these investigations. The ENGINEER shall search the project area under the direct supervision of a Registered Professional Geologist for the presence of surface features that TCEQ considers aquifer recharge points. The GA will conform to the “Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Transition Zones” as written by the TCEQ (2004). The ENGINEER shall conduct the pedestrian survey by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 30-50 feet apart within the project area. Based on the results of the field survey, The ENGINEER shall prepare a GA report to be submitted to TCEQ for review and permitting under the Edwards Aquifer Rules. This GA is intended for inclusion in the Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). GA field work results will also inform compliance efforts related to USFWS karst due diligence (karst survey) and provide the data required to support participation in the WCRHCP. Concurrent with the GA field assessment, the ENGINEER shall conduct a karst feature survey, by personnel holding a 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit from the USFWS for conducting all levels of karst investigation. The ENGINEER shall identify all potential karst features during the field survey and investigate for potential association with karst invertebrate habitat. Survey methods consist primarily of reconnaissance excavation with hand tools and will conform to Page 119 of 150 Page 10 of 19 current USFWS requirements. The ENGINEER shall generate a karst survey report for submittal to USFWS and/or the Williamson County Conservation Foundation (WCCF) as part of an RHCP application. c. Karst Feature Excavation. Based on experience in the immediate area, up to one (1) feature will be located during the GA which the ENGINEER shall manual ly excavate with a backhoe. The ENGINEER shall perform biotic surveys on this feature to identify what, if any, karst invertebrates may occupy the feature. Current USFWS karst invertebrate survey protocols require 14 separate visits to determine presence or probably absence of listed karst invertebrates. The ENGINEER shall include the results of the excavation in the Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment Report, Karst Survey Report, and RHCP application d. Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Application. Based on the results of Section IV, Tasks a and b, the ENGINEER shall draft a WCRHCP participation application for potential impacts to covered species within eligible portions of the project area. The ENGINEER shall provide the City with an electronic copy of the draft participation application within 30 days of the finalization of reports under Section IV, Tasks a and b, and receipt of Final PS&E (100%) plans. Once comments are received, the ENGINEER shall incorporate all comments, and provide the final participation application to the City for their submittal to the Williamson County Conservation Foundation. e. Cultural Resources. As Project construction will occur on land owned or managed by TxDOT and the City of Georgetown (a subdivision of the State of Texas), it is subject to the Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT) and the accompanying Rules of Practice and Procedure, which protects archaeological sites and historic buildings on public land. This scope of work is designed to meet all requirements of the ACT and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and includes a background review, the preparation of a Texas Antiquities Permit application for submittal to the Texas Historical Commission (THC), an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey with shovel testing, and a results report for review by the THC. Background Review. The ENGINEER shall conduct a thorough background archaeological literature and records review of the project area. For this research, the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall search the THC’s online Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (Atlas) database for previously recorded surveys and historic or prehistoric archaeological sites located in or near the project area. If necessary, the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall search site files, records, and map files housed at the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) and the THC Library. In addition to identifying previously recorded archaeological sites, the Atlas review will include the following types of information: National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, State Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), Official Texas Historical Markers, Recorded Texas Historic Landmarks, cemeteries, and local neighborhood surveys. This task will allow the ENGINEER to identify any areas within the project area that have the potential to contain significant, undocumented cultural resources. As part of the review, the ENGINEER shall examine the Texas Department of Transportation Historic Page 120 of 150 Page 11 of 19 Overlay, a mapping/geographic information system (GIS) database with historic maps and resource information covering most portions of the state. Other critical factors that the ENGINEER’s archeologist shall examine include the level of previous disturbances, types of soils present, and any obvious standing structures which appear on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. The ENGINEER’s archeologist shall evaluate archaeological potential prior to performing fieldwork with this information. A preliminary review of the Atlas indicates that portions of the corridor have been previously assessed in 2004 for the SW Bypass project; as a result of those investigations, archaeological site 41WM1148, a prehistoric lithic scatter, was identified. The THC indicated that the site was considered not eligible for the NRHP. Texas Antiquities Permit Application. The archaeological field investigations will require a Texas Antiquities Permit; therefore, the ENGINEER’s Principal Investigator will prepare a THC permit scope of work and application and submit it to the City for review and signatures. Once complete, the ENGINEER shall submit the application with all pertinent project documentation to the THC, the permitting and reviewing agency. The ENGINEER shall incorporate the results of the background review in the permit application. Cultural Resources Field Investigations. The ENGINEER shall perform an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey investigation of the project area with subsurface investigations as necessary based on field conditions. The survey will be of sufficient intensity to determine the nature, extent, and, if possible, potential significance of all cultural resources located within the project area. The survey will meet or exceed THC archaeological survey standards. The ENGINEER shall perform excavation for shovel test subsurface investigations, the location of which will be dependent upon variables such as previous disturbances and exposed bedrock. Shovel tests will be approximately 30 centimeters (cm) in diameter and excavated by hand in arbitrary 20-cm levels to 100 cm below surface unless soil characteristics or bedrock preclude reaching that depth. The ENGINEER shall screen the matrix from each shovel test through ¼-inch mesh, and the location of each excavation will be plotted using a hand- held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. The ENGINEER’s archeologist shall record each shovel test on a standardized form to document the excavations. The ENGINEER shall define and record all discovered cultural resources following standard state and federal guidelines. The ENGINEER shall map recorded sites in detail with a GPS unit and plotted on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps with a GPS unit and appropriate maps for planning purposes. The ENGINEER shall photograph existing standing structures within the project area. The ENGINEER shall conduct a review of historic aerial maps and county records as needed to determine the significance and age of any historic-age resources. The ENGINEER assumes that up to one cultural resources site may be identified within the project area and site 41WM1148 will be revisited. The ENGINEER shall perform a non-collection survey; artifacts will be tabulated, analyzed, and documented in the field, but not collected. Temporally diagnostic artifacts will be described in detail and photographed in the field, then left in place. This policy may reduce curation costs once the fieldwork is concluded. Page 121 of 150 Page 12 of 19 However, the THC’s review process requires that all original paperwork and copies of photographs be curated at an approved repository before the THC will clear the Antiquities Permit. The ENGINEER shall curate the required paperwork and photographs at TARL at the University of Texas-Austin. Reporting and Agency Coordination. Upon completion of the fieldwork phase, the ENGINEER shall prepare a report of the survey findings that will conform to THC and Council of Texas Archeologists standards. The report will document previous investigations in the area, background cultural and environmental settings, the methodology used in the investigations, the presence and condition of any previously recorded sites revealed in the records review, the general nature and extent of cultural resources encountered during the field investigations, recommendations on the need for any further work, and the potential significance of the cultural resources in regards to future development and eligibility for designation as State Archeological Landmarks (SALs) or for listing on the NRHP. The ENGINEER shall submit a digital draft copy of the report to the City for review and comment prior to agency submittal. Once this has been accomplished, the ENGINEER shall incorporate all appropriate edits and will submit a draft report to THC for review and comment. Once the draft report has been reviewed and accepted by the THC, the ENGINEER shall prepare one unbound copy and two tagged PDF copies of the report on archival-quality CD or DVD for submittal to the THC; if sites are discovered during the survey, one PDF will retain sensitive site maps and the other will not. Finally, the ENGINEER shall submit 12 bound copies to various designated libraries around the state, in fulfillment of permit requirements. f. TxDOT Scope Development Tool. The ENGINEER shall use the Scope Development Tool (SDT) to determine which human and natural resources must be analyzed based on project designs. This form includes a series of questions to provide general project information and identify potential impacts and anticipated regulatory requirements for the proposed project. Based on information provided by the City, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final SDT form. g. TxDOT Project Scoping Form. The Project Scoping Form is used to define the Project, identify required regulatory coordination/environmental permits, identify applicable public involvement, and identify applicable environmental studies/surveys. Based on information provided by the City, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final TxDOT Project Scoping Form. h. NEPA Classification Memo. The TxDOT Austin District will request concurrence with TxDOT Environmental Affairs to classify the Project as an expedited (c)(22) CE based, in part, on a previous FHWA-TxDOT programmatic agreement regarding the processing of certain types of projects, and an existing programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer (i.e., the Texas Historical Commission), FHWA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final NEPA Classification Memo in coordination with TxDOT. Page 122 of 150 Page 13 of 19 i. Tier I Site Assessment. The Tier I Site Assessment (version April 2017) covers the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) Analysis for a project (formerly this form was incorporated into the Biological Evaluation Form) and determines if early TPWD coordination is required for a project. Based on spatial and design information, as well as desktop and field survey data, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final Tier I Site Assessment and suggested attachments, including: i. Aerial map with delineated project boundaries. ii. USFWS T&E List for Williamson County iii. TPWD T&E List for Williamson County iv. Species Impact Table v. TPWD SGCN List vi. NDD EOID List and Tracked Managed Areas (required for TPWD Coordination) vii. EMST Project MOU Summary Table (required for TPWD Coordination) viii. Photos (required for TPWD Coordination) j. TxDOT Biological Evaluation Form. The Biological Evaluation Form (version December 2016) is used to identify and gather information related to federal ESA compliance and related federal requirements Based on spatial and design information, as well as desktop and field survey data, the ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final Biological Evaluation Form and suggested attachments, including: i. Aerial Map (with delineated project boundaries) ii. USFWS T&E List iii. TPWD T&E List iv. Species Impact Table v. NDD EOID List and Tracked Managed Areas (Required for TPWD Coordination) vi. EMST Project MOU Summary Table (Required for TPWD Coordination) vii. TPWD SGCN List viii. FPPA Documentation ix. NRCS Web Soil Survey Map x. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Map xi. Landscaping Plans xii. Photos (Required for TPWD Coordination) xiii. Previous TPWD Coordination Documentation (if applicable) k. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment. The ENGINEER shall complete a draft and final TxDOT Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Report (version April 2017). The ISA is a process that identifies potential hazardous materials impacts to TxDOT projects. The report will include, but is not limited to the following: i. Current and historic aerial and topographic maps. ii. Right-of-Way Maps, if available. Page 123 of 150 Page 14 of 19 iii. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, if available. iv. Current and historic land use information. v. Regulatory database search. vi. Oil/gas well database search. vii. Site reconnaissance results. viii. Regulatory staff interviews, if needed. l. Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments. The ENGINEER shall prepare an Environmental Permits, Issues, and Commitments (EPIC) sheet which will discuss any permit, issue, coordination commitment, or mitigation obligation necessary to address, offset, or compensate for the environmental impacts of the project, including aquifer coordination, wetland permits, stormwater permits, threatened or endangered species coordination, or archeological permits, and any mitigation or other commitment associated with the project. m. Right-of-Entry. The City will provide access to adjacent properties and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization. V. Final Design Roadway Design a. Roadway Geometric Design. The ENGINEER shall develop up to four (4) total preliminary alternatives for the intersections of SW Bypass with SH 29 and with Wolf Ranch Parkway, including proposed horizontal and vertical alignments. The ENGINEER shall develop up to two (2) preliminary alternatives for the SW Bypass alignment between Wolf Ranch Parkway and SH 29. The alternatives will comply with the design criteria established for the project. The ENGINEER shall review the alternatives with City staff and recommend preferred alternatives at one (1) meeting with City staff. The ENGINEER shall provide minor updates to the Ultimate SW Bypass schematic design CADD files to accommodate this project. Bicycle and pedestrian elements are excluded from this project. b. Typical Sections. The ENGINEER shall develop existing and proposed typical roadway sections for project. Typical sections must include width of travel lanes, shoulders, ROW, Proposed Profile Grade Line (PGL), centerline, pavement design, side slopes, sodding or seeding limits, and station limits. c. Plan & Profile Sheets – Roadway. The ENGINEER shall prepare plan & profile sheets for the project, beginning with the 30% Milestone submittal. The sheets shall include existing topography, ROW lines, utilities, survey control data, roadway geometry (vertical and horizontal), and drainage improvements. d. Intersection Layouts. The ENGINEER shall prepare intersection layouts that identify all horizontal and vertical geometry at the SW Bypass intersections with SH 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway. e. Cross Sections for Roadway. Using Bentley GEOPAK SS4 software, the ENGINEER shall develop and maintain a 3D model and roadway cross sections at 100-foot intervals along the proposed roadway alignment. The 3D model and cross sections Page 124 of 150 Page 15 of 19 shall include the proposed roadway improvements, and related drainage improvements. The ENGINEER shall develop an earthwork analysis to determine cut and fill quantities. f. Pavement Design. The ENGINEER shall obtain, log, and analyze 6 borings to a depth of approximately 10 feet. These services do not include clearing of trees or bushes along the planned alignment. The City will provide access to the boring locations and, if required, written right of entry permits prior to mobilization of drilling equipment. Prior to mobilization, the ENGINEER shall comply with local regulations to request a utility location services through Texas 811. The ENGINEER shall perform laboratory testing on soil samples limited to moisture content, Atterberg limits, percent retained on the no. 40 sieve, and soluble sulfate testing. The ENGINEER shall prepare a pavement design based on analysis of the borings. It is assumed that the new connecting pavement will match the existing asphalt pavement along Wolf Ranch Parkway and SH 29. The ENGINEER shall prepare a geotechnical pavement report and include provision of potential vertical rise (PVR) calculations per TxDOT procedure Tex-124-E along with flexible pavement recommendations based on the TxDOT FPS 21 software and rigid pavement recommendations based on the mechanistic empirical analysis. The ENGINEER shall provide depth of coverage computations for limiting post-construction PVR of 1, 1.5, and 2 inches. g. Incidental Sheets. The ENGINEER shall prepare the following sheets: Title Sheet, Index Sheet, Project Layout Sheet, and Horizontal Alignment Data Sheet. Drainage Design a. The ENGINEER shall perform hydrologic analysis. The ENGINEER shall develop drainage areas. The ENGINEER shall develop storm water hydrology for the roadway section for the project area. The hydrology will be modeled utilizing HEC-HMS with City of Georgetown drainage criteria. The ENGINEER shall incorporate the 10%, 4%, 2% and 1% annual chance storm events into the model. The ENGINEER shall model storm water flows to all cross culverts and roadway conveyances. Based on the data developed, The ENGINEER shall design drainage infrastructure for the project area. The ENGINEER shall employ ATLAS 14 rainfall frequencies. b. The ENGINEER shall develop hydraulic analysis to all cross-drainage structures conveyances and the roadway system using Culvert Master. The hydraulic analysis for all cross-drainage structures will be designed for the ultimate alignment/configuration of the roadway extension. The ENGINEER shall prepare Hydraulic Data Sheets. c. The ENGINEER shall develop final design for all cross drainage for the project. The ENGINEER shall illustrate all cross-drainage structures in plan profile sheets as well as detail sheets. The ENGINEER shall detail grading to existing ground elevations as well as elevations for flow lines and headwalls. The ENGINEER shall illustrate hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% annual chance storm event in the plans. The ENGINEER shall design and detail conveyance to reduce erosion. d. The ENGINEER shall develop final storm water collection systems for the project area, in conjunction with elements for water quality for new impervious cover within Page 125 of 150 Page 16 of 19 the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer. The ENGINEER shall review curb and gutter systems, roadside channels, extended detention basins, etc. and include the most applicable and cost-effective system in the project. The ENGINEER shall detail flow lines as well as hydraulic grade lines for the 4% and 1% annual chance storm event. The ENGINEER shall design and present all drainage infrastructure in both plan and profile. e. The ENGINEER shall design storm water conveyance to existing streams and channel ways. The ENGINEER shall design conveyance for positive drainage and check current water surface elevations against proposed water surface elevations after project completion. f. The ENGINEER shall determine the requirements for water quality for the project. Designs will be based on the additional impervious cover proposed for this project and current TCEQ requirements for construction within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The ENGINEER shall endeavor to combine conveyance infrastructure with water quality to minimize project costs. Options will be designed and presented to Staff(s) for review. The option agreed upon will be included in the final design and submitted to the TCEQ for review and acceptance. The ENGINEER is not responsible for any fees from the TCEQ. g. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). Incidentals Design a. The ENGINEER shall design temporary erosion control measures to minimize potential impact to receiving waterways and shall develop plan sheets and details with the locations of the measures to be installed identified. b. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed small sign and pavement marking plan for the project route in accordance with City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. The sheets shall include existing signs to remain, to be removed, to be relocated or replaced, stationing to be annotated for existing and proposed sign locations, proposed signs (illustrated, numbered and sized), and designation of the shields to be attached to guide signs. The sheets shall include proposed pavement markings, object markings and delineation (illustrated and quantified), quantities of existing pavement markings to be removed, and proposed mailboxes. The ENGINEER shall prepare Sign Detail Sheets and Small Sign Summary Sheets. c. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed traffic control plan (TCP) in accordance with the City of Georgetown, TxDOT and Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) requirements. The ENGINEER shall provide a written narrative of the construction sequencing and work activities per phase, and determine the existing and proposed traffic control devices to be used to handle traffic during each construction sequence. The ENGINEER shall show temporary roadways and detours required to maintain lane continuity throughout the construction phasing. The ENGINEER shall develop the TCP to provide continuous, safe access to each adjacent property during all phases of construction and to preserve existing access. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Sequence of Work Narrative Sheet, Traffic Control Typical Page 126 of 150 Page 17 of 19 Section Sheets, Intersection Staging Sheets, and Detour Sheets, as needed. The ENGINEER shall prepare an Estimate of Construction Duration. d. The ENGINEER shall prepare a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis (TSWA) for the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection for the existing conditions and opening year projected conditions. The TSWA will be conducted based on the guidelines established in the most recent Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and follow TxDOT policies and procedures considering anticipated future conditions. The TSWA will consider development anticipated to occur along SH 29 in the vicinity of SW Bypass using information in available in Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA). The known developments with TIAs anticipated to significantly impact the study area include Wolf Ranch, Wolf Lakes, and Urgent Care Center. The ENGINEER shall collect existing traffic volumes using automatic traffic counters to determine the existing traffic volumes. Automatic Traffic Recorders to record 24-hour traffic volumes will be placed at locations along SH 29 (up to two (2) locations) during a weekday. 12-hour turning movement count (TMC) will be collected at one intersection on SH 29 in the vicinity of SW Bypass. Traffic volumes for SW Bypass will be developed based on available traffic volumes projections and information contained within the available TIAs. The ENGINEER shall deliver a traffic signal warrant analysis report, signed and sealed by a Texas registered Professional Engineer. Up to one (1) meeting is anticipated to discuss the results of the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis. e. The ENGINEER shall develop plan sheets for the proposed traffic signal design at the SW Bypass at SH 29 intersection. Mast arms and signal heads shall be designed, but not included for construction; whether to construct pedestrian facilities will be at the discretion of the City. The ENGINEER shall include illumination on the traffic signal poles. The signal design will be prepared in accordance with TxDOT design standards and guidelines. The ENGINEER shall prepare a proposed signal layout with intersection striping. The signal layout shall include a traffic signal design consisting of a fully-actuated traffic signal with pedestrian facilities. The pedestrian facilities will include ramps and pedestrian signals. The design will follow ADA requirements and guidelines. The ENGINEER shall deliver a signal layout in accordance with the latest edition of the State’s PS&E Preparation Manual. f. The ENGINEER shall provide custom and standard (City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and/or TxDOT, as appropriate) miscellaneous construction details required to construct the project. g. The ENGINEER shall develop and prepare project specific technical specifications (City of Georgetown, Williamson County, and/or TxDOT, as appropriate). h. The ENGINEER shall prepare a project bid schedule. The ENGINEER shall perform a quantity take off for the project and will prepare an opinion of probable construction cost at each Milestone Submittal. The ENGINEER shall prepare Quantity Summary Sheets for inclusion in the PS&E package. i. The ENGINEER shall prepare Contract Documents and Technical Specification books and 100% Plan Sets and deliver to the City. Page 127 of 150 Page 18 of 19 j. The ENGINEER shall provide the following Milestone Submittals to the City: Preliminary Alternatives Submittal, 30% PS&E Submittal, 90% PS&E Submittal, Final PS&E Submittal. VI. Bidding a. The ENGINEER shall develop the invitation to bid and deliver to City staff for advertising the project for public bidding. b. The ENGINEER shall manage and distribute bidding documents. c. The ENGINEER shall prepare for the Pre-Bid Conference, develop an agenda and sign in sheet, attend the Pre-Bid Conference, take notes at the conference, prepare minutes and incorporate into the addenda. d. The ENGINEER shall receive all questions from bidders, log the questions and answer in the form of an addenda. e. The ENGINEER shall conduct the bid letting, receive all bids, tabulate the bids and certify them. f. The ENGINEER shall research the low bidder(s) qualifications and recommend award to the City of Georgetown. VII. Construction Administration a. The ENGINEER shall prepare contract documents and provide them to the contractor awarded the project by the Georgetown City Council. Once the contractor has executed the contract documents, the ENGINEER shall check them for proper documentation and forwarded to the City of Georgetown for execution. b. The ENGINEER shall prepare and distribute construction plan sets, incorporating information and changes to the plans and specifications that were addressed in the Addenda. c. The ENGINEER shall attend the Pre-Construction Conference. The ENGINEER shall take and distribute minutes. d. The ENGINEER shall receive and review all shop drawings and material samples submittals for the project. Anticipated material samples include: Up to two (2) concrete batch design submittals, up to two (2) reinforcing steel submittals, up to two (2) flexible base submittals, and up to two (2) hot mix asphalt submittals, as well as up to three (3) other miscellaneous submittals. Documentation for the submittals will be generated and distributed to the City and the contractor. e. The ENGINEER shall attend twice-monthly construction progress meetings to discuss project specifics and schedules. The ENGINEER shall develop and distribute minutes to City staff and the contractor. Page 128 of 150 Page 19 of 19 f. The ENGINEER shall make monthly visits to the project site. These site visits are utilized to perform a general overview of the project and answer any questions the contractor may have. The City will provide daily on-site representation for the project. g. The ENGINEER shall make up to three (3) visits to the project site should any voids (karst features) lacking surface expression be encountered during construction. The ENGINEER shall document dimensions and assist the City in drafting a void closure plan for submittal to TCEQ, if necessary. Project coverage for incidental take of federally protected karst invertebrates by the Williamson County RHCP precludes presence/absence surveys to determine if listed species occur in these voids; therefore, the ENGINEER only anticipates a single site visit per encountered feature. h. The ENGINEER shall conduct a final walk through of the project. Punch list items will be generated during this review. A letter addressed to City staff will be generated discussing the findings of the walk through. The contractor will be copied on this letter as well. i. The ENGINEER shall develop final record drawings for the City. The record drawings will be presented in the form of a pdf of each plan sheet and a full 11x17 hard copy. Page 129 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SB Bypass from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 LABOR TASK NAME A&F SWCA ACS Terra KPA ATG CFA TOTAL FUNCTION CODE Section I Project Management/Coordination 76,750.00$ 17,695.00$ 10,510.00$ 509.57$ 12,095.00$ 5,480.00$ 7,540.00$ 130,579.57$ Section II Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 23,380.00$ -$ 14,600.00$ -$ -$ -$ 40,235.00$ 78,215.00$ Section III Survey -$ -$ 38,600.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 38,600.00$ Section IV Environmental Studies -$ 56,811.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 56,811.00$ Section V Final Design 146,836.00$ -$ -$ 7,616.18$ 58,575.00$ 28,555.00$ -$ 241,582.18$ Section VI Bidding 20,714.00$ -$ -$ -$ 3,550.00$ 5,240.00$ -$ 29,504.00$ Section VII Construction Administration 95,370.00$ 6,535.00$ -$ -$ 5,465.00$ 5,695.00$ -$ 113,065.00$ ODE 4,007.00$ 3,784.50$ -$ 5,068.40$ -$ 2,060.50$ 3,714.60$ 18,635.00$ 367,057.00$ 84,825.50$ 63,710.00$ 13,194.15$ 79,685.00$ 47,030.50$ 51,489.60$ 706,991.75$ PAGE 1 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 130 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 4006001401236$4,560.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 2 2 6 12 22 $2,456.00 Establish Project Controls 2 4 8 14 $2,104.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 60800400018$3,368.00 Prepare for Kickoff Meeting 3 3 6 $1,266.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 3 3 6 $1,266.00 Prepare Minutes for Kickoff Meeting 2 4 6 $836.00 c. Submittal Meetings 1201260600036$6,744.00 30% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 90% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 100% Milestone 4 4 2 2 12 $2,248.00 d. Contract Management 96 0 36 24 0 0 0 48 24 228 $39,624.00 Design Schedule (monthly) 24 24 $5,376.00 Invoices (monthly) 24 24 48 $7,248.00 Progress Reports (monthly) 12 12 $2,688.00 Project Records 24 48 72 $9,120.00 Subconsultant Coordination 24 24 48 $10,128.00 City of Georgetown Coordination 12 12 24 $5,064.00 e. Collect Data 208461200032$4,860.00 Collect and Review Data 2 4468 24$3,628.00 Field Reconnaissance 4 4 8 $1,232.00 f. Design Criteria 1 2 7 10 $1,810.00 g. Coordinate AFA 1701460600043$8,260.00 Coordinate Between Georgetown and TxDOT 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare AFA Exhibits 3 6 6 15 $2,352.00 Coordination Meetings (up to 3) 6 6 12 $2,532.00 h. QAQC 024000000024$4,992.00 Preliminary Alternatives Submittal 4 4 $832.00 30% Submittal 8 8 $1,664.00 90% Submittal 8 8 $1,664.00 100% Submittal 4 4 $832.00 i. Agency Meetings (up to 3) 6 6 12 $2,532.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 144 24 86 53 6 28 14 48 36 439 $76,750.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $32,256.00 $4,992.00 $17,028.00 $9,010.00 $828.00 $3,080.00 $1,708.00 $5,040.00 $2,808.00 $76,750.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 32.80% 5.47% 19.59% 12.07% 1.37% 6.38% 3.19% 10.93% 8.20% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 42.03% 6.50% 22.19% 11.74% 1.08% 4.01% 2.23% 6.57% 3.66% Subtotal Section I $76,750.00 $76,750.00 PAGE 2 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 131 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support a. Property Owner Map 0 $0.00 b. Assist ROW Agent 28 0 32 0 0 16 0 0 0 76 $14,368.00 Prepare for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare Exhibits for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 32 $5,136.00 Conduct Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 8 8 16 $3,376.00 Prepare Minutes for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 4 8 12 $2,480.00 c. Coordinate WilCo ROW 1401600000030$6,304.00 Prepare for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Exhibits for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Conduct Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Minutes for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 2 4 6 $1,240.00 d. Prepare ROW Documents (up to 2 parcels) 0006000006$1,020.00 Prepare Proposed ROW Map 4 4 $680.00 Prepare Metes and Bounds Documents 1 1 $170.00 Prepare Field Sketches 1 1 $170.00 g. Attend Utility Conflict Meetings 4040000008$1,688.00 30% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 4 $844.00 95% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 4 $844.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 46 0 52 6 0 16 0 0 0 120 $23,380.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $10,304.00 $0.00 $10,296.00 $1,020.00 $0.00 $1,760.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,380.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 38.33% 0.00% 43.33% 5.00% 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 44.07% 0.00% 44.04% 4.36% 0.00% 7.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section II $23,380.00 $23,380.00 PAGE 3 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 132 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Roadway Design 18 0 34 83 112 130 87 142 0 606 $80,154.00 a. Roadway Geometric Design 6088163236079$11,012.00 SW Bypass at SH 29 Intersection Alternatives (up to 2) 1 124812 19$2,526.00 SW Bypass at Wolf Ranch Parkway Intersection Alternatives (up to 2)124812 18$2,302.00 SW Bypass Alignment Alternatives (up to 2) 1 124812 19$2,526.00 Meet with Georgetown to Select Alternatives 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Minor Updates to Ultimate SW Bypass (cadd files only)1248 15$1,970.00 b. Typical Sections 00124608021$2,590.00 Existing Typical Sections (SH 29 and Wolf Ranch Parkway only)1 2 2 4 9 $1,086.00 Proposed Typical Sections 1124 4 12$1,504.00 c. Plan & Profile Sheets (50 scale, assume 8 sheets) 4 8 16 32 32 32 64 188 $23,760.00 d. Intersection Layouts 10248848035$4,612.00 SW Bypass at SH 29 1 124424 18$2,418.00 SW Bypass at Wolf Ranch Parkway 124424 17$2,194.00 e. Cross Sections 7 0 11 45 52 52 45 28 0 240 $32,722.00 Develop and Maintain 3D Model 4 8 40 40 40 40 16 188 $25,760.00 Prepare 100-fot Cross Sections 2 248848 36$4,836.00 Develop Earthwork Analysis 1 114414 16$2,126.00 g. Incidental Sheets 004800328043$5,458.00 Title Sheet 1 1 1 4 7 $910.00 Index Sheet 4 8 12 $1,520.00 Project Layout 1 2 1 8 12 $1,500.00 Horizontal Alignment Data 2 1 1 8 12 $1,528.00 PAGE 4 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 133 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP Incidentals Design 30 0 34 96 82 88 22 126 0 478 $66,682.00 b. Signing and Pavement Marking 2038142410440105$12,814.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Layouts (50 scale, double banked, assume 4 sheets)1 2 4 8 16 8 16 55 $6,820.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Intersection Layouts (50 scale, assume 2 sheets)1 1248212 30$3,698.00 Prepare Sign Details 1 1 8 10 $1,148.00 Prepare Small Sign Summary Sheet 1 1 8 10 $1,148.00 c. Traffic Control 8 0 15 46 20 20 10 40 0 159 $22,962.00 Prepare Narrative 1 2 8 4 15 $2,400.00 Prepare TCP Typical Sections (assume 2 Phases) 2 4 4 8 18 $2,172.00 Prepare Intersection Staging Layouts (50 scale, assume 2 Phases each intersection)2 4 6 16 16 8 16 68 $8,884.00 Prepare Detour Layouts (assume 1 per intersection) 1 1 2 2 12 18 $2,266.00 Prepare Estimate of Construction Duration 4 8 28 40 $7,240.00 f. Construction Details 1 0 5 15 0 2 2 30 0 55 $7,378.00 Prepare Roadway Custom Details 1 2 4 2 2 4 15 $2,184.00 Prepare Roadway Standard Details 1 1 6 8 $998.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Standard Details 1 5 10 16 $2,098.00 Prepare TCP Standard Details 1 5 10 16 $2,098.00 g. Technical Specifications 1 4 16 16 37 $5,496.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 2 0 7 11 24 26 0 12 0 82 $11,136.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 2 4 8 12 14 40 $5,796.00 Prepare Roadway Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 Prepare Signing and Pavement Marking Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 Prepare TCP Quantity Summary Sheet 1144 4 14$1,780.00 i. Contract Documents 16 24 40 $6,896.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 48 0 68 179 194 218 109 268 0 1084 $146,836.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $10,752.00 $0.00 $13,464.00 $30,430.00 $26,772.00 $23,980.00 $13,298.00 $28,140.00 $0.00 $146,836.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.43% 0.00% 6.27% 16.51% 17.90% 20.11% 10.06% 24.72% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 7.32% 0.00% 9.17% 20.72% 18.23% 16.33% 9.06% 19.16% 0.00% Subtotal Section V $146,836.00 $146,836.00 PAGE 5 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 134 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding a. Invitation to Bid 2222 2 212$1,976.00 b. Manage Bid Documents 2 2 4 4 4 16 $2,116.00 c. Pre-Bid Conference 6176121628260$8,614.00 Prepare for Conference 2 2222 10$1,680.00 Attend Conference 2 2 2 6 $1,064.00 Prepare Minutes for Conference 1 1 2 4 $642.00 Prepare Addenda 1124101028240$5,228.00 d. Respond to Questions 2 4444 220$3,068.00 e. Bid Letting 4 4 4 12 $2,128.00 f. Research Qualifications 112444 420$2,812.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 15 6 21 16 24 34 2 8 14 140 $20,714.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $3,360.00 $1,248.00 $4,158.00 $2,720.00 $3,312.00 $3,740.00 $244.00 $840.00 $1,092.00 $20,714.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 10.71% 4.29% 15.00% 11.43% 17.14% 24.29% 1.43% 5.71% 10.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 16.22% 6.02% 20.07% 13.13% 15.99% 18.06% 1.18% 4.06% 5.27% Subtotal Section VI $20,714.00 $20,714.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Senior Engineer Project Engineer Design Engineer Engineer-in- Training Senior CADD Operator CADD Operator Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration a. Contract Documents 2 4 6 $760.00 b. Construction Plan Sets 1 1 2 8 12 $1,642.00 c. Pre-Construction Conference 60600000012$2,532.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,688.00 Prepare Minutes for Conference 2 2 4 $844.00 d. Submittal Review 0404000000080$16,240.00 Review Shop Drawings 20 20 40 $8,120.00 Review Material Samples (up to 11 total submittals) 20 20 40 $8,120.00 e. Consturction Progress Meetings 104 0 104 000000208$43,888.00 Prepare for Construction Meetings 26 26 52 $10,972.00 Attend Construction Meetings (Bi-Weekly) 52 52 104 $21,944.00 Prepare Minutes for Construction Meetings 26 26 52 $10,972.00 f. Project Site Visits (monthly) 48 48 96 $16,032.00 g. Unanticipated Void Clusure Plans (up to 3) 6 10 24 40 $5,964.00 h. Final Walk Through 60060400016$2,804.00 Final Walk Through 4 4 8 $1,576.00 Prepare Punch List 2 2 4 8 $1,228.00 i. Record Drawings 1 1 2 12 32 48 $5,508.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 174 41 163 8 0 96 0 32 4 518 $95,370.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $224.00 $208.00 $198.00 $170.00 $138.00 $110.00 $122.00 $105.00 $78.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $38,976.00 $8,528.00 $32,274.00 $1,360.00 $0.00 $10,560.00 $0.00 $3,360.00 $312.00 $95,370.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 33.6% 7.9% 31.5% 1.5% 0.0% 18.5% 0.0%6.2% 0.8% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 40.9% 8.9% 33.8% 1.4% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%3.5% 0.3% Section VII Subtotal $95,370.00 $95,370.00 PAGE 6 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 135 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 PRIME PROVIDER NAME: Aguirre-Fields, LP DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 439 $76,750.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 120 $23,380.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 1,084 $146,836.00 Section VI - Bidding 140 $20,714.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 518 $95,370.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 2301 $363,050.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 400 $0.580 $232.00 Toll Charges each 10 $5.00 $50.00 Photocopies B/W (11" X 17") each 3000 $0.15 $450.00 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 500 $0.15 $75.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 1000 $1.50 $1,500.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 200 $1.50 $300.00 Plots (B/W on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 200 $3.00 $600.00 Plots (Color on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 200 $4.00 $800.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $4,007.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $363,050.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $4,007.00 GRAND TOTAL $367,057.00 PAGE 7 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 136 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: SWCA TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 040000060818$2,914.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 4 8 12 $1,996.00 Establish Project Controls 6 6 $918.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 050000000712$1,880.00 Prepare for Kickoff Meeting 2 4 6 $998.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 2 2 4 $588.00 Prepare Minutes for Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2 $294.00 d. Contract Management 1830100112035$5,631.00 Invoices (monthly)8 8 $1,640.00 Progress Reports (monthly)8 8 $1,640.00 Project Records 2 2 $410.00 Subconsultant Coordination 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 14 $1,538.00 City of Georgetown Coordination 2 1 3 $403.00 i. Agency Meetings (up to 3)03820000001858$7,270.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 155501007153123$17,695.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $79.00 $4,895.00 $495.00 $0.00 $119.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,071.00 $171.00 $10,865.00 $17,695.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.81% 44.72% 4.07% 0.00% 0.81% 0.00%0.00% 5.69% 0.81% 43.09% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.45% 27.66% 2.80% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%0.00% 6.05% 0.97% 61.40% Subtotal Section I $17,695.00 $17,695.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section IV - Environmental Studies a. T&E Report 02012000086248$5,628.00 b. Geologic Assessment & Karst Survey 0 44 40000016266$7,458.00 c. Karst Feature Excavation 148 2 16 2 168 $16,516.00 d. RHCP Application 0184000006028$3,024.00 e. Cultural Resources 34344060000381$7,437.00 Background Review 44 8 $672.00 Texas Antiquities Permit Application 6 4 2 12 $1,068.00 Curation of Permit 10 6 1 17 $1,443.00 Cultural Resources Field Investigations 8 8 1 1 18 $1,668.00 Reporting and Agency Coordination 6 12 4 2 2 26 $2,586.00 f. Scope Development Tool 06000000028$944.00 g. Project Scoping Form 0120000000214$1,478.00 h. NEPA Classification Memo 0 12 0000000214$1,478.00 i. Tier I Site Assessment 0242000000430$3,154.00 j. Biological Evaluation Form 0 24 2000000430$3,154.00 k. Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessment 0 34 4000000846$5,062.00 l. EPIC Sheet(s)12 2 14 $1,478.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 3438834060084433547$56,811.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $2,686.00 $34,532.00 $3,366.00 $0.00 $714.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,224.00 $7,524.00 $6,765.00 $56,811.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 6.2% 70.9% 6.2% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 8.0% 6.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 4.7% 60.8% 5.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 13.2% 11.9% Subtotal Section IV $56,811.00 $56,811.00 PAGE 8 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 137 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: SWCA TASK DESCRIPTION Specialist II Specialist III Specialist IV Specialist V Specialist VI Specialist VII Specialists VIII Specialist IX Specialist X Subject Matter Expert TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration g. Unanticipated Void Clusure Plans (up to 3) 03500000020055$6,535.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 03500000020055$6,535.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $79.00 $89.00 $99.00 $109.00 $119.00 $131.00 $142.00 $153.00 $171.00 $205.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $3,115.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,420.00 $0.00 $6,535.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.0% 63.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.0% 47.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52.3% 0.0% Section VII Subtotal $6,535.00 $6,535.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 123 $17,695.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 547 $56,811.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 55 $6,535.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 725 $81,041.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 3275 $0.580 $1,899.50 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 600 $0.15 $90.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 450 $1.50 $675.00 HazMat Report from Banks each 1 $200.00 $200.00 GPS each 6 $70.00 $420.00 Archaeology Curations each 500 $1.00 $500.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $3,784.50 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $81,041.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $3,784.50 GRAND TOTAL $84,825.50 PAGE 9 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 138 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum EXHIBIT B SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: All County Surveying, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 5240400015$1,620.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 4 4 8 $840.00 Establish Project Controls 124 7 $780.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 220000004$550.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 22 4 $550.00 d. Contract Management 36 12 0 0 24 0 0 0 72 $8,340.00 Invoices (monthly)12 12 24 $2,520.00 Progress Reports (monthly)12 12 24 $2,520.00 Subconsultant Coordination 12 12 24 $3,300.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 43 16 4 0 28 0 0 0 91 $10,510.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $6,450.00 $2,000.00 $380.00 $0.00 $1,680.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,510.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 47.25% 17.58% 4.40% 0.00% 30.77% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 61.37% 19.03% 3.62% 0.00% 15.98% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $10,510.00 $10,510.00 TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support a. Property Owner Map 12416 23 $2,140.00 b. Assist ROW Agent 2208000012$1,230.00 Prepare for Property Owner Meetings (up to 4) 2 2 8 12 $666.00 c. Coordinate WilCo ROW 110400006$615.00 Prepare for Williamson County Meetings (up to 2) 1 1 4 6 $333.00 d. Prepare ROW Documents (up to 2 parcels) 6 6 10 50 5 21 0 0 98 $10,615.00 Prepare Proposed ROW Map 4 3 5 10 2 24 $2,420.00 Prepare Metes and Bounds Documents 2 3 5 38 3 51 $4,560.00 Prepare Field Sketches 0002 21 23$3,635.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 10 11 14 78 5 21 0 0 139 $14,600.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $1,500.00 $1,375.00 $1,330.00 $6,630.00 $300.00 $3,465.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,600.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 7.19% 7.91% 10.07% 56.12% 3.60% 15.11% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 10.27% 9.42% 9.11% 45.41% 2.05% 23.73% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section II $14,600.00 $14,600.00 PAGE 10 OF 20 EXHIBIT DPage 139 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum EXHIBIT B SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: All County Surveying, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION RPLS - Project Manager RPLS - Task Leader Senior Survey Tech Survey Tech Admin/ Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew 3-Person Survey Crew 4-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section III - Survey a. Perform Design Survey 0 0 25 90 0 132 0 0 247 $31,805.00 Survey 200' Swath Along Proposed SW Bypass Alignment 5 18 27 50 $6,460.00 Survey Full Existing ROW Width Along Proposed SW Bypass Alignment 10 36 50 96 $12,260.00 Survey Along Wolf Ranch Parkway 5 18 27 50 $6,460.00 Survey Along SH 29 5 18 28 51 $6,625.00 b. Prepare Survey Control Sheets 2 8 14 49 73 $6,795.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 2 8 39 139 0 132 0 0 320 $38,600.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $150.00 $125.00 $95.00 $85.00 $60.00 $165.00 $185.00 $220.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $300.00 $1,000.00 $3,705.00 $11,815.00 $0.00 $21,780.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38,600.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.63% 2.50% 12.19% 43.44% 0.00% 41.25% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.78% 2.59% 9.60% 30.61% 0.00% 56.42% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section III $38,600.00 $38,600.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 91 $10,510.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 139 $14,600.00 Section III - Survey 320 $38,600.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 550 $63,710.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $63,710.00 GRAND TOTAL $63,710.00 PAGE 11 OF 20 EXHIBIT DPage 140 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Terracon Consultants, Inc. TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Project Engineer Engineer in Training Engineer Tech Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination d. Contract Management 0120003$509.57 Subconsultant Coordination 1 2 3 $509.57 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 0120003$509.57 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $225.21 $209.47 $150.05 $100.11 $89.33 $64.69 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $209.47 $300.10 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $509.57 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 41.11% 58.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $509.57 $509.57 Curation of Permit $0.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager Quality Manager Project Engineer Engineer in Training Engineer Tech Admin/Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Roadway Design 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 f. Pavement Design 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 Utility Clearances 1 2 2 5 $528.93 Drilling Coordination 2 4 2 8 $879.20 Logging Drilling Activities 12 12 $1,071.96 Review field logs & Assign Laboratory Testing 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Laboratory Data Review 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Boring Log Preparation 0.5 1 1.5 $175.14 Flexible Pavement Design 2 8 10 $1,650.82 Rigid Pavement Design 2 8 10 $1,650.82 Report Preparation 1 2 4 1 8 $1,309.04 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 5 2 24.5 9 16 1 57.5 $7,616.18 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $225.21 $209.47 $150.05 $100.11 $89.33 $64.69 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $1,126.05 $418.94 $3,676.23 $900.99 $1,429.28 $64.69 $7,616.18 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 8.70% 3.48% 42.61% 15.65% 27.83% 1.74% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 14.78% 5.50% 48.27% 11.83% 18.77% 0.85% Subtotal Section V $7,616.18 $7,616.18 PAGE 12 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 141 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Terracon Consultants, Inc. DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 3 $509.57 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 58 $7,616.18 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 60.5 $8,125.75 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 80 $0.580 $46.40 Soil Boring with TCP (< 60 ft.) [Truck Rig] linear foot 60 $37.00 $2,220.00 Mobilization of Drilling Rig (Trips < 100 miles from office to site) each 1 $450.00 $450.00 Determining Moisture Content in Soil Materials each 12 $10.00 $120.00 Atterberg Limits (TEX-104-E) each 12 $91.00 $1,092.00 Amount of Minus No. 40 Sieve Material of Soils each 12 $45.00 $540.00 Determining Sulphate Content in Soils - Colorimetric Method each 12 $50.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $5,068.40 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $8,125.75 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $5,068.40 GRAND TOTAL $13,194.15 PAGE 13 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 142 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 $1,200.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 $1,200.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 d. Contract Management 7 5 7 13 4 8 8 52 $5,890.00 Invoices (monthly)2 8 10 $840.00 Progress Reports (monthly)3 3 3 5 14 $2,010.00 Subconsultant Coordination 2 2 4 8 4 8 28 $3,040.00 e. Collect Data 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 8 $825.00 Field Reconnaissance 1 1 2 2 2 8 $825.00 f. Design Criteria 1 1 2 4 $505.00 h. QAQC 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 15 $2,475.00 30% Submittal 111 3 $495.00 90% Submittal 222 6 $990.00 100% Submittal 222 6 $990.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 16 16 18 21 6 10 8 95 $12,095.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $3,200.00 $2,560.00 $2,430.00 $2,205.00 $510.00 $750.00 $440.00 $12,095.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 16.84% 16.84% 18.95% 22.11% 6.32% 10.53% 8.42% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 26.46% 21.17% 20.09% 18.23% 4.22% 6.20% 3.64% Subtotal Section I $12,095.00 $12,095.00 PAGE 14 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 143 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Drainage Design 20 34 72 114 44 124 0 408 $44,170.00 a. Hydrologic Analysis 2 4 10 14 4 14 0 48 $5,250.00 Drainage Area Sheets 2 4 2 8 16 $1,460.00 Hydrologic Modeling (HEC-HMS) 2 4 8 10 2 6 32 $3,790.00 b. Hydraulic Analysis 2 6 10 16 2 6 0 42 $5,010.00 Hydraulic Calculations 2 4 8 12 2 4 32 $3,850.00 Hydraulic Data Sheets 2 2 4 2 10 $1,160.00 c. Culvert Layout Sheets 2 4 8 14 4 18 50 $5,280.00 d. Storm Conveyance Plan & Profile Sheets (100 scale) 4 4 18 28 16 48 118 $11,770.00 f. Water Quality Design 6 12 18 30 16 30 0 112 $12,310.00 Water Quality Analysis & Calculations 2 4 8 2 2 18 $2,020.00 Water Quality Elements Evaluation 2 2 2 4 2 4 16 $1,880.00 Water Quality Element Design 4 8 12 18 12 24 78 $8,410.00 k. WPAP 4 4 8 12 2 8 38 $4,550.00 Incidentals Design 6 13 21 34 22 38 0 134 $14,405.00 a. Temporary Erosion Control 2 3 3 6 6 10 0 30 $3,175.00 Erosion Control Plan Layout 2 2 2 4 4 8 22 $2,350.00 Erosion Control Details 1 1 2 2 2 8 $825.00 f. Construction Details 2 6 14 18 12 20 0 72 $7,660.00 Prepare Drainage Custom Details 2 6 6 4 8 26 $2,700.00 Prepare Drainage Standard Details 2 4 8 12 8 12 46 $4,960.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 2 4 4 10 4 8 0 32 $3,570.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 1 2 2 4 2 4 15 $1,680.00 Prepare Drainage, Water Quality, and SW3P Quantity Summary Sheet 1 2 2 6 2 4 17 $1,890.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 26 47 93 148 66 162 0 542 $58,575.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $5,200.00 $7,520.00 $12,555.00 $15,540.00 $5,610.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $58,575.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.80% 8.67% 17.16% 27.31% 12.18% 29.89% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 8.88% 12.84% 21.43% 26.53% 9.58% 20.74% 0.00% Subtotal Section V $58,575.00 $58,575.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding c. Pre-Bid Conference 1 3 4 2 2 2 0 14 $1,750.00 Attend Conference 22 4 $590.00 Prepare Addenda 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 $1,160.00 d. Respond to Questions 1 2 4 4 2 2 15 $1,800.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 2 5 8 6 4 4 0 29 $3,550.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $400.00 $800.00 $1,080.00 $630.00 $340.00 $300.00 $0.00 $3,550.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 6.90% 17.24% 27.59% 20.69% 13.79% 13.79% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 11.27% 22.54% 30.42% 17.75% 9.58% 8.45% 0.00% Subtotal Section VI $3,550.00 $3,550.00 PAGE 15 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 144 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: KPA Engineers TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Project Manager Project Engineer Graduate Engineer (EIT) Senior Eng Tech (CAD) Eng Tech (CAD)Clerical TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration d. Submittal Review 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 8 $1,010.00 Review Shop Drawings 2 2 4 8 $1,010.00 f. Project Site Visits (monthly)4 4 4 12 $1,600.00 h. Final Walk Through 2 2 4 4 0 0 0 12 $1,680.00 Final Walk Through 2 2 2 2 8 $1,200.00 Prepare Punch List 2 2 4 $480.00 i. Record Drawings 1 1 1 2 2 4 11 $1,175.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 3 9 11 14 2 4 0 43 $5,465.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $200.00 $160.00 $135.00 $105.00 $85.00 $75.00 $55.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $600.00 $1,440.00 $1,485.00 $1,470.00 $170.00 $300.00 $0.00 $5,465.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 7.0% 20.9% 25.6% 32.6% 4.7% 9.3% 0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 11.0% 26.3% 27.2% 26.9% 3.1% 5.5% 0.0% Section VII Subtotal $5,465.00 $5,465.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 95 $12,095.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 542 $58,575.00 Section VI - Bidding 29 $3,550.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 43 $5,465.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 709 $79,685.00 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $79,685.00 GRAND TOTAL $79,685.00 PAGE 16 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 145 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Alliance Transportation Group TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 002000002$550.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 1 1 $275.00 Establish Project Controls 1 1 $275.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 001001002$445.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 1 1 2 $445.00 c. Submittal Meetings 001001002$445.00 90% Milestone 1 1 2 $445.00 d. Contract Management 001000001$275.00 Invoices (monthly)1 1 $275.00 e. Collect Data 00008010018$2,530.00 Collect and Review Data 2 2 $250.00 Field Reconnaissance 8 8 16 $2,280.00 f. Design Criteria 2 2 $320.00 h. QAQC 001040005$915.00 90% Submittal 1 2 3 $595.00 100% Submittal 2 2 $320.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 006014210032$5,480.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $1,650.00 $0.00 $2,240.00 $340.00 $1,250.00 $0.00 $5,480.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 0.00% 18.75% 0.00% 43.75% 6.25% 31.25% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 0.00% 30.11% 0.00% 40.88% 6.20% 22.81% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $5,480.00 $5,480.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section V - Final Design Incidentals Design 1 5 9 15 17 21 86 24 178 $28,555.00 d. Traffic Signal Warrant 104241032053$8,125.00 Analysis 4 24 28 $3,680.00 Report 1 22448 21$3,555.00 Meeting 2 2 4 $890.00 e. Traffic Signal and Illumination 022885482093$14,520.00 Proposed Layout Sheet 11444321662$9,625.00 Proposed Wiring Sheet 1144116431$4,895.00 f. Construction Details 0112224012$2,095.00 Prepare Signal Standard Details 112224 12$2,095.00 h. Bid Schedule and Quantities 0223342420$3,815.00 Prepare Bid Schedule 11112 6$1,230.00 Prepare Signal and Illumination Quantity Summary Sheet 112222414$2,585.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 1 5 9 15 17 21 86 24 178 $28,555.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $275.00 $1,250.00 $2,475.00 $3,075.00 $2,720.00 $3,570.00 $10,750.00 $4,440.00 $28,555.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.56% 2.81% 5.06% 8.43% 9.55% 11.80%48.31% 13.48% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.96% 4.38% 8.67% 10.77% 9.53% 12.50% 37.65% 15.55% Subtotal Section V $28,555.00 $28,555.00 PAGE 17 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 146 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Alliance Transportation Group TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VI - Bidding c. Pre-Bid Conference 004004008$1,780.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,780.00 d. Respond to Questions 4 8 8 20 $3,460.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 00800128028$5,240.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,040.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $5,240.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.00% 0.00% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 28.57% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.00% 0.00% 41.98% 0.00% 0.00% 38.93% 19.08% 0.00% Subtotal Section VI $5,240.00 $5,240.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Principal Quality Manager Project Manager Sr Engineer Project Engineer Traffic Engineer EIT Sr Eng Tech TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section VII - Construction Administration c. Pre-Construction Conference 004004008$1,780.00 Attend Conference 4 4 8 $1,780.00 d. Submittal Review 0010048013$1,955.00 Review Shop Drawings 1 4 8 13 $1,955.00 i. Record Drawings 1 2 2 2 4 11 $1,960.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 017021012032$5,695.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $275.00 $250.00 $275.00 $205.00 $160.00 $170.00 $125.00 $185.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 $250.00 $1,925.00 $0.00 $320.00 $1,700.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $5,695.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 0.0% 3.1% 21.9% 0.0% 6.3% 31.3% 37.5%0.0% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 0.0% 4.4% 33.8% 0.0% 5.6% 29.9% 26.3%0.0% Section VII Subtotal $5,695.00 $5,695.00 DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 32 $5,480.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 0 $0.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 178 $28,555.00 Section VI - Bidding 28 $5,240.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 32 $5,695.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 270 $44,970.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 600 $0.580 $348.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 15 $1.50 $22.50 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 60 $1.50 $90.00 Data Collection - 12-hour TMC each 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Data Collection - 24-Hour Bi-Directional Traffic Count each 2 $300.00 $600.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $2,060.50 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $44,970.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $2,060.50 GRAND TOTAL $47,030.50 PAGE 18 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 147 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Cobb Fendley TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager II Project Engineer III Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Senior Technician Technician II Utility Specialist 2-Man Designating Crew Vac Truck & Crew RPLS Technician I Clerical 2-Person Survey Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section I - Project Management/Coordination a. Project Set Up 20000000000103$520.00 Execute Subconsultant Agreements 1 1 2 $300.00 Establish Project Controls 1 1 $220.00 b. Kickoff Meeting 20200000000004$750.00 Conduct Kickoff Meeting 22 4 $750.00 c. Submittal Meetings 606000000000012$2,250.00 30% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 90% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 100% Milestone 22 4 $750.00 d. Contract Management 1200000000001013$2,720.00 Progress Reports (monthly)12 1 13 $2,720.00 e. Collect Data 04400000000008$1,300.00 Field Reconnaissance 44 8 $1,300.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 22412000000002040$7,540.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $220.00 $170.00 $155.00 $135.00 $145.00 $115.00 $150.00 $170.00 $300.00 $175.00 $95.00 $80.00 $150.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $4,840.00 $680.00 $1,860.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160.00 $0.00 $7,540.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 55.00% 10.00% 30.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 64.19% 9.02% 24.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.12% 0.00% Subtotal Section I $7,540.00 $7,540.00 TASK DESCRIPTION Project Manager II Project Engineer III Project Engineer II Project Engineer I Senior Technician Technician II Utility Specialist 2-Man Designating Crew Vac Truck & Crew TOTAL LABOR HOURS TOTAL LABOR COSTS Section II - Utility Coordination/ROW Support e. Utility Coordination 1004004200002049$7,220.00 Compile Utility Contact List 0.5 2 1 3.5 $460.00 Initial Project Notification Letter 0.5 2 2 1 5.5 $760.00 Communications with Utilities - Duration of Project 40 40 $6,000.00 f. Develop Utility Conflict Map 1 3 4 16 2 12 200000040$5,480.00 As-Builts/Record Research 0.5 2 2.5 $355.00 Create Existing Utility Layout 0.5 2 2 12 16.5 $2,025.00 Create 30% Conflict Matrix and Utility Conflict Map (Based upon 30% Design Submittal) 0.5 1 2 8 1 12.5 $1,820.00 Create 95% Conflict Matrix and Utility Conflict Map (Based upon 95% Design Submittal) 0.5 1 2 4 1 8.5 $1,280.00 g. Attend Utility Conflict Meetings 428824600002036$5,350.00 30% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 2 1 7 $1,130.00 Review and Evaluate Utility Relocation Plans 124121 11 $1,545.00 95% Utility Coordination Meeting 2 2 2 1 7 $1,130.00 Review and Evaluate Utility Relocation Plans 124121 11 $1,545.00 h. Prepare Utility Agreements 0.5 100001600001018.5$2,760.00 Prepare Agreements (Up to 2) 0.5 1 12 1 14.5 $2,160.00 Meet with Utilities for Agreement Review 4 4 $600.00 i. Obtain SUE 400015012242424216103$19,425.00 Obtain QL B Data (up to 2200 LF) 2 10 8 24 1 2 1 12 60 $9,415.00 Obtain QL A Data (up to 5 Test Holes) 2 5 4 24121443$10,010.00 HOURS SUB-TOTALS 10.5 6 12 28 19 16 78 24 24 2 4 7 16 246.5 $40,235.00 CONTRACT RATE PER HOUR $220.00 $170.00 $155.00 $135.00 $145.00 $115.00 $150.00 $170.00 $300.00 $175.00 $95.00 $80.00 $150.00 TOTAL LABOR COSTS $2,310.00 $1,020.00 $1,860.00 $3,780.00 $2,755.00 $1,840.00 $11,700.00 $4,080.00 $7,200.00 $350.00 $380.00 $560.00 $2,400.00 $40,235.00 % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING HOURS 4.26% 2.43% 4.87% 11.36% 7.71% 6.49%31.64% 9.74% 9.74% 0.81% 1.62% 2.84% 6.49% % DISTRIBUTION OF STAFFING COSTS 5.74% 2.54% 4.62% 9.39% 6.85% 4.57% 29.08% 10.14% 17.89% 0.87% 0.94% 1.39% 5.96% Subtotal Section II $40,235.00 $40,235.00 PAGE 19 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 148 of 150 EXHIBIT B - FEE SCHEDULE Lump Sum City of Georgeotwn Southwest (SW) Bypass - Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SW Bypass Connector from Wolf Ranch Parkway to SH 29 SUB PROVIDER NAME: Cobb Fendley DESCRIPTION TOTAL MH BY Section TOTAL COSTS BY Section LABOR Section I - Project Management/Coordination 40 $7,540.00 Section II - Utility Coordination/Right of Way Support 246.5 $40,235.00 Section III - Survey 0 $0.00 Section IV - Environmental Studies 0 $0.00 Section V - Final Design 0 $0.00 Section VI - Bidding 0 $0.00 Section VII - Construction Administration 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR EXPENSES 286.5 $47,775.00 OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES UNIT # OF UNITS MAXIMUM COST/UNIT FIXED COST Section TOTAL Mileage mile 70 $0.580 $40.60 Certified Letter Return Receipt each 4 $10.00 $40.00 Photocopies B/W (11" X 17") each 50 $0.15 $7.50 Photocopies B/W (8 1/2" X 11") each 100 $0.15 $15.00 Photocopies Color (11" X 17") each 100 $1.50 $150.00 Photocopies Color (8 1/2" X 11") each 75 $1.50 $112.50 Plots (B/W on Bond) (3'X6') per sq. ft. 72 $3.00 $216.00 CDs each 4 $2.00 $8.00 Vac Truck Mobilization mile 50 $6.50 $325.00 Traffic Control Setup each 4 $700.00 $2,800.00 SUBTOTAL OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES $3,714.60 SUMMARY TOTAL LABOR COSTS FOR PRIME ONLY $47,775.00 NON-SALARY (OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES) FOR PRIME ONLY $3,714.60 GRAND TOTAL $51,489.60 PAGE 20 OF 20 EXHIBIT BPage 149 of 150 Page 150 of 150