HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 146-2022 (22-705)SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT is
made at
South San Francisco, California, as of September XX, 2022, by and between THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ("City"), a municipal corporation, and Biggs Cardosa Associates,
Inc. ("Consultant"), (sometimes referred together as the "Parties") who agree as foll ows:
RECITALS
A. On October 14 2020, City and Consultant entered that certain Consultant Services Agreement
("Agreement") whereby Contractor agreed to provide Design Services for the City of South San
Francisco 2020-BPMP ST1703 Project. A true and correct c opy of the Agreement and its exhibits
is attached as Exhibit A.
B. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Consultant
hereby agree as follows:
1.All terms which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this
Amendment, unless specifically provided herein to the contrary.
2.Section 2: Compensation. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended such that the City agrees
to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $400,000.
Consultant agrees this is the City's total contribution for payment of costs under the Agreement
unless additional payments are authorized in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and
said terms of payment are mutually agreed to by and between the parties in writing.
3.Scope of Services. The Scope of services is amended and attached as Exhibit B to this
Amendment.
All other terms, conditions and provisions in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. If there
is a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement
will control unless specifically modified by this Amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Exhibit A
Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Approved as to Form:
By· - - ·
CONSULTANT
By.
Ronald Oen, PE
Principal-in-Charge
EXHIBITB
BIGGS CARCCSA
ASSCCiATES iNC
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
865 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126-3133
OFFICE OF
THE CITY ENGINEER
PHONE (650) 829-6652
FAX(650) 829-6689
City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue
(650) 829-6652
(650) 829-6689 fax
Project: stl 301 - South Airport Blvd Bridge Replacement Project
04-SM-0-SSF I BRLS-5177(030)/0413000001L-N
DIR: 226511
Attention: Mr. Robert Hahn
Project Manager/ Senior Civil Engineer
Date: 08/28/2018
Subject: Letter 029-BCA CM Additional Fee Proposal_Revl
Bridge Closure Single Season Construction
Dear Mr. Hahn:
Biggs Cardosa Associates (BCA) is submitting an additional fee proposal for additional construction
management and inspection services estimated to be needed to accommodate the bridge closure single
season construction.
Additional construction management and inspection services include performing site inspection and
existing conditions evaluation, coordinating the redesign of the contract documents with the design
engineer, coordinating rights of entry with adjacent property owners, coordinating additional funding
requests, negotiating and implementing the requoted contract with the contractor, performing
additional construction management for continuing traffic control, and performing construction
management and inspection services on an accelerated construction schedu le requiring overtime,
weekend work, and double shifts.
This additional fee proposal considers possible two scenarios;
1) Baseline Construction Schedule $1,046,025
The non-accelerated construction schedule assumes 12 hour shifts performed 6 days per week fr om
July 16, 2018 to November 16, 2018, 8 hour shifts performed 5 days per week from November 16,
2018 to December 30, 2018, traffic control oversight required until November 16, 2018, significant
project completion by December 30, 2018 and project close -out completed 60 days following
significant project completion.
2) Accelerated Construction Schedule $1,181,607
The accelerated construction schedule assumes double 8 hour shifts performed 7 days per week
from July 16, 2018 to November 16, 2018, traffic control oversight required until November 16,
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBITB
$ •• kf'
EXHIBITB
Project: st1301 - South Airport Blvd Bridge Replacement Project
04-SM-0-SSF I BRLS-5177(030) / 0413000001L-N
DIR: 226511
Letter 029-BCA CM Additional Work Request Proposal
Bridge Closure Single Season Construction
2018, significant project completion by December 30, 2018 and project close -out completed 60
days following significant project completion.
Detailed estimated hourly cost breakdowns of each scenario are attached. At a minimum, the contractor
will perform construction to the baseline schedule assumptions. However, to ensure that the
environmental permit window construction milestone is achieved and to expedite the reopening of
traffic, the contractor will likely need to accelerate construction to some degree. To cover the cost of
this additional level of acceleration, Biggs Cardosa Associates recommends that the City budget for the
2nd scenario - accelerated construction schedule ($1,181,607).
The total compensation for Construction Management and Inspection Services per the original contract
totals to $560,411. Depending on the City's decision of how t o incorporate the additional budget, the
additional fee required and associated total CM fee will amount to as follows:
Options:
Baseline Construction Schedule:
Accelerated Construction Schedule:
Additional Fee
$485,614
$621,196
Total CM Fee
$1,046,025
$1,181,607
Sincerely,
J-1 -
Ron Oen, P.E.
Resident Engineer
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
Enclosures:
1. Attachment A - Baseline Construction Schedule Fee Proposal
2. Attachment B - Accelerated Construction Schedule Fee Proposal
cc: M. Harms, - file:6.0
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBITB
I Ii =I
April 19, 2022
2021097
Mr. Robert Hahn, PE
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Ave.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Cc: Mr. Matthew Ruble, PE
Subject: City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request (ASR) No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
Dear Bob:
This additional service request proposal is to include the additional scope required to incorporate a
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation and associated additional permit coordination anticipated
for the Utah Ave in-water work.
I. ASR No. 3 - BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING
In the original contract, it was assumed that a Biological Assessment and Section 7 Consultation with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Services
(NMFS) would not be required because impacts on these species (if present) would be avoided or
minimized to obtain a “No Effect” determination. However, as a result of the biological investigations
conducted to date in support of the NESMI, additional effort and documentation related to biological
investigations is required to support NEPA approval and permitting for the project.
In order to provide the most economical approach to delivery of the maintenance activities, the
environmental consultant would complete environmental documentation and permitting for all nine
bridge sites under one Federal Project Number and one set of environmental documents and permits.
If the City elects to separate out the bridge sites into one or more sets of projects in order to deliver
some of the maintenance actions sooner than others, then we would provide the associated
environmental services under a revised scope of work and budget.
Based on this, we are requesting an amendment to the current contract to incorporate these additional
services, as described further below.
II. ASR No. 3 - SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND DOCUMENTATION
Project Management
The contract scope of work for project management was anticipated to be five months for the NEPA
phase and 14 months for the environmental permitting phase. Project kick-off began in April 2021 and
NEPA coordination has been ongoing. The environmental permitting phase has not been initiated. Due
to the extension of the project schedule for the NEPA phase, to date, we have provided 12 months of
project management and is expecting 10 additional months to complete the NEPA phase. As a result,
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 2 of 8
we are requesting additional budget to accommodate additional time required to complete these
continued activities. The project management effort for ASR No. 3 is included in the following subtasks.
Deliverables: 10 additional months of Project Management for the NEPA phase
Task 3.2: NEPA Approval
Updated Preliminary Environment Study Form
The environmental consultant has begun preparation of an updated PES form to address all nine bridge
maintenance locations included in the City’s BPMP (i.e., six original bridges and three new bridges).
Following project-level analysis during the preparation of the NES(MI), the project at Utah Avenue
(Bridge #35C0101) was determined to potentially have unavoidable impacts on the federal threatened
southern green sturgeon and southern green sturgeon designated critical habitat and Section 7
consultation under the Endangered Species Act will be required. Because of this, additional efforts are
required to incorporate Section 7 resources within the PES. The consultant will provide updated
responses to the questions on the PES form to address Section 7 resources.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the PES form.
NEPA Categorical Exclusion (Optional Task)
Following project-level analysis during the preparation of the NES(MI), Section 7 consultation under
the Endangered Species Act will be required. Because of this change, greater efforts will be required to
obtain a CE determination and signed CE form from Caltrans. In addition, because Section 7 resources
are within the project, more effort will be required to complete the Environmental Commitments
Record (ECR), which would be provided to Caltrans.
Deliverable: One electronic copy of the Environmental Commitments Record, NEPA CE Determination, Signed
NEPA CE Form.
Task 3.3: Biological Resources: Natural Environment Study [Minimal Impacts]
Based on the Caltrans PES and preliminary research, we understood that there was potential for USFWS
federal listed species, such as the federally threatened California red-legged frog and the federal and state
endangered California Ridgway's rail, to be present in the project vicinity; however, based on the project
action, assumed any impacts on these species (if present) would be avoided or minimized to obtain a
“No Effect” determination. Further, we did not expect any species under the jurisdiction of the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to have potential to be within the BSA.
Following project-level surveys and thorough technical analysis during the preparation of the NES(MI),
the project at Utah Avenue (Bridge #35C0101) was determined to potentially have unavoidable impacts
on the federal threatened southern green sturgeon, southern green sturgeon designated critical habitat,
and the federal candidate/state threatened longfin smelt. Because of this, additional efforts for species
analysis, development team coordination, and documentation are required to address this species in the
NES(MI) beyond what was scoped. This amendment is requested to recapture efforts conducted to date
and to complete Caltrans approval of the NES(MI).
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 3 of 8
Deliverable: Inclusion of evaluation of southern green sturgeon, longfin smelt, and southern green sturgeon critical habitat
in the NES(MI).
Task 3.12: Additional Permitting Coordination for Utah @ Colma Creek
Additional services will be performed for Task 3.12: CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement /
RWQCB 401 Permit / ACOE 401 Permit of the Environmental Studies Documentation / Permits (PE
Funding Phase) of the SSF BPMP Project. Because of the required in-creek construction and special
status species identified at the Utah Avenue (Bridge #35C0101) site, it is anticipated that the regulatory
agencies will require a thorough accounting of all anticipated construction activities within their
jurisdictions including a systematic sequencing of construction activities for both temporary and
permanent construction elements, comprehensive list of required construction equipment, and
development of detailed quantities breakdown to specify volume, and dimensions of all materials and
features (e.g., creek earthwork, bridge pier and/or abutment concrete repair, temporary dewatering and
stream diversion, rip rap fields, etc.) that will be used or installed within each of the regulatory agencies’
jurisdiction. To facilitate this additional permitting coordination, the effort also includes the
development of all additionally required permit exhibits (construction overview and sequencing plan,
dewatering and/or stream diversion plan, fish relocation plan, list of construction equipment,
breakdown of quantities, etc.) to provide a comprehensive description along with a visual representation
and illustration of the proposed construction activities (equipment staging, work access, material
stockpile areas, limits of grading (cut and fill), RSP, drainage outfall structures, piers, abutments and/or
foundations, water diversions, work trestles, vegetation removal, etc.) to allow each of the regulatory
agencies to determine the associated permit mitigation measures within their jurisdictions and issue
permits for the project.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of additionally required permit exhibits
Task 3.13: National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 Consultation
Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation:
Under the FESA, if the project may affect a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) threatened or
endangered species, designated critical habitat, or Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnussen Stevens
Act, Section 7 consultation with NMFS is required. Based on project analysis during the preparation of
the NES(MI), the project at Utah Avenue (Bridge #35C0101) may have effects on federally threatened
southern green sturgeon and designated critical habitat for this species. Caltrans during their review of
the NES(MI), requested a Biological Assessment be prepared for the project. This effort was not
included in our contract scope of work and budget; therefore, this amendment to perform this additional
work is required at this time.
The environmental consultant will prepare the Section 7 consultation initiation package, including a
Biological Assessment for the project. We will coordinate with the City and Caltrans for review and
submittal of the Section 7 consultation initiation package to NMFS. If requested, the environmental
consultant’s biologist will attend up to four internal phone meetings or NMFS coordination phone
meetings held as part of the consultation process. It is assumed that additional field visits and/or
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 4 of 8
coordination meetings with federal agency representatives will not be required to support completion
of Section 7 consultation.
We will provide support to the City to streamline the FESA consultation process, including preparation
of up to one supplemental information request from Caltrans or NMFS. We will also provide technical
assistance to the City to refine impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as required by
NMFS to reduce project impacts on NMFS FESA species, critical habitat, and or Essential Fish Habitat
to the maximum extent feasible.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the NMFS Biological Assessment
Task 3.14: Incidental Take Permit (Optional)
Following project-level surveys and technical analysis during the preparation of the NES(MI), the
project at Utah Avenue (Bridge #35C0101) may have take of the state threatened longfin smelt. Under
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), if the project may result in the ‘take’ of a state
threatened, endangered, or candidate species, consultation with the CDFW is required.
If requested, we will prepare an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) application and will coordinate with the
City for review and submittal of the ITP application to CDFW. If requested, the environmental
consultant’s biologist will attend up to four internal phone meetings or CDFW coordination phone
meetings held as part of the consultation process. We will provide support to the City to streamline the
CESA consultation processes, including preparation of up to one supplemental information request by
CDFW. We will also provide technical assistance to the City to refine impact avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation measures, as required by CDFW to reduce project impacts and potential for take of
CESA species to the maximum extent feasible. It is assumed that the surveys and technical reports
prepared for the project (NES[MI] and Aquatic Resource Delineation) will be sufficient to support
CDFW’s issuance of an ITP.
Deliverables: One electronic copy of the CESA consultation package.
ASSUMPTIONS
This scope has been prepared based on the following assumptions:
General
▪ All deliverables would be provided in electronic format (PDF or similar), and no hard copies would be required.
▪ The SOW assumes that the consultant would complete NEPA documentation and permitting for all nine bridge sites
under one Federal Project Number and set of environmental documents and permits. If the City elects to separate out
the bridge sites into one or more sets of projects in order to deliver some of the maintenance actions sooner than others,
then the consultant would provide the associated environmental services under a revised scope of work and budget.
▪ The environmental consultant assumes 65% plans will be provided to complete the regulatory permitting with the
RWQCB, USACE, and CDFW. Plans would include all work and/or features that may encroach, for any amount
of time, within the jurisdictional areas.
▪ The environmental consultant assumes the project design team will provide the necessary design information to complete
the regulatory permitting with the RWQCB, CDFW, and USACE. The limits of all temporary and permanent
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 5 of 8
disturbances within the RWQCB, CDFW and USACE will be provided, including, but not limited to: equipment
staging, work access, material stockpile areas, limits of grading (cut and fill), RSP, drainage outfall structures, piers,
abutments and/or foundations, water diversions, work trestles (or similar), vegetation removal, etc. The project design
team would provide general construction sequence descriptions of all activities that will be performed for each construction
activity, including equipment usage to perform the required actions, within jurisdictional areas. Jurisdictional areas are
expected to include the bed, channel, bank, and floodplain of a waterway and any associated wetland features. All
materials, structures, and/or features that will temporarily or permanently encroach and impact environmental agencies
jurisdiction will be identified and quantified (volumes, dimensions, linear feet). Approximate quantities and/or range
thresholds are expected to be adequate to meet the regulatory requirements. Materials may include, but are not limited
to: concrete/reinforced concrete, asphalt, RSP, earthen fill, gravel, steel, piles, drilling mud, materials to construct water
diversion, etc.
▪ Up to three rounds of comments are anticipated, one from the design team, one from the City, and one from Caltrans,
on each deliverable. If responses to additional comments are requested, the consultant will provide an additional scope
of work and budget to support this effort.
▪ Protocol-level surveys for special-status species, if required, are not included in this scope of work. It is anticipated that
potential for special-status plants and wildlife species can be inferred based on the surveys originally scoped for the
project. If protocol surveys are requested, the consultant will provide an additional scope of work and budget to support
this effort.
Project Management
▪ A maximum of 10 additional months of Project Management will be required for the NEPA phase
NEPA
▪ Requirement of a Biological Opinion is assumed to not affect the level of NEPA documentation. A CE will continue
to be the appropriate level of NEPA documentation. If during project development or completion of environmental
investigations, is it identified that the project would not qualify for a CE, an additional scope of work and budget will
be provided to support a higher-level of documentation.
NES(MI)
▪ No additional field visits are anticipated to be necessary for completion NES(MI).
National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 Consultation:
▪ Based on the technical analysis prepared to date, potential effects on southern green sturgeon and southern green sturgeon
designated critical habitat is assumed to be limited to Colma Creek Bridge at Utah Avenue.
▪ This scope of work includes consultation with NMFS for southern green sturgeon and southern green sturgeon
designated critical habitat. If additional species and/or consultation with the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service
is required, GPA will provide an additional scope of work and budget to support this effort.
▪ It is assumed that additional field visits with agency representatives will not be required to support completion of Section
7 consultation. If additional field visits or coordination meetings are required, GPA will provide an additional scope
of work and budget to support this effort.
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 6 of 8
▪ It is assumed the federal candidate longfin smelt will not be elevated beyond a candidate species and will not require
coverage under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Incidental Take Permit:
▪ Based on the technical analysis prepared to date, potential take of longfin smelt is assumed to be limited to Colma
Creek Bridge at Utah Avenue. Therefore, this scope of work includes one incidental take permit to authorize the
impacts on longfin smelt associated with Colma Creek Bridge at Utah Avenue. If permitting is requested or required
to authorize work at additional bridge locations and/or within additional aquatic features, the consultant will provide
an additional scope of work and budget to support this effort.
▪ This scope of work includes consultation with CDFW for longfin smelt. If consultation for additional species is
required, the consultant will provide an additional scope of work and budget to support this effort.
▪ All fees and/or compensatory mitigation associated with the incidental take permit will be paid by the City.
▪ It is assumed that additional field visits with agency representatives will not be required to support completion CESA
consultation. If additional field visits or coordination meetings are required, the consultant will provide an additional
scope of work and budget to support this effort.
▪ It is assumed that the technical reports and environmental documents prepared for the project (NES[MI] and Aquatic
Resources Delineation Report) will be sufficient to support CDFW’s issuance of an ITP for the project. If additional
biological investigations would be required to support an ITP, the consultant will provide an additional scope of work
and budget to support this effort.
III. ASR No. 3 – FEE BREAKDOWN
The additional services requested for this Task Order includes the following subtask effort and hourly
estimated breakdown (see Attachment 1 – Additional Services Request No.3_Fee Breakdown).
Task 3: ENVIRONMENATAL STUDIES DOCUMENTATION / PERMITS
· Subtask 3.2: NEPA Approval: Updated PES, Field Review Meeting, NEPA CE Support
o 3.2.4: Update PES Form [ASR 3]
o 3.2.5: NEPA CE Support (OPTIONAL) [ASR 3]
· Subtask 3.3: Natural Environment Study/Minimal Impact (NESMI) & Wetland Delineation
and Assessment
o 3.3.3 Biological Resources NES (MI) Report [ASR 3]
· Subtask 3.12: CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement / RWQCB 401 Permit / ACOE
401 Permit
o 3.12.2 Additional Permitting for Utah Ave @ Colma Creek [ASR 3]
· Subtask 3.13: National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 Consultation [ASR 3]
· Subtask 3.14: Incidental Take Permit (Optional) [ASR 3]
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. is therefore submitting herein our fee proposal for additional services to
incorporate a Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation and associated additional permit
coordination anticipated for the Utah Ave in-water work as follows.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed x Prime Consultant □Subconsultant □2nd Tier Subconsultant
Consultant Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
Project No. 12508-2020 Contract No. SSF ST1703 - ASR No. 3 Date 4/19/2022
DIRECT LABOR
hours Actual Hourly Rate Total
26 $110.00 $2,860.00
$90.00 $0.00
$74.00 $0.00
$64.00 $0.00
80 $55.00 $4,400.00
$48.00 $0.00
$42.00 $0.00
$37.00 $0.00
24 $50.00 $1,200.00
$30.00 $0.00
10 $40.00 $400.00
LABOR COSTS 30
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $8,860.00
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample)$443.00
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)]$9,303.00
INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 28.34% )e) Total Fringe Benefits
[(c) x (d)] $2,636.47
Overhead (Rate: 0.00% ) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $0.00
h) General and Administrative (Rate: 139.79% ) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $13,004.66
j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)]$15,641.13
FIXED FEE
q) (Rate: 10.00% )k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x (q)]$2,494.41
l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary)
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
0 Each $76.00 $0.00
0 Each $50.00 $0.00
0 Each $25.00 $0.00
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0.00
m) SUBCONSUTLANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary)
Subconsultant 1: HMH 1 $7,284 $7,284.00
Subconsultant 2: GPA 1 $77,867 $77,867.00
Subconsultant 3:$0.00
Subconsultant 4:$0.00
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $85,151.00
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)]$85,151
TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)]$112,590
NOTES:
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked
with two asterisks (**). All cost must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Inderect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the
constulant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
Page 1 of 3
January 2018
Travel/Mileage (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)
variousComputer Drafter
Administrative Services various
Description of Item
Postage and Delivery Cost (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)
Repoduction and Printing Costs - Prints (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)
Junior Engineer various
Senior Computer Drafter various
Project Engineer various
variousAssistant Engineer
Staff Engineer various
Associate various
Engineering Manager various
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS
(DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Classification/Title Name
Principal Ron Oen*
Senior Engineer various
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 7 of 8
City of South San Francisco BPMP, South San Francisco, CA
Additional Service Request No. 03
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation & Permits for Utah Ave In-Water Work
April 19, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Proposed Additional Budget
The role of BCA is the prime and structures consultant, the role of HMH is the civil, traffic, water
quality and survey subconsultant, and the role of GPA is the environmental subconsultant. We estimate
that the additional budget required to perform the extra work associated with Additional Service Request
No. 03 to incorporate a Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation and associated additional permit
coordination anticipated for the Utah Ave in-water work is as follows:
Additional Services Request No. 3
o BCA $27,439.00
o HMH $7,284.00
o GPA $77,867.00
TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROPOSED BUDGET $112,590.00
If approved, the additional budget of $112,590.00 for SSF BPMP Additional Services Request No. 3 will
be added to the currently negotiated and approved budget as follows.
Original SSF BPMP Contract Agreement (10/14/2020) $200,000.00
1st Amendment SSF BPMP (05/10/2021) $ 31,666.00
SSF BPMP ASR No. 3 $112,590.00
Design Services (PE Funding Phase) Proposed Budget $344,256.00
We look forward to working with you on this project. Should you have any questions or require any
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me on my cell phone at (408) 781-4549, or by
email at [email protected].
Enclosure:
· Attachment 1 – Additional Services Request No.3_Fee Breakdown 04/19/22
Sincerely,
BIGGS CARDOSA
ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ron Oen, PE, QSD
Principal
Attachment 1 - Additional Services Request No.3_Fee Breakdown 04/19/2022
19-Apr-22WBS DESIGN SERVICES (PE FUNDING PHASE)Task 1Project Management & Caltrans Contract Management Assistance1.1Project Administration/ Budgeting/ Cost Accounting0 $01.2Caltrans Local Assistance Support (ROW Cert & Con E-76)0 $01.3Project Schedule0 $01.4Monthly Project Meetings/Agency Coordination (4 PDT Mtgs assumed)0 $0Subtotal0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 2Preliminary Engineering Studies / Suevey and Mapping / Utility Coordination2.1Data Gathering, Document Review, and Structure Field Investigations0 $02.2Surveys and Mapping0 $02.3Utility Coordination0 $02.4Prepare Preliminary Design Submittal (35% Plans and Estimate)0 $0Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 3Environmental Studies Documentation / Permits3.1CEQA Determination and Filing0 $03.2NEPA Approval0 $03.2.1Update PES Form [Amend 1]0 $03.2.2Field Review Meeting [Amend 1]0 $03.2.3NEPA CE Support (Optional) [Amend 1]0 $03.2.4Update PES [ASR 3]28 216 16 4 12 44 68 $9,1113.2.5NEPA CE Support (Optional) [ASR 3]28 24 4 1636 $4,6763.3Natural Environment Study/Minimal Impact (NESMI) & Wetland Delineation and Assessment0 $03.3.1Additional NES/MI for N Access @ San Bruno (35C0046) [Amend 1]0 $03.3.2Additional Aquatic Resources Delineation for N Access @ San Bruno (35C0046) [Amend 1]0 $03.3.3Biological Resources NES (MI) Report [ASR 3]28 224 24 16 16 2 76 $8,4083.4Equipment Staging & Tech Memo0 $03.5Traffic Tech Memo0 $03.6Air Quality0 $03.7Hazardous Materials / Hazardous Waste Tech Memo0 $03.8Water Quality Assessment Report0 $03.9Location Hydraulic Study0 $03.10Summary Flood Plain Encroachment Report0 $03.11NPDES Permit0 $03.12CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement / RWQCB 401 Permit / ACOE 401 Permit 0 $03.12.1Additional Permitting for N Access @ San Bruno (35C0046) [Amend 1]0 $03.12.2Additional Permitting Coordination for Utah Ave @ Colma Creek [ASR 3]1640 24 8 16 16120 $23,2643.13National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 Consultation [ASR 3]28 2840 112 100 100 36 4 412 $42,1333.14Incidental Take Permit (Optional) [ASR 3]28 2416 52 60 60 36 4 244 $24,997Subtotal 26 0 0 80 24 10 8 16 16 0 34 20 4 16 12 60 192 176 100 16 60 72 14 0 956 $112,590Task 4Final Design4.1Prepare Draft Design Submittal (65% PS&E)0 $04.1.165% PS&E for Additional Services Request #1 [Amend 1]0 $04.2Independent QA/QC Check of 65% PS&E Submittal0 $04.2.1Independent QA/QC Check for Additional Services Request #1 [Amend 1]0 $04.3Prepare Pre-Final Design Submittal (95% PS&E)0 $04.4Prepare Final Design Submittal (100% PS&E)0 $0Subtotal0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 5Bid and Award Support5.1Addressing Bid Inquiries and Preparing Addenda0 $05.2Prepare Conform Set of Construction Documents and Technical Specifications0 $0Subtotal0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $026 0 0 80 24 10 8 16 16 0 34 20 4 16 12 60 192 176 100 16 60 72 14 0956$112,590956Plotting, Printing, and Postage$0Travel (Mileage)$0Travel (Meals)$0Travel (Lodging)$0$0WBS DESIGN SERVICES (PE FUNDING PHASE)Task 1: Project Management & Caltrans Contract Management Assistance$0Task 2: Preliminary Engineering Studies / Suevey and Mapping / Utility Coordination$0Task 3: Environmental Studies Documentation / Permits$112,590Task 4: Final Design$0Task 5:Bid and Award Support$0$112,590FEE APPLICABLE TO E-76 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (PE) FUNDING$112,590$0776Mario MayoBiologist$77,86769.16%$0$27,439$7,284$0$0$0$77,867$0$0$0$0Total Hours Per Consultant 140Project Total Reimbursable Expenses $0$0Total Project Fee Per Consultant$0DBE PARTICIPATION PERCENTAGES $0$7,284$27,439$040$0CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BPMP (ST 1703)Project Total LaborEngineering and Design ServicesEstimate of Labor Effort (ASR No. 3)Senior DrafterAdministrativeEngineering ManagerAssociate - QC ManagerMarieka SchraderSenior Associate BiologistSenior Land SurveyorCivil Engineering ManagerSenior Civil EngineerDIRECT EXPENSESJessica NwankwoAssociate Environmental PlannerMartin RoseSenior GIS AnalystTotal FeeProject Management, Prime Consultant & Structural EngineeringProject EngineerBCAPrincipal-in-ChargeTotal HoursHMHCivil, Traffic, Survey, & Utility CoordinationGPA (DBE)Environmental Clearance & PermittingRyan TodaroSr. Associate Environmental PlannerCory QuonBiologistLizbeth OrozcoBiologistAssistant Civil EngineerPatrick GriggsBiologistMaria BernardezSenior Environmental PlannerAngela ScudiereSenior BiologistCatherine SaintSenior Environmental PlannerRiley VeraAssociate Environmental PlannerNoeli TopeteAssociate Environmental Planner
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 1 of 3
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS
(DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES)
Note: Mark-ups are Not Allowed x Prime Consultant □Subconsultant □2nd Tier Subconsultant
Consultant Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
Project No.12508-2020 Contract No. SSF ST1703 - ASR No. 3 Date 4/19/2022
DIRECT LABOR
Classification/Title Name hours Actual Hourly Rate Total
Principal Ron Oen*26 $110.00 $2,860.00
Associate various $90.00 $0.00
Engineering Manager various $74.00 $0.00
Senior Engineer various $64.00 $0.00
Project Engineer various 80 $55.00 $4,400.00
Staff Engineer various $48.00 $0.00
Assistant Engineer various $42.00 $0.00
Junior Engineer various $37.00 $0.00
Senior Computer Drafter various 24 $50.00 $1,200.00
Computer Drafter various $30.00 $0.00
Administrative Services various 10 $40.00 $400.00
LABOR COSTS 30
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs $8,860.00
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for sample)$443.00
c) TOTAL DIRECT LABOR COSTS [(a) + (b)]$9,303.00
INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 28.34%)e) Total Fringe Benefits
[(c) x (d)]$2,636.47
Overhead (Rate:0.00%) g) Overhead [(c) x (f)]$0.00
h) General and Administrative (Rate:139.79%) i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)]$13,004.66
j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)]$15,641.13
FIXED FEE
q) (Rate: 10.00%)k) TOTAL FIXED PROFIT [(c) + (j)] x (q)]$2,494.41
l) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add additional pages if necessary)
Description of Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total
Postage and Delivery Cost (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)0 Each $76.00 $0.00
Travel/Mileage (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)0 Each $50.00 $0.00
Repoduction and Printing Costs - Prints (Supported by Consultant Actual Costs)0 Each $25.00 $0.00
l) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0.00
m) SUBCONSUTLANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary)
Subconsultant 1:HMH 1 $7,284 $7,284.00
Subconsultant 2:GPA 1 $77,867 $77,867.00
Subconsultant 3:$0.00
Subconsultant 4:$0.00
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS $85,151.00
n) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l) + (m)]$85,151
TOTAL COST [(c) + (j) + (k) + (n)]$112,590
NOTES:
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked
with two asterisks (**). All cost must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Inderect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the
constulant's annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans.
3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.
Page 1 of 3
January 2018
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 2 of 3
ACTUAL COST-PLUS-FIXED FEE OR LUMP SUM (FIRM FIXED PRICE) CONTRACTS
(SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR ANTICIPATED SALARY INCREASES)
1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours)
Direct Labor Subtotal Total Hours Avg Hourly 1 Year Contract
per Cost Proposal per Cost Proposal Rate Duration
$8,860.00 140 =$63.29 Year 1 Avg Hourly
Rate
2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation %)
Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
Year 1 $63.29 +5.0%=$66.45 Year 2 Avg Hourly
RateYear 2 $66.45 +5.0%=$69.77 Year 3 Avg Hourly
RateYear 3 $69.77 +5.0%=$73.26 Year 4 Avg Hourly
RateYear 4 $73.26 +5.0%=$76.92 Year 5 Avg Hourly
Rate
3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply estimate % each year by total hours)
Estimated %Total Hours Total Hours
Completed Each Year per Cost Proposal per Year
Year 1 0.00%*140.0 =0.0 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 100.00%*140.0 =140.0 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 0.00%*140.0 =0.0 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 0.00%*140.0 =0.0 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 0.00%*140.0 =0.0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total 100% Total =140.0
4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours)
Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours Cost per Year(calculated above)(calculated above)
Year 1 $63.29 *0 =$0.00 Estimated Hours Year 1
Year 2 $66.45 *140 =$9,303.00 Estimated Hours Year 2
Year 3 $69.77 *0 =$0.00 Estimated Hours Year 3
Year 4 $73.26 *0 =$0.00 Estimated Hours Year 4
Year 5 $76.92 *0 =$0.00 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation =$9,303.00
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation =$8,860.00
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary Increase =$443.00 Transfer to Page 1
NOTES:
1. This is not the only way to estimate salary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the % increase,
the # of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.
2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase % multiplied by the # of years is not acceptable.
(i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)
3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.
4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.
Page 2 of 3
January 2018
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-H1
Cost Proposal
EXHIBIT 10-H1 COST PROPOSAL Page 3 of 3
Certification of Direct Costs:
I, the undersigned, ceritfy to the best of my knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual,
reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:
1.General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
2.Terms and conditions of the contract
3.Title 23 United States Code Section 112 - Letting of Contracts
4.48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Proceedures
5.23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Services
6.48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9904 - Costs Accounting Standards Board (when applicable)
All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in
compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for
reimbursement.
Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s)
Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifying:
Name:Ron Oen Title*:Principal
Signature:Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy):4/19/2022
Email:[email protected] Phone Number:(408) 296-5515
Address:865 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126
*An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no lower than a
Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivelant, who has authority to represent the financial information
utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.
List of services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:
ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUEST No. 3 - additional scope required to incorporate a Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation and associated additional
permit coordination anticipated for the Utah Ave in-water work.
Page 3 of 3
January 2018