Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutres1985-0181 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 INTRODUCED BY: Becker PROPOSED BY: Public Works Dept. DATE INTRODUCED: April 4, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-18 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE-TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ARNOLD, ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES FOR INVESTIGATION ON THE HANNEGAN ROAD BRIDGE, DESIGN FOR A NEW FERRY TRANSFER FACILITY AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITY AT GOOSEBERRY POINT, AND REPORT ON ROCK CREEK, DAKOTA CREEK, DAKOTA CREEK NORTH, AND WELCOME BRIDGES. WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council has determined that investigation is necessary on the roadway slabs and other features of the Hannegan Road Bridge to determine the structural integrity thereof and to provide suitable recommen- dations for repairs needed as described in Exhibit A of the proposed contractual agreement; and WHEREAS, it is further determined preliminary study and design for a new ferry transfer facility at Gooseberry Point, including an evaluation of cradles and dolphins, is necessary to determine the continued use of the existing transfer span as described in Exhibit B of the proposed contractual agreement; and WHEREAS, it is determined an analysis on Rock Creek, Dakota Creek, Dakota Creek North and Welcome bridges, as described in Exhibit C, is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of all the citizens of Whatcom County; and WHEREAS, Arnold, Arnold & Associates was selected in response to an annual RFP for all Public Works Department engineering projects including, but not limited to the ones herein, received at 1:30 p.m. on February 4, 1985, based on the experience of the firm, the individual who will perform the work and pro- jects of similar type and scope previously accomplished for the County or other entities. WHEREAS, it is determined that Arnold, Arnold & Associates has the expertise and experience for the purpose of providing the consulting services to the County; and RESOLUTION - 1� Date Drafted: 3/26/85 1 2! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19" 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 V WHEREAS, the consultant hereby agrees to perform those services speci- fically set forth within the agreement by and between Whatcom County and the consultant and the exhibits attached thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Executive is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement by and between Whatcom County and Arnold, Arnold & Associates to perform the services as stipulated within the agreement for consulting services and Exhibits A, B, and C. The agreement for consulting services between the County and Arnold, Arnold & Associates, consulting engineers, shall stipulate reimbursement to the consultant for services rendered in a sum not to exceed $41,400 and said sum includes costs incidental to and necessary for completion of the work described within the contract and attachments A, B and C thereto. The sum shall be paid in monthly installments as costs are incurred and billed by the consulting firm. PASSED this 4th ATTEST: Q 4�1 Ca of Ebergson Clerk -of -the Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: " �"Q' � Ul]:�L Randall . Civil Deputy secuting Attorney RESOLUTION - 2. date drafted: 3/26/85 day of April 1985. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON WILLIAM P. ROEHL Chairperson T ` —i Edwin R. Henken, County Engineer BUREAU OF ENGINEERING Courthouse, Bellingham, WA 98225 County 398 -1310 City 676.6730 WDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Paul F. Rushing, Director CCourthouse, Bellingham, WA 98225 (206) 676 -6692 Donovan F. Kehrer, Deputy Administrator BUREAU of BUILDINGS and CODE ADMINISTRATION 401 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98225 County 398 -1310 City 676 -6907 March 27, 1985 1112 FROM: The Honorable Shirley Van Zanten County Executive Paul F. Rushing, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: A Resolution authorizing the County Executive to enter into a contractual agreement with Arnold, Arnold & Associates, Consulting Engineers, for the purposes provided therein. Attached hereto for your consideration is a proposed agreement by and between Whatcom County and Arnold, Arnold & Associates, consulting engineers. Work to be performed by the consultants as stipulated in the proposed contract. Arnold, Arnold & Associates, consulting engineers, was selected from proposals in response to a RFP received at 1:30 p.m, on February 4, 1985 in accordance with RCW 39.80 and the County Council's policies on professional contracts. Selection from the proposals, in accordance with the RFP, was based on the experience of the firm, the individual who will perform the work and projects of similar type and scope previously accomplished for the County or other entities. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. If not, I would appreciate if this resolution can be placed before the Finance Committee and the Council at their next regular meetings. NOTE: Funds for payment for this proposed consulting work are budgeted and approved by the County Council in the 1985 budget. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , between WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "County ", and ARNOLD, ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, Consulting" Engineers, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant ", for the purpose of providing bridge and other structural engineering services during 1985. A. SERVICES The County hereby employs the consultant to perfom the profes- sional services described herein, and such other services as may be authorized by the County. All work shall be done under the supervision of the County Engineer or his designated representative, the Deputy County Engineer. The professional services to be performed and the results to be achieved by the Consultant shall be as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C which are attached hereto and incorporated herein and as described below. 1. Investigation of the roadway slabs and other features of the Hannegan Road Bridge to determine the structural integrity thereof and to provide suitable recommendations for repair needs as described in Exhibit A. 2. Preliminary studies and designs for a new ferry transfer facility at Gooseberry Point including an evaluation of cradles and dolphins and the continued use of the existing transfer span as described in Exhibit B. 3. Brief field reviews and letter reports on Rock Creek, Dakota Creek, Dakota Creek North and Welcome Bridges as described in Exhibit C. B. CONSIDERATION The Consultant shall be compensated upon a reimbursable basis as shown below provided however that the total amount shall not exceed $41,400.00 without authorization to do so and /or an appropriately negotiated change order. This amount includes a $3,750.00 contingency factor which may be utilized for one or more of the projects listed herein upon approval of the County Engineer. The reimbursable basis shall be as follows: Principal $60.00 per hour Associate or Senior Engineer $44.00 per hour Engineer $35.00 per hour Draftsman /Technician $25.00 per hour The above rates include all overhead and profit. The estimated amounts for the individual projects are: 1. Hannegan Road Bridge Arnold, Arnold & Associates including travel & per diem allowance $ 9,900.00 Otto Rosenau & Assoc., Inc. 1,700.00 TOTAL $11,600.00 2. Gooseberry Point Ferry Landing Arnold, Arnold & Associates $15,600.00 GeoEngineers, Inc. 5,000.00 H. Hovila, Mechanical Engr. 1,500.00 EISI, Electrical Engr. 1,100.00 TOTAL $23,200.00 3. Brief review and letter reports on four designated bridges including $200.00 travel & per diem allowance $ 2,850.00 SUBTOTAL $37,650.00 4. Contingency 3,750.00 GRAND TOTAL $41,400.00 C. BILLING PROCEDURE The Consultant shall submit to the Whatcom County Deputy County Engineer written claims for reimbursement for services provided upon a monthly basis. All payments shall be based upon services provided unless otherwise approved in writing by the County. Each request for payment shall be submitted and supported by documentation of the services actually performed. Each of the foregoing projects shall be identified and treated separately in an invoice. The County agrees to make payment for services provided promptly in accordance with customary procedures. -2- a D. SCHEDULE The County and the Consultant will mutually agree on a schedule for the three projects. All work shall proceed as expeditiously as possible. E. ITEMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY The County shall furnish the following equipment and /or person- nel for the projects as described below. 1. Hannegan Road Bridge a. Flagging and other necessary traffic control; b. By arrangement with the Washington State, Department of Transportation (WSDOT), a "snooper" vehicle for in- spection access to the suspended span's joints and bear- ings; c. By arrangement with WSDOT, determination of reinforcing steel cover by pachometer together with taking and testing concrete samples for chloride content. 2. Gooseberry Point Ferry Landing a. Diver inspection of existing tower foundation bottom areas and of condition of cradle piles. b. Field measurements of present span and landing layout as requested by the Consultant. 3. Review of Four Bridges A. Flagging and other necessary traffic control. b. By arrangement with WSDOT, a "snooper" vehicle for in- spection access to the undersides of the bridges; C. Any other staging required for the reviews. -3- V F. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT This agreement, with attachments, contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto. The parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this agreement. G. MODIFICATION No change or addition to this agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in writing, executed by both parties. In the event the Consultant is requested and authorized by the County to perform services in addition to those prescribed, the nature, amount, and method of compensation for such services shall be specified by modification to this agreement. H. NON - DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE The parties hereto agree to abide by all Federal, State and /or County laws prohibiting discrimination with regard to employment and provision of services. The contractor shall not discriminiate against any employee in particular or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, creed, marital status, physical or mental or other sen- sory handicap or age, except where such constitutes a bonafide occupational qualification. If assignment and /or subcontract has been authorized, said assignment and subcontract shall include appropriate safeguards against discrimination in employment and services which shall be binding upon each Contractor or Subcontractor. I. ASSIGNMENT AND /OR SUBCONTRACTING The Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the services provided within the terms of this agreement without obtaining prior written approval of the County. All terms and conditions of this agreement shall apply to any approved subcontract or assignment related to this agreement. J. LICENSING The Consultant agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, county or municipal standards for licensing, certification and operation of facili- ties and programs, and accreditation and licensing of individuals. K. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The parties intend that an independent Contractor /County relationship will be created by this agreement. The County is interested only in the results to be achieved. The implementation of services will lie solely with the Consultant. No agent, employee, servant or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of the County. L. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS The Consultant shall protect, defend, save harmless and indemnify the County from and against all claims, suits and actions arising from negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant or authorized subcontractors and the agents or employees of either in the performance of all contracts with the County. M. SUSPENSION/TERMINATION If either party fails to comply fully with the terms and conditions of this agreement, or fails to cooperate in the performance of this agreement so as to make completion substantially impracticable, the non - breaching party may pursue such remedies as are legally available including, but not limited to, the suspension or termination of this agreement in the manner specified herein. 1. Suspension: If either pdrty is unable to substantiate full compliance with the provisions of this agreement, or full cooperation in its perfor- mance, the non - breaching party may suspend the agreement pending corrective acts or investigation, which suspension shall be effective upon seven (7) days written notification to the other party. 2. Termination: For just cause, this agreement may be terminated by either party hereto upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. Said written notice shall include a detailed statement of "just cause ". 3. In the event this contract is terminated, the County will pay the Consultant for work performed an amount equal to the Consultant's applied staff time at the rates stated in Section B. 4. The Consultant, upon termination of this agreement, shall promptly discontinue all services affected (unless directed otherwise), and deliver or otherwise make available to the County all data, drawings, specifica- tions, reports, estimates, summaries and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by the Consultant while performing this agreement, whether completed or in process. The Consultant may retain a copy for his files of all information and data provided by the Consultant under this agreement. N. VENUE STIPULATION This agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and deli- vered within the State of Washington. It is mutually understood and agreed by each party hereto that this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action in law, suit and equity or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of this agreement, or any provisions thereof, shall be instituted and main- tained in the courts or competent jurisdiction located in Whatcom County, Washington. 0. NON- WAIVER OF BREACH The failure of the County to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of this agreement, or to exercise any option herein conferred, in any one or more instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of the same, but the same, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. P. SEVERABILITY It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if any part of this agreement is determined to be illegal, the validity of the remaining por- tions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed as if the agreement did not contain the particular ille- gal part. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE Contractor has executed this instrument, on the day and year first below written and the County Executive has caused this instrument to be executed by and in the name of the said County, the day and year first above written. Executed by the Consultant this By Title Contractor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF ) day of , 19 (Seal) On this day of 198_, before me personally appeared to me personally known to be the person described in and who executed the above instrument and who acknowledged to me the act of signing thereof. Executed by Whatcom County this day of By NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at: , 19 . Shirley Van Zanten Whatcom County Executive Attest: (Seal) Carol Ebergson Clerk of the Whatcom County Council Approved as to form: �z Randall J. t Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney A AHNI 4 1.). ARNOLD & ASSUC. I. )NSULIINGENGINf� t�` AIYIt. � �TijI�TUHA�..-,.. Pl ANNING DESI -1 SUPf 1932 h„ , r AVENUE UITE 803 sEANE. WASHINGfON98101 1�lf.1°k V �eo EXHIHTT A March 18, 1985 Mr. Edwin R. Henken, County Engineer Whatcom County Bureau of Engineering Courthouse Bellingham, WA 98225 RN; Proposal for Engineering Services, Hannegan Road Bridge Dear Mr. Henken: We present herewith a proposal to provide engineering services for the investigation of the slab and other features of the Eiannogan Road Bridge. We had submitted a proposal on January 14, 1981. This Proposal essentially updates our previous one. We understand the circumstances to be As follows. The Hannegan Road Bridge over the Nooksack River just south of Lynden was constructed in 1961. It was designed by Homer M. Hadley, Consulting Engineer. There was Federal Aid Secondary Highway Funds in the project and therefore some of the construction supervision was supplied by the Washington State Highway Department (now WSDOT). The structure is a two -lane, three -span bridge. The two side spans are reinforced concrete box girders which extend beyond the interior piers to create anchor - cantilever spans. Sus- pended between these cantilevers is a 120 foot long steel girder span. The box girder spans are constructed of conven- tional hardrock concrete, state Class A. The slab on the steel girder span is constructed of lightweight aggregate concrete using saturnalite aggregate. While there are three stems or webs in the concrete box girders, there are but two plate girders. Thus the lightweight aggregate deck slab spans transversly about 16 feet. Further, the steel plate girders were designed for composite action for live load with the lightweight aggregate slab. We had visited the structure with Mr. Kresge in December 1980 and visited it again with him on February 21, 1985. Four years ago the lightweight aggregate slab exihibited considerable wear and the top reinforcing steel was exposed at one loca- tion. Last month we observed more wear together with some large spalls in the span. The north box girder span has more spalls in it than in 1980 and the south box girder side span teas ono or two apall io .,t : I:;i `Fr off V .Mr. Edwin R. Henken March 18, 1985 Page Two The separation of the retaining wall from the adjacent north abutment was seen again as it was in 1980. We understand that a member of your staff, present at the time of construction, remembered that when the steel girder roadway slab was poured, considerable deflection of the girders occured. You furnished us some bridge deck elevations and we compared them to the bridge drawings provided. On this basis, it appeared that the vertical position of the suspended span at the center line was about one and one half inches below that intended by the designer. You subsequently have taken more elevation information which we will plot and compare to the 1980 survey and the original profile. It is also our understanding that de -icing salts have been applied to the structure from time to time as road conditions demanded. We are not aware of any definitive data as to quani- ties. Information from State recoreds indicates that the contractor requested and received permission to add one and one half percent calcium chloride to the concrete for the north side span deck. Information from the State's records includes some cylinder strengths for the hardrock concrete. There's no cylinder break information for the lightweight aggregate concrete or on the actual unit weight of this mix. We share your concern about the wearing of the bridge deck slabs, the spalls, the lightweight aggregate slab and the delfection response of the structure. If structural capacity permits, overlaying the roadway deck on the suspended span and patching and /or overlay of the side spans should be con - gidered. The available evidence indicates that we cannot assume that the existing strengths and qualities of the various concrete materials are those assumed by the designer in 1961. Accord- ingly, we recommend a program of obtaining field samples and conducting laboratory tests in order to establish the present qualities of the materials. The results of this, information will provide us with the appropriate various concrete strengths to use in determining if the structure is adquate for vehicle live load and the addition of an overlay. We also need to determine if the de -icing salts over the years has resulted in sufficient chloride content to cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel bars. Some literature suggests that At n'� J 1� PIT 1. Mr. Edwin R. Henken March 18, 1985 ?490 Throe if chloride content is at or greater than two pounds per cubic yard, it is highly probabley that corrosion will occur. Also, as chloride content increases, the effectiveness of a membrane overlay will decrease. As there are several unknowns, we believe that the investiga- tion should be accomplished in two phases. Under Phase I we suggest the following: 1. Obtain concrete cores and accomplish tests thereon to determine strength and unit weight per Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc. proposal dated March 4, 1985, copy enclosed. 2. Accomplish pachometer tests and obtain samples and test for slab chloride content to the depth of the top reinforcing steel by the WSDOT' Materials Laboratory. 3. Using laboratory determined strength and unit weight data, evaluate the load carrying capacity of the suspended steel span for the design AASHTO HS20 vehicle and the milk truck. 4. Provide recommendations for the retaining wall separation at the north abutment. 5. Prepare a report summarizing our investigation and providing suitable recommendations for the next steps. The Phase I information should establish whether the overlay approach can be pursued. If so, we can provide a proposal for a Phase II program that will complete any necessary structural evaluations for an overlay together with appropriate features. If the overlay cannot be considered, Phase II could be directed towards resolving the other kinds of problems that the Phase I investigation reveals including alternates to an overlay. We understand that you have determined that the WSDOT materials laboratory can accomplish the pachometer investiga- tion and the chloride content tests. This proposal does not include any of those costs. We also understand that you will furnish flagging and any other necessary traffic control together with a means of access so that suspended span joints and bearings can be observed. The estimate for our own time to accomplish the Phase I scope is 220 hours. Our estimated costs, together with those of Otto ,r ,1� Mr. Edwin R. Henken March 18, 1985 Rosenau & Associates Inc. are: 1. 220 hours at $44.00 per hour average 2. Per diem & travel expense allowance 3. Otto Rosenau & Associates Inc. ESTIMATED TOTAL $9,700.00 200.00 1,700.00 $11,600.00 We will undertake the Phase I study on a reimbursable basis at the billing rates for the various personnel involved stated in paragraph B of the Agreement for 1985 Bridge and Structural Engineering Services. The first step will be the field work by Otto Rosenau & Assoc- iates, Inc. Please note that they would like ten days advance notice to proceed and prefer accomplishing the work on a Friday or a Monday. Thank you for the opportunity accorded us to present this Proposal. We are available to discuss it or other features of the Hannggan Road Bridge problem as you may wish. 44 /wk Yours sincerely, ARNOLD, ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES A / If i ....nrc. e Ap • IOLD ANNUL D K ASSOC ClOVIL STMOCT�EA� PLANNING DESIGN SUPEF ')N 1932 N.— AVENUE SUITE 803 SEATTLE WASMINGTON98101 WOW- W_ 21WG2{•f12W EXHIBIT B March 18, 1985 Mr. Edwin R. Henken, County Engineer Whatcom County Courthouse Bellingham, WA 98225 RE; Proposal for Engineering Services, Gooseberry Point Ferry Dock Dear Mr, Henken: We present herewith a proposal to provide engineering services for the Gooseberry Point Ferry Dock. We have visited the site and discussed the project with Mr. James Kresge, Deputy County Angineer, and understand the circumstances are as follows. the County plans to improve the Ferry Dock in 1986. Contemplated improvements include new towers and tower foundations, new lift beam, new machinery and electrical service, new cradles and possibly new dolphins. Depending upon the results of this study and available funds, the 1986 improvement* may or may not include a new transfer span and /or npW apron. This proposal embraces a preliminary design and study phase together with cradle design in sufficient detail to permit ordering of hardwood cradle rubbing timbers this year. The preliminary design and study phase will include the necessary geotechnical exploration for the new towers. We will retain GeoEngineers, Inc. to provide the geotechnical engineering and a copy of the firm's March 12, 1985 Proposal is attached. Please note that they propose to drill from the fixed approach dock in June When the ferry is shut down for vessel glaintenance. Assuming that the geometry is compatible, it is anticipated that an entire new transfer facility would be nearly identical to that constructed at Lummi Island in late 1981. We will use the same mechanical and electrical engineering consultants for this study, Harry Hovila and EISI respectively. Mr. Hovila's current billing rate is $45.00 per hour and EISI's billing rate for principals, is $55.00 per hour. Our billing rates will be as outlined in the 1985 Agreement to which this letter w4l be Exhibit A. :t : • ��? `'Y�h, 'l!; :t `Y ,:Lr+a+Mir =. �+ fb +']1 � '. � t�;' r. � '`! �. Mr. Edwin R. Henken March 18, 1985 F.ago Two Since there is concern that broken piles and other debris might restrict the selection of locations for new piles, the County will hire a diver to inspect the bottom in the vicinity of the towers and to inspect the existing cradle piles. We also understand the County will provide any required field measurements for purposes of establishing the necessary detailed geometry. The estimate for our time to accomplish the scope of work indicated above is 375 hours. Estimated costs, together with those of our consultants are: 1. Arnold, Arnold 4 Associates $15,600.00 2. GeoEngineers, Inc. 51000.00 3. Harry Hovila, Consulting Mech. Engr. 1,500.00 4. EISI, Consulting Elec. Engr. 1,100.00 ESTIMATE TOTAL $23,200.00 The first steps will be the diver inspection and the estab- lishment of detailed geometry of the span, towers and cradles. Thank you for the opportunity accorded us to present this proposal. We are available to discuss it and the project as you. may wish. AA /mk Yours sincerely, ARNOLD, ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES :; (206) 981.7900 P.O. Box 6325 2020 1241h Are. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 Arnold Arnold and Associates Terminal Sales Building, Suite 803 1932 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Mr. C. Adrian Arnold Gentlemen: March 12, 1985 Geoftg11' "m Consulling Geotechrncal Engineers and Geologists Proposal Geotechnical Investigation Ferry Dock Reconstruction Gooseberry Point, Washington, for Whatcom County File No. 484-03 We are pleased to present our proposal for a geotechnical investigation to be performed in conjunction with your design for reconstruction of the Whatcom County ferry dock at Gooseberry Point. We understand that the design studies will be completed in 1985 and that reconstruction of the dock will occur in 1986. The purpose of our investigation is to provide design criteria for pile foundations which will be installed in reconstruction of the dock. The scope of services to be provided includes: 1. Exploring subsurface soil (and rock) conditions by drilling one boring as close to the outer and of the fixed dock as possible. 2. Determining pertinent engineering properties of the foundation soils from a laboratory testing program. 3. Determining pile penetration-capacity relationships for timber and pipe piles driven for support of new transfer span facilities, apron walls and dolphins. 4. Providing recommended pile driving criteria for appropriate sized hammers for the two types of piles. 5. Presenting our conclusions and recommendations, together with supporting data, in a written report. We propose to drill one boring through the deck of the fixed dock portion of the ferry dock to determine subsurface foundation conditions. This boring Arnold Arnold and Associates March 12, 1985 Page Two will be drilled in June 1985 during the time the ferry is taken out of service for maintenance. We have not visited the site to examine the existing facilities or to determine limitations with respect to either overhead clearance for the drill rig mast or the practicality of opening a 12- inch - square hole in the dock deck. We have made an allowance in our cost estimate for making and repairing this opening. If this can be done by Whatcom County personnel, the charges for our investigation will be reduced accordingly. The boring will be drilled under the full -time monitoring of one of our engineers or geologists. He will assist the drill crew in obtaining representative samples of the foundation materials encountered, classify the soils, and maintain a detailed log of the boring. The samples obtained from the boring will be further examined in our laboratory. We anticipate performing laboratory testing including strength, moisture and density determinations on representative samples of the soils into which piles will penetrate. The results of the laboratory tests, together with the boring information, will provide the basis for our determination of pile penetration- capacity relationships. During the course of our investi- gation, we will keep you advised of our findings so that your design can proceed on a timely basis. he indicated, our findings, conclusions and recosr- mendations will be presented in a written report. The services included in this proposal relate only to the design phase of the ferry dock reconstruction program. We anticipate that some construction monitoring, particularly during the early phases of pile driving, may be appropriate. Should this be the case, a separate proposal will be prepared prior to start of construction for those services. We are prepared to undertake the field phase of this investigation during the tine when the ferry will be out of service for maintenance. Because this is typically a busy time with respect to test drilling operations, we will appreciate two weeks advance notice of the ferry shutdown schedule so that we can arrange drilling equipment and mobilize to the site as early as possible during the time the ferry will be out of service. Field explorations and laboratory testing will require approximately one week. Preliminary Pilo recommendations will be available approximately one week thereafter, and our final written report approximately three weeks after mobilising for the test drilling. We propose that our charges for these services and general contractual conditions be in accordance with the attached Schedule of Charges and General Conditions, which form a part of this proposal. For the services described above, including subcontracted drilling costs, we estimate that total charges will be in the range of $4,400 to $5,000, depending upon the amount of effort required to open and subsequently repair a hole in the dock deck. The upper limit of this range will not be exceeded without your prior approval of a change in scope of services. v Arnold Arnold and Associates March 12, 1985 Page Three We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this propoals and look forward to assisting you. We ask that acceptance of our proposal and authorization for services be indicated by returning one copy of this letter, signed either by you or by a designated representative of Whatcom County. If you have any questions concerning the information which we have presented, we are available to discuss our proposal at your convenience. Yours very truly, nears, Inc. ck K. Tutt incipal JKT:wd Attachments Three copies submitted The scope of services and terms described herein are accepted and GenBnginsers. Inc, is authorized to proceed. Organization Date by Signature* Name Printed *Individual with contracting authority for GeoBngineers, Inc. services. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES COMPENSATION Our compensation will be a lump sum amount if so indicated in the proposal or services agreement, or will be determined on the basis of time and expenses. Current rates are as follows. Labor Principals $15 /hour Associates $65 /hour Project Manager, Senior Engineer /Geologist $60 /hour Project Engineer /Geologist $50 /hour Staff Engineer /Geologist $42 /hour Field Engineer /Geologist $36 /hour Senior Technician/Drafter $30 /hour Support Staff $25 /hour Hourly rates for Senior -level Staff, Associates and Principals will be billed at $10 /hour more for time spent in depositions, trial preparation and court testimony. Time spent in either local or inter -city travel, when travel is in the interest of this contract, will be charged in accordance with the foregoing schedule; when traveling by public carrier, a maximum charge of eight hours per day will be made. Equipment Field equipment, including soil sampling equipment and compaction control equipment other than nuclear moisture/density gauge, per hour Nuclear moistum/density gauge, per hour Mileage for vehicle travel, per mile Soil sampling rings and containers, per sample Laboratory soil owing equipment, per employee, per hour Ground water sampling pump and equipment, per week Slope indicator. per day /per week/per month Computer Services In -house engineering computer charges, per hour Computer time and other services provided by outside vendors at cost plus 10% Rates arc subject to change upon notification. OTHER SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $ 3.50 $ 8.50 $ 0.30 : 3.00 $ 5.00 $500.00 :200/$600 /$1,800 $i 20.00 Charges for services, equipment and facilities not furnished directly by GeoEngineers. Inc., and any unusual items of expense not customarily incurred in our normal operations, are charged at cost plus 10 percent. This includes shipping charges, subsistence, transportation, printing and reproduction, miscellaneous supplies and rentals, surveying services, drilling equipment, construction equipment, watercraft, aircraft and special insurance which may be requited. Incorpmated AI�NpLD. AHNUI IJ d ASSOC ULTING ENGINEkfiS CIVIL & STRUCTURAL. PLANNING IIESIG " SUPE ON 1932 Fi..o I AVENUE SUITE 803 SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98101 TEI.E6b� 2OW624 -080 EXHIBIT C March 18, 1985 Mr. Edwin R. Henken, County Engineer Whatcom County Courthouse Bellingham, WA 98225 RE: Review of Four Bridges Dear Mr. Henken: As a part of our 1985 Bridge and Structural Engineering Ser- vices Agreement, you have asked us to conduct brief reviews of fpur of the County's bridges. They are Dakota Creek, Dakota Prook North, Mock Creek and Welcome structures. This scope of our services will consist of the following: 1. Reviewing the plans of the structures in order to ac9point ourselves with them; �. Making the site visits in company with members of your staff; 3, A letter report or reports providing our opinions about the structures. It is intended that we will spend two days total in the field at the four bridges. Whatcom County will provide access to the undersides of the structures either with staging or with the use of a "anooper" truck borrowed from WSDOT. You will also 1pixovide any flagging or other necessary traffic control. On the above basis we estimate that our fee will not exceed $2,850.00 including a $200.00 allowance for per diem and travel expenses. We will invoice for the various staff members involved at the rates contained in the Agreement. Should there be any questions about our understanding of the scope of work or the proposed budget, we are available to 4iscuss them at your convenience. Yours sincerely, ARNOLD, ARNOLD a ASSOCIATES By P xtner