Loading...
18. Mary Ave Bridge \- I , 'i I ; , .~\ '1,/' "~ /:'/ J"/~~ ~.~ / 1 I, " ,/ , , '~.~ PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO AGENDA ITEM -1L SUmmary AGENDA DATE SeDtemher 18. 2007 SUBJECT Report of the Cost Estimates and Bid Package for the Steel Bridge Design of the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge. Approval of a Project Budget Augmentation top support the bid process in the amount of $ 5.701 Million in FY 2007-2008 and in the amount of $1.000 Million in FY 2008-2009 for the Mary Avenue l3icycle Footbridge Project. Authorization for the Director of Public Works to Advertise the Project for Competitive Construction Bids. . \..- BACKGROUND On December 5, 2006 the Council acCepted a progress report on the'Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project. The project is a single span cable stayed bridge over Interstate Route 280 connecting an, established bicycle trail system on Mary Avenue in Cupertino on the south side of 1-280 to Mary Avenue in Sunnyvale on the north. The design concept, developed by city staff and the design consultant, Biggs-Cardosa Associates, had been approved by the Council on February 1, 2005. The project was advertised for competitive bidding on March 28, 2007 and bids were ~ived and opened on May 3, 2007 resulting in two bids, both of which were in excess of $12 Million which represented a variation of 100% over the Engineer's estimate. On Staff's recommendation, the Council acted on May 10,2007 to reject both bids. On August 21, 2007, the Council ap:proved a design alternative for the bridge to be constructed of structural steel in lieu of the previously approved prestressed concrete design and approved design services contracts with HNTB, l1,1c. in the amount of $775,000 and LERA Associates in the amount of $150,000. Staff was requested by the Council to report back in late September with a new Engineer's estimate based on the steel design and with appropriate recommendations for budget augmentations to proceed with the bidding of the project. This report and recommendations respond to that request. \..- 1 18 -1 ANALYSIS -----' The design team in the New York office of HNTB augmented by a structural engineer in the Seattle office and an architect in the Kansas City office have been working on an extremely tight sohedule to complete the construction drawings and the, final Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E). Their work includes consolidating and integrating the steel bridge plans and specifications into the civil engineering plans and specs from the previous design which is still valid when put together with the steel bridge part of the project. The wind tunnel tests for the new steel bridge have been completed with resulting . adjustments incorporated into the specifications and design criteria. Caltrans continues to work with staff and the consultants to expedite their review of the new design. Since much of the work in the Caltrans rights-of-way, including lane closures and traffic control wete included as part of the original bid package, this is proving to be a very efficient review. Caltrans is allowing the City to proceed with the bidding of the project prior to their final signoff of the documents with the understanding that any comments or changes required would have to be done by addendum or change order. With the bid documents now complete, staff and the consultants are all fairIy confident . that there will be very few surprises. A key part of this work was to insure that, to the greatest extent possible, the architectural appearance and striking nature of the design be maintained so that there would be very little difference in appearance from the original concrete design. Staff believes that the consultants have preserved the design integrity of the bridge in the steel altemative, and further believes that the steel bridge is even more attractiv~ than the concrete bridge because there is less bulk in the towers and the superstructure. --.-/ FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST The fmal engineer's estimate of probable cost for the construction contract is as follows: Total Engineer's Estimate $ 1 q,205.000 The estiinate noted in the report to Council on August 21, 2007 was $10,085,000. This final estimate is much more precise than that reported in August but has increased slightly by a net iIicrease of $120,000 as a result of some additional requirements that were detennined during the seismic modelihg and the wind tunnel testing. The gross increase in total project costs from the report to the Council on August 21, 2007 is $405,000 largely because the value engineering offsets are now inCluded in the project cost to offset the cost variations resulting from the final estimate. , , The effect of this estimate of probable cost is that an additional $6.7 Million will be required to fully fund the project. In addition staff has estimated the funding nee4s over the next two fiscal years to provide some flexibility in budgeting the money. The table in -----' 2 18 -2 "- attachment A details the expected costs . over the period of the two Fis((al Years. A summary of the set of costs against expenditures is shown below. . . , BUDGET - STEEL BRIDGE - MARY AVENUE BICYCLE FOOTBRIDGE Item Bid Steel Expended FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Total Project $ 17,435,000 $ 3,990,000 $ 12,240,000 $'1,000,000 Revenue (l 0.734.000) (3.990.000) (6.744.00) " 0 Shortfall $ 6-701.000 $ St701..000 $ 1.000.000 ' FUNDING STRATEGY During the budget discussions and hearings in June of 2007, Council was advised by staff that the remabrlng Wlcertainty around the Mary BFB project would not be resolved until after the FY 2007-2008 Capital Improvement Program had been approved. It was further noted and suggested by staff that additional funding for the bridge be deferred until decisions" had been made with respect to the project design, bid analysis and the future \.-potential for the completion of this important project. Council approved that recommendation. In considering the steel bridge design alternative and approving the design contracts for the steel bridge, staff noted that appropriate staff recommendations would be forwarded to the Council with fIrm cost estimates during the latter part of September 2007 The Council generally indicated that any staff recommendations for Council budget decisions should be made in consideration of the entire CIP as adopted in June 2007 rather than simply on the basis of this one project. The Council further indicated that the FY 2007-2008 CIP should be revisited as part of any funding strategy for the Mary BFB. Additional FundinlZ Req~ (Shortfall) As noted above the increased funding beyond what is now budgeted is as follows: FY,2007-~OO8 FY 2008-2008 $ 5,701,000 $ 1.000.000 Total $ 6.701.000 "-' 3 18 -3 Valley Tr&IlSj)ortation Authority lYTA) Funding Request As part of the Council request to seek other funding, Staff has initiated discussions with the VT A to determine what, if any, funding might be available with the VTP 2030 Bicycle Fund. Staff has requested that the VT A consider the status and certainty of other projects in the County, and, to the greatest extent possible, advance funding up to the amount of 80% of the shortfall with the City providing the 20% match as follows: --.-/ VTP 2030 Project Bll $ 5,360,000 City of Cupertino General Fund $ 1.340.000 . Total additional Funding $ 6,700,000 Anything short.ofthe VTA proposed funding would require the City to make up 100010 of the difference from City resources. Cash Flow Backing to Advertise for Construction Bids When the concrete bridge was advertiSed for constnlction.bidding the project budget was sufficiently funded to support the amount of the engineer's estimate of $6.2 Million. However, as 'noted previously, the actual cost was much higher by a factor of two. As a result, during the analysis of the bids received in May; staff was informed by several . contractors that they opted not to bid because they believed that the City did not have the funding to support the full cost of the proj ect. ~ As part of the. effort to make certain that this problem is aveided in the current bid on the steel bridge, staff and the City's current consultant team have 'gone to great lengths to ensure that the steel design is practical, constructible, with clear and straightforward construction documents. The object of this work is to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, many of the missteps that occurred with the earlier design and bidding process. Another' Unportant part of this effort will be to ensure that the contractors are not only confident in the City's. Estimate of Probable Cost but to ensure that it is backed by sufficient funding. Therefore, while the proposal for additional funding is pending with VTA, it will be important to advance sufficient funding into the projeCt to supPort the bid. Staff has directed the consultants to include the following statement in the "Notice to Bidders": " "The Mary Avenue BicyCle Footbridge Project I, Fully Funded and Backed by the City's General Fund and other Resources in the Amount of the Engineer's Estimate and all other Construction Contingencies, and Support Costs. " ---..-/ 4 18 -4 It is therefore recommended that, in order to advertise the project with these assurances, L the Council advance funding in FY 2007-2008 and FY 2008-2009 as follows Total Proiect EX?CIlded FY 2007-2008 FY 2008.2009 Total Project $ 17,435,000 $ 3,990,000 $11,890,000 $ 1,550,000 Revenue 00.734.000) (3.990.000) (6.744.00) 0 Funding needed $ 6,701,000 $ 5,701,000 $1,000,000 FISCAL IMPACT The following resources are proposed as advanced funding for the project shortfalls noted above to provide the proper assurances to bidders, which, as funding may become available from VT A could be reimbursed to the City to restore funding to the CIP projects. \..- The Stevens Creek Corridor project is recommended as one source from which to advance funding for the bid and award of the contract in the short term. The Corridor project budget contains substantial resources from the General Fund, and its schedule does not call for advertising and bidding of the project until February of 2008, which will provide ample time to reconsider the CIP and VTA funding commitments for appropriate adjustments as a mid-year budget transaction, without affecting the current schedule of the Corridor project. It should also be noted that, in the unlikely event that, following a scheduled bid opening on November 20, 2007, the bids are significantly out of reach financially, the Council would have the option of releasing the funding allocations noted below to restore project funding for the corridor project arid/or ,other priorities, including maintaining a CIP contingency reserve. FY 2007-2008 $ 3,800,000 Advanced from CIP Reserve Savings, 'and Gas Tax $ 1,901,000 Advanced from Stevens Creek Corridor Project Fund 427-9112 Total FY 2007-2008 $ 5,701,000 FY 2008-2009 $ 1,000,000 Advanced from Stevens Creek Corridor Project Fund 427-9112 Total FY 2008-2009 $ 1,000,000 '-' The VT A Staff is considering the Cupertino proposal- and expects to respond to the City prior to the City Council meeting on September 18, 2007. 5 18 -5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of a Project Budget Augmentation to the Capital Improvement Program of $ 5.701 Million in FY 2007-2008 and $1.000 Million inFY 2008-2009 for the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project. Authorization for the Director of Public Works to Advertise the Project for Competitive Construction Bids. Submitted by: . '1LA COua~tf Ralph A. Qualls, Jr.. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: Da Id W. Knapp City Manager 6 ----- ----./' 18 -6 ( ( ATTACHMENT 'A' BUDGET - STEEL BRIDGE - MARY AVENUE BICYCLE FOOTBRIDGE - 9/18/07 FY 07-08 Item Bid Steel Expended Feasibility Study $ 210,000 $ 210,000 Phase I Construction 620,000 620,000 Concrete Bridge Design 2,310,000 2,310,000 AdminIPermitslFeesNE 695,000 600,000 Steel Design (HNTB) 775,000 Peer Re\liew(LERA) 150,000 Construction A&E (HNTB) 425,000 Construct. Mgmt (Swinerton) 900,000 250,000 Bridge Construction 10,205,000 Construction Contingency 1,000,000 Art 145.000 Total $17,435,000 $ 3,990,000 Revenue (10.734.000) (3.990.000) Shortfall $ 6,701,000 .... CD I ""l FY 08-09 $ 0 $ 0 0 '0 0 0 95,000 0 775,000 0 150,000 ,0 235,000 190,000 440,000 210,000 10,205,000 0 400,000 600,000 145.000 0 $ 12,445,000 $ 1,000,000 (6.744.000) 0 $ 5,701,000 $ 1,000,000 ( . . .r "', .~ ..c:... ~ ~ , .,~ ?~:-:~ ^) ,>> ".~.< .:~::' ~ '. '1 '.-,.:"'!'t' '.'''' "- ~'''. ~".... ,~: ,'. ,,> ~ .::.t:,~7" . ...~ .,. -.:,...q,.~..-.' '\I,..,,... "-" __ ,. ~ ~o! . "..;,,' _4, . . :~'.~. I ~ , r '-..;i;\ .:.~.. ~ ~ ~. . ~ ... It. , r:...;.... :Jt't. 'L " , . "" .~ +.I'l ~ ~, . ;0 ~ 'v.:~~ .:-. f.i.. "-. ~,Jit " :'j ,~. "i.'''''b' ',': , ' it:: r. :\! J:A~ ' r- lie :'~*{'~~1~\E"~'" t~?':I.-; .... ~,!,'~. ..\ ' .. 1'.' t....""N.t".......", ':J~' I..- ..~. ~'''-' ~. ~ It-., ~.,~' ~.'.~"7 ~4~ l' ;' ....-'t.:. I"),i'.........!'~~...~~ ~~. '~"'~I:tJBt;,.... .~\~?1i:.. ." ~'.., -;:S 4 -. -., /~---r--~I::'...' / .. 11 ~.."'" ;:~. .~t. <~~" 't, -: .;- ~~;t~J .. ~~~'~~.~~. - ~ ,-"';t'''j' .. "1"""",.. . ..,. ""......... ,. . .,~ ..~,.J-. '../." ..-." t '-'~." .' ~.=...". "fI'~H"\'N ~ P,' .....~'" '. .'!t"-<L "'. ~~. t..~:,. ')tI:" .".. ..;r--. ~ ..... .. .: .. ~... ~ W ~~. "'. ~.. ...',1~;..~.. . ,'; .... .".::t~ ,.r" ; "''''F., .:"{"'~!f-" ;'~';!';. .,'i~ . ~'~..ol! ~ '_~~l _ ~~,.~"'_~. .,~ "';-, :. .. ...~ ~ . ,I' ~9' "OW t.... '~. f- 1'; .. I V' -? _l 'I'"""}", ~"" ...~, "$. ~ .....~-..I: ~\, 1 ~r ~""" ....ilIol~..... '-'; _...... '1_...' ...-:. r_;':a'l;l~ ~''''' :,:,' -.I.," ~ .. .,-,-", ~ j"~,,-~"" ,~., "r.i:k'...~"? ..-4.~.. ~.:-I .......~.. ....4.& ,,~;,-<t,;;, _~ ,-4 q1~ ;it ": - - \ '{"I..9 ,.~~ ~ . ..... .. . .. .' t", ......'#/' '7-' - . ~ I .., ,'- .' . "So ~~ 1 #' ;.~ ...~ ~~" ~.. "':./ ~ j.. '~ . ~( ~.. ~ <t~..,\.Ft" ~, ,,,,;.u~;. .~ :. ,~;; J . .< ;1 'v;, .:, ~,:'o 0 "' -, . "'-4 .... ~r .'........ fl.,,.... .". ~,~""". ~ ';~:-o.~ ~ 'l;ll . ~ 'fil.!~'j~11>1fi.ft ~ ~,'1~ (;~.~~~. -o;tF. ,)W- ...:.. " ... '"..~ .;~.>. .~ ....i ~1"''f"... . , ~.' .'). '. ~. ct h . " ,. " " ., ,:1' q;;:~"'~~t, \.~: ~ , '('r . ~. .'" ~:.:"'" ");.:C;:f .~ .r'.. '.~ ~...~~; ~ ....~ , ...... .,.. "". :~ c ~ .. :y ........... ;f .. !of_. fYi ~ \0.' 1:~ '\. ~ f..; " j::t; ~."""~,1 ..... . ,. :::t.',~.., ....<.. ~~'..~ r' " . , ..'..~ .~ " U;~, ., ~J. ": .J,' ... '7 .0., -' ..:"'~ J' .,-",,;. ~,.,"~ ~ '1:' ~~~' 1'1':"'.::1.:20..l:'. -N', ,> " . ... CD , CD :..... '" '~~~'t':;>,~ .".. ......,/'. ~ 4..~;~~t; .:. ; ,~', .;1'~', ~ II HNTB 4.:c.t~oJ\!"