Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
resolution.council.077-12
RESOLUTION #4+ (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME PHASE II IPD DESIGN BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND OZ ARCHITECTURE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for Burlingame Phase II IPD Design, between the City of Aspen and OZ Architecture, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for Burlingame Phase II IPD Design, between the City of Aspen and OZ Architecture, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of August 2012. Michael C. Ir and, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, August 13, 2012. 3 Kath, n S. Koch, City Clerk RLBIRider Levett Bucknall 6 August 2012 Memorandum Page 3 Budget Status The current budget status is that there is$1.77 mil of project contingency between the design and construction accounts. As such, the project has sufficient funds to cover these additional services and no additional funds above the currently approved 2012 project budget are required. Recommendation Proposed Amendments Amendment No IX-Grading Permit Breakout Design $13,: Amendment No X-Addition Duration of IPD Design $18,574; Amendment No XII-Pump House Detailed Design $28,223 Amendment No XIII- Revised Irrigation Water Source Analysis and Di $9,261 Amendment No XIV-Additional Drainage Report 84 Subtotal Proposed Amendments $116,664 Percentage of total current contract value {$1,530,312} 7.6% Contract Value including Proposed Amendments I$1,646,976 I (Note: Amendment No. XI was withdrawn) OZ Architecture is proposing Contract Amendments of$116,664 for additional services and to cover extended schedule. This equates to 7.6%of the OZ Current Approved Contract sum of$1,530,312. The Burlingame project contingency can adequately cover these additional fees and does not require any additional funds over and above the currently approved 2012 budget. We should note that the initial schedule for this project was to have construction documents completed by February 2011, so the design schedule has moved from 14 months in the initial plan to 32 months in the current schedule, with the"slowed down"and more methodical approach suggested by Aspen City Council to match the phasing of construction to meet the pre-sales demand and be self funded, rather than from Bond funding. As such the overall additional services for scope and time appear reasonable and we recommend that contract modifications IX, X, XII, XIII and XIV are accepted by Aspen City Council and that this work proceeds in earnest to prepare for the imminent 100% Implementation Document set and GMP pricing and Building Permit for 2013. Please contact me for any queries relating the attached or above. Sincerely, )65/ - Rob Taylor Associate Principal Rider Levett Bucknall Ltd Encl: OZ Architecture-BGRPII Proposed Amendments IX, X, XII, XIII and XIV RLB I Rider Levett Bucknall 6 August 2012 Memorandum Page 2 To date, Amendments II through VII are for actual scope modifications and total 8%. Proposed Amendments OZ are proposing five amendments to their contract, totaling $116,664: Amendment No. IX- Grading Permit Breakout Design $13,722.18 This additional service was to provide an additional breakout stamped set of drawings to facilitate pulling an excavation permit to allow the construction on site to proceed. This fee is reasonable and allowed for mitigation of considerable penalty costs if the contractor couldn't proceed on site with permitted work. Amendment No. X- Additional Duration of IPD Design $18,573.50 During the contract modifications in late September 2012, the plan was to have a continuous schedule and submit the A/I package in tandem with the full project 100% package. It became apparent that the best approach was to ensure the NI permit could be pulled earlier and that any modifications of design during the A/I permit process could be incorporated later into the overall project permit set. This fee is for additional meeting time and co-ordination by the design team and is justified and reasonable given the shift in schedule. Amendment No. XII- Pump House Detailed Design $28,223.00 The Park 1/Pond 2 pumphouse has been somewhat of a moving target and the original understanding was that Harmony park, pond and pump would serve as the irrigation supply. Given the requirements that the Pond 2 pumphouse serves both Burlingame Irrigation as well as Aspen Parks Irrigation, water feature recirculation, storage and backup requirements, the pumphouse is more considerable than originally anticipated and the fee includes the structural, architectural, civil and irrigation design and liaison and co-ordination with respective CoA departments (i.e Park, Utilities and Engineering). We feel this fee is reasonable for this additional structure and components. Amendment No. XIII- Revised Irrigation Water Source Analysis and Design $9,261.00 The previously approved design had potable water at Park 2 (Central Park) as the backup for the end state Re-use line water supplied irrigation system. This potable link could also serve as the supply during the initial grass and plant establishment stage. Subsequently, this potable link has been disallowed by City Utilities,to reduce any risk of cross contamination with the city drinking water. As such, a comprehensive analysis of water supply and use volumes in Harmony Park and Phase 1. Option studies and a design recommendation is required to provide a solution to the spring 2013 seed establishment phase as well as backup to the end state irrigation system. This additional fee is reasonable and allows for time to co-ordinate with the City Parks and Utilities departments. Amendment No. XIV- Additional Drainaqe Report $46,884.00 The previous Amendment VI to the OZ contract shared the cost of a supplemental drainage report between the City and OZ. This was for a single report which was to cover the full project drainage system. With the breakout of the Access and Infrastructure design package, an additional drainage report was required to communicate the drainage systems needed during the interim phase of bulk grading etc prior to buildings actually being constructed. The complexity of drainage on such a large site have become apparent and Sopris Engineering have included many advanced features to meet the urban runoff design manual and City requirements. We feel this fee for an additional full drainage report is justified and reasonable and should be accepted. r ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: July 10,2012 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Contract PROJECT#: 809003 Amendment IX Grading PErmit Submittal to OZ Architecture AIA Document 8195-2008 CC: Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment IX Proposed Amendment to AIA Document B195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25,2010. Description Our proposal is for the redesign surrounding the individual Grading Permit. A grading Permit Package was requested by the City of Aspen in an IPD meeting on April io,2012. An overview of the scope is 1. Prepare breakout plans and technical specifications for a grading permit. 2.OZ Packaging and Delivery Deliverables Grading Drawings/Permit Submittal Plans and specifications based on the above description and the attached documents Grading Permit Drawings Dated 4/16/2012(Alpine Engineering) Revised Utility Plan per attached Proposal $10,849 Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $813.68 7.5%of the Fee Delivery of Drawing Package $1,200 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture,Alpine Engineering) $860 Proposed Additional Services $12,862 Proposed Contract Amendment $12,862+$86o(reimbursable) ITotal Amendment IX $13,722.68 I • Ire ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN © INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller ■ uardo I lanes 1 AEI ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO OZ ARCHITECTURE'S BURLINGAME CONTRACT April 18, 2012 SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES for BURLINGAME RANCH PHASE 2A — ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL • L Prepare plans and technical specifications for grading permit submittal including reimbursables and delivery of hard copies to the City of Aspen. Fee: $10,849.00 2. Prepare response to review comments and revise plans for final grading permit. Fee: $ 5,520.00 TOTAL $16,369.00 Consultant: ALPINE ENGINEERING, INC. Client: OZ ARCHITECTURE By: — — Name: Gary Brooks Name: Title: Project Manager Title: Date: L -- j '= 20 t . Date April 2012 l3urlingame Ranch Phase 2A Cueing Permit Submittal 1 r ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: July io, 2012 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Contract PROJECT#: 809003 Amendment X Addtional IPD Time to OZ Architecture AIA Document 8195-2008 CC: ' Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment X Proposed Amendment to AIA Document B195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25,2010. Description Our proposal is for the additional time required per week from our Integrated Project Delivery Team for IPD related work and meetings following the submittal of Implementation Permit Drawings(Phase IIA& Phase IIB)to the City of Aspen on February 28,2012. This additional services request is based on a diversion of schedule and a break of the contiguous process as noted in item number 8 of an Addendum summery on September 12, 2011, submitted with Addendums V-VI stating: 8.A diversion from the project schedule outlining 9o%Implementation Documents,Permit Review and Final Implementation Documents. This Project Schedule will be set and mutually agreed upon by the IPD at the Implementation Document Kick-off meeting. Each Stage(9o%Implementation Documents,Permit Review and Final Implementation Documents),once started must be continuous to completion A agreed upon project schedule from October 15,2011 is attached. Deliverables IPD Team Participation IPD Meetings from February 28,2012-May 22,2012 10 hours per week at a team average of$135 hr for 12 weeks $16,200 Discount on Task as some work realized economies based on meeting time -$1,620 for the Al Permit Package(1o%reduction) Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $1,093.50 7.5%of the Fee Proposed Additional Services $15,671 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture,IPD Team) -4 trips $2,900 Proposed Contract Amendment $15,673+$2,9oo(reimbursable) Total Amendment X Si8,573.50 ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN IN® INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM hfa® URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes 1' Z - e e L N N N N O 4 O a�' O o [ — m m , N co . ,- 0 0, « g Z E N< 9 C t N `o + ea.." , no N ; N >` N m d d re 4. N ' N ' n C - p V 3 0 ' ' N • N r ' N qa N r N = Z 5 J 8 2 iA,, o o a o n .i Y •C e o. a 1 N _tea aN c ommo O 2 N Q < q >' N G 9 C 1 _.......,..ap V N Y Y C a M a E Q o D w - ^ b c a c o 0 C 2 t .._ ._._.._..... r A a a Nu. e m m a ° < c 4 ❑ U O E m E N R , . . .. a _ C 2 c 2 _ R N —, - N ‘.2L ° e a a d ° c , E U U m d ,c ' J 0 r C 7 N y W 0- ." N ' U N C N ❑W▪ - m •la 8 "a Y e s E ? w < d M a N ° ln ityr . : ° a Z r r « 6 r ��, - u m�. = ce L °Q r- r d Q o a a cu N - ` R ? 8 o•v O > n ❑ d 2 ° E > < € i ' U — o v o S E p $ w o a n iol 4' a ❑ L' N &U a c 8 a ; > 2 x i, o d a W '� ' o - c a 4'' › a 2 « r E i , c d m 9 S . a a rn c y c a , i ° a a g E g 8 D � ` OE ° = c ° E 8 g q a 7, _ m FE d a 2 y C << c c < a o a m v c 2 y g, b d 0 E U ; c y , ,, m o VN i L O O ❑ d1 C d 2 a c2 E ' N O' V E d E E W g U n O. O . m O l' ° a i m= T1 O 2 d U 0 d E d . . O N a d v a > 4. 2—_ 9 m c w° m i d ^ E C ❑ _ n u O t rn 5 _ E U m m = d€ N ❑ o o 0 0 o rn O ' ° E c E E o N w C w i N a a a a ` c c a 2 O p m o a ° U U = i9 v 4+ a '11- b ._ U ; LI A Q < `o a o N or a = d - 8 3 d °1 = a _ rn m E f e °- E u ❑ a — O W .- . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ,- . •- • a N N N N N r0 CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q gf0 n Q 1p A t0 f0 f0 A V d A< O O .[1 Mf 0 0 Y O ..- Oi GD O!- N O Op g Oi.. th aD CD m N N N NE th tV N N N N N N N N N = = N N N 7 m N N - — N - - Ml N d i ¢ o d O O 0 . 00 .mo do do da s ai o' 5 o> 8 ts � 2' a t z t o a v ` n 9 . if -2 m .0 0 0 Q < < g ‹ , = = = = ' N U O O aj to N t� N 2 O Z ❑ S a O O O ¢a u f> r 2 m 2 g i- m g E ~ - 21- 22 - m 1- i- 1- 2"_ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 r 3 3 f f m m m 2 2 ° a 7 Z d E d 2 1� N T a a N a T N a N N q N q N N g N N a N M N N b 2 33 Ce 1 _ , 5 S Y d a T T Y Y Y STD T Y W E 0, 0 0 � � ; v 0 . 3 3 o c 3 .. 0 0 (0 N v v ; 3 ; 3 n v 3 0 3 i ; 3 3 3 3 3 ; 0 ; 0 3 3V. ,0 0 ; 2E10, 00 O a � O � O A O � N a O O 1p N N O O O N N N O N O O Q N �p < < V' O N V � O � O N N � Yl W O eN Q ❑ - 0 Z ` E m a E = € m m a -" d K a v N m E t a E d -� d a ° u� o d d 0 U 2 ° E udi O U y c ° a>i E w d U g. ,°� _ E U ` Y 0 § E _ 2Edd • = 0 N o € c Z E ,°-� , E U '� H g .1' g2-% 1'd d a d O 8' 2 Ti d s o a E ° d rn d c c - a v O U o2 m O _ m t; -, 5 ; .l O o w v 0 d al 0 m o L,..=, m m o B g E d i U E E .7. 11 '.52' 2. 11 ; m C m E m d oU° v N E 132 n o o F U a E 9 m o D a 3 E p 2 ,, 3 ? U U j N r, € E 7 0 . d a N E . N N O O N N b N 4 .3 o N N N 'O = a a a d y 3 a N N L 2 m d E m o a n a o rn . g rn a d ° ` N E T E m m m w r m O @ > > ° I U E t = 2 m N m o 2 N s 2 o m m a _ a n v d d c❑ a E -m " 0 a 'b o E € u ' u 2 y d 2 E a i y ° t 3 c o o Q c N d E a ic a U m N t ia o 3 2 2 aN < 2 U a $ i 1d u v 5 i m LL c7 cEd y -o ° . i 0 2 m ° 2 0 0 < _ ° . a s E ' ❑ N d N V V ° E E Ao ❑ a E o l gm on x U U moL u N N E. `o 0 2 v � ° s o E U 2 _ E ' ' Q o = z a a c S � c -' a c °' ro a m ❑ ¢ ^+ o L z nUUUan 1 c.O ❑ E 8 ,5 ° U F o a . o, 2 0 . 9 = zUD 2 ! qU c N ' ,�� h a c F 4 O 0 a U m ®©® I M M M © ' (y ��pp ' op ♦ �O �p �0pp pp m�O ��O0 ��pp pppp pp 'H O - N N a") m A m OI O .- N N f 10 10 A 00 0 O N M N N N N N N N M t9 M 2 2 2 2 09 N m $ Y Y Y $ $ Y V Y O N G YNf ao Fir ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN lij® INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: September 12,2011 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: OZ B195-BGRPII Accepted and PROJECT#: 809003.00 Proposed Amendments Summary CC: Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor, Eduardo Illanes Please see the following summary of the Accepted and Proposed Change Orders to the B195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25, 201o. Initial Contract Amount: $814.75q Amendment Scope Amount • Contract Amendment I— Implementation Documents $386,357 (Approved 10/10) • Contract Amendment 11— Fire Sprinkler and Life Safety Consultant—Shaner Life Safety&OZ $22,048 (Approved 5/ii) • Contract Amendment ill— PUD Base&Building Model at 1:25 scale—LGM&OZ $14,265 (Approved 7/11) Current Approved Contract(as of September 12,2011) $1,217,429 Contract Amendment Proposals • Proposed Contract Amendment IV- $21,36 ALTA Survey&Plat Drawings for PUD • Proposed Contract Amendment V- $17,677 o Pre-Sales/Finish Upgrade Package—OZ Architecture o Burlingame Phase 11 Logo—OZ Architecture o Extension in Duration/Non-Parallel Work for the development of materials for the PUD stage of the project. • Proposed Contract Amendment VI s3s,88o Supplemental Drainage Report for Burlingame Phase II for Harmony Pond&Design Civil Implementation—Sopris Engineering,AEI and OZ Architecture. 1 Proposed Contract Amendment Total- $74,922 Percentage of Initial Contract Amount 6.i% g.s5.zozz Page iofi gazoog\hogoo3.00 burlingame ranch phase iilproject managementicontracts\contract addendum l8ogoo3 BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 contract adendum iv_visummary.docx 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER,COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM r ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Additional Add Services The OZ lead IPD Team for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II completed Detail Design per the requirements of Contract Documents in September of 2010. At the completion of Detail Design,the team assembled a Re-Kickoff Document that outlined the tasks at hand to serve as a guide to Re-start the drawing process with Implementation Documents when appropriately directed by the City of Aspen. Over the course of the last 12 months,the team has worked toward and attainted PUD Approval for Phase II along with Phase I amendments from the Aspen City Council. During this time a number of items were completed to allow for the transition into full Implementation Documents. With this information in hand we understand the process ahead for completion Implementation Documents per the requirements set out in B195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25,201o. Via this document,we have disclosed all of the items to date that we believe constitute addendums to the contract. Currently,to the best of our knowledge,we do not anticipate a need for additional contract amendments through the implementation documents unless they are dictated per Article 1.5 of the 8195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated Project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25,2010. In the future,items that should be noted to the Owner that may constitute an addendum or add services tied to this contact are(but not limited to): 1. Any change in project scope not outlined in Addendums I thru VI. 2. Any change to the approved PUD Masterplan including: o A Modification to Building Locations o A Modification to Building Configuration o A Modification to the Pod Matrix o Addition of Parking Spaces within Phase II 3. Any modification to the approved PUD unless required in items outlined in Addendums I thru VI. 4. Pursuit of LEED Certification or initial LEED application 5. A start of Site Construction later than May 2013&Building Construction Later than November 2013. 6. A start of Implementation Documents later than January 15,2012 7. Response to Questions for Document Bidding(GMP)by General Contractors other than the Current Contractor- at-Risk 8. A diversion from the project schedule outlining 90%Implementation Documents,Permit Review and Final Implementation Documents. This Project Schedule will be set and mutually agreed upon by the IPD at the Implementation Document Kick-off meeting.Each Stage(9o%D Implementation Documents,Permit Review and Final Implementation Documents),once started must be continuous to completion. 9. Any meetings or work completed after the completion of the permit process and the start of Construction Administration. 9.15.2oi1 Page z of 2 BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER,COLORADO 80301 VIWW.OZARCH.COM il ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM ho URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: July 23, 2012 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Contract PROJECT#: 809003 Amendment XII Pumphouse Design at Park 1& 2 to OZ Architecture AIA Document B195-2008 CC: Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment XII Proposed Amendment to AIA Document 8195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25, 2010. Description Design of a new irrigation pump station was excluded from our original scope of services. Initially,irrigation designs were included under the assumption that Harmony Park would serve as the irrigation reservoir for Phase II. During the course of the design work it was determined that irrigation designs were needed and the IPD team mutually determined that an irrigation reservoir was required within Phase II. Deliverables At the 95%Implementation Documents Stage of the project a Pump Station Design and Specifications were included in the Contract Documents to be used for Pricing purposes. This Pump Station design was based on criteria from the I City of Aspen Parks following a meeting on November 11,2011. Since then two meetings have occurred(2/21/12& 5/15/12)where the criteria was slightly modified. At the delivery of loo%Implementation design, a full design based on the design criteria from the 5/15/12 meeting will be integrated into the Contract Documents. Two rounds of responses to Permit Comments will be included in the below fees I Work Provided for the February 15,2012 95%Implementation Documents Mt Daly &Western Heritage $4,880 OZ Architecture $1,500 Alpine Engineering $2,000 Meetings to Date Meeting Parks Department 02/21/12 $1,100 Meeting Parks Department 05/15/12 $1,800 Work Estimated for the August 17,2012 100%Implementation Documents Mt Daly &Western Heritage $3,200 OZ Architecture $2,000 Alpine Engineering $3,500 MV Consulting $1,0oo Monroe and Newell $1,200 Meetings required to Coordinate with the 100%Implementation Design 2 meetings $2,400 ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM w, ® URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $1,386.00 7.5%of the Fee Proposed Additional Services $26,423.00 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture) $1,800 Proposed Contract Amendment $26,42 +$1,800(reimbursable) Total Amendment XII $28,223.00 Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture • Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM h URBAN DESIGN o INTERIOR DESIGN Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $1,386.00 7.5%of the Fee Proposed Additional Services $26,423.00 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture) $1,800 Proposed Contract Amendment $26,423+$i,800(reimbursable) ITotal Amendment X11 $28,223.00 I Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller 7U-ardo Illanes._— TARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM ,© URBAN DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: July 23,2012 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Contract PROJECT#: 809003 Amendment XIII Irrigation Water Source Change to OZ Architecture AIA Document 8195-2008 CC: Chris Everson,Barry Crook,Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment XIII Proposed Amendment to AIA Document B195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25,2010. Description Due to the delay in the installation of the re-use line to service Burlingame Phase II,a new water source must be identified to provide irrigation water for all of Phase II.A potable water tap that was proposed to irrigate the northern portion of the site to re-vegetate Access and Infrastructure disturbance will also not be available. Deliverables Deliverables include Analysis of the availability of the current Phase I system and on site sources in Phase 1,future analysis of the Re-use line if and when it comes online and alternate solution such as an expansion and use of Harmony Park Pond. Additional Scope can be found in section 3 of the attached Mt Daly additional Services letter dated July 12,2012.Site Visits beyond 1 visit that are out of sequence of the Construction Administration for the A&l Amendment or a future Base scope CA Amendment will be considered additional services. Analysis of Water/Pump Availability for Phase II(Western Heritage) $3,200 Coordination with Western Heritage and COA Parks(Mt Daly) $1,400 Coordination with IPD Team(OZ) $2,000 Meetings required to Coordinate with the 10o%Implementation Design 2 meeting(MT Daly/Western Heritage) $630 1 meeting(OZ Architecture) $375 Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $405 7.5%of the Fee Proposed Additional Services $8,175.00 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture Mt Daly) $1,086 Proposed Contract Amendment $8,175+$1,o86(reimbursable) Total Amendment XIII $9,261.00 Iril ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ho INTERIOR DESIGN Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo lane C A P E A R C H I T E C T 100 North Third Street A HALL Suite 102 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Carbondale Colorado 81623 Tel 970 963 9896 fax 970 963 5775 mtdolyllcegmoil.com i!• All July 12, 2012 Will Hentschel OZ Architecture 1805 29th Street,Suite 2054 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Sent via e-mail: whentschel @ozarch.com Re: Burlingame Phase II, Landscape Architectural and Irrigation Additional Services For Single Family Lots, Irrigation Pump Station at Park 1 Pond 2, Al Construction Irrigation source change Will, Per your request, I am providing you estimates for three additional service items outside of our scope for Burlingame Phase II. These are Single Family lot landscape plans, Irrigation pump station work to date and to complete current design, and the Irrigation water source change. Please see related summaries and estimates of design and coordination time for each item, as applicable, below. 1. Single Family Lot landscape Plans Single Family lot landscape plans were excluded from our scope of work estimate provided to OZ Architecture when we were asked to join the design team. As the single family lots have now become part of the scope of the project,we are providing this estimate for our time to provide landscape and irrigation plans for the single family lots. Additional Scope: Provide landscape and irrigation plans and details for six single family lots. Four lots are within Burlingame Phase II and two are within Burlingame Phase I. Assumptions/Exclusions: a. Assumes that these landscape plans will become an addendum to the current Implementation Documents sets for building permit. b. No additional specification release. Only an update to previously released specifications if required. c. A Burlingame DRC review is not required or included. However the Burlingame single family guidelines will be adhered to in the design. d. One phone conference with Asset Management staff is included to establish criteria. One meeting (irrigation to participate by phone) with Asset Management staff is included to review conceptual level designs. e. Additional Construction Administration required for these six lots is not included. f. 100%Implementation Documents are excluded because the City has not directed the design team to prepare those documents at the time of this letter. g. The irrigation for the two lots located within Phase I will connect to the existing Phase I system. The irrigation for the four lots located within Phase II will connect to the new Phase II system. Deliverables: a. One set of conceptual DD level Landscape and Irrigation Plans for initial review by the City of Aspen. b. 95% Implementation Document Landscape Plans and Details. Details will not be duplicated if previously represented in Phase IIB set. c. 95% Implementation Document Irrigation Plans and Details. Details will not be duplicated if previously represented in Phase IIB set. Fee Estimate for Scope Item 1:$5,170.00-$6,050.00-47-55 hours at $1 10.00 per hour. Reimbursables-$568.00-$665.00 2. Irrigation Pump Station Design-at Park 1 Pond 2 using re-use water Design of a new irrigation pump station was excluded from our scope of work estimate provided to OZ Architecture when we were asked to join the design team. We stated that irrigation designs were included under the assumption that Harmony Park would serve as the irrigation reservoir for Phase II. When during the course of the design work it was determined that irrigation designs were needed, further information became available and the IPD team decided that an irrigation reservoir was required within Phase II. In good faith initial calculations were provided to help establish the reservoir size and pump station needs. Since that time, the design of the pump station as performed by Western Heritage Design and Consulting is an additional service item. Typically these systems are design build with certain parameters set by the irrigation designer and that was the assumption made. The City requested further work to coordinate with the Parks Department and a field meeting was held on November 11, 2011. Another meeting was scheduled for May 15 for a large group to discuss this further with Parks but that meeting was canceled. However Ryan Altenburg did in fact have a meeting with Parks staff that day where the pump station was discussed and he reported back to the team with meeting notes. Assumptions were made and confirmed with the City at that time but further work ceased after that meeting. Further work is required to complete that design if it was determined that the re-use line would be available to fill Pond 2. Record of time already spent and billed to OZ February 15, 2012 Statement- Pump Station Design and Specifications $3,967.50 March 15, 2012, rev. March 30, 2012 Statement-Mtg.with Parks Dept. 2.21.12 $660.00 March 15, 2012, rev. March 30, 2012 Statement- Pump Sta. Design &Specs $912.50 May 15, 2012 Statement-Meeting with Parks Department re Pump Station $837.50 Subtotal $6,377.50 Record of reimbursables relating to time spent above March 15, 2012, rev. March 30, 2012 Statement - $29.97 May 15, 2012 Statement-Meeting with Parks Department re Pump Station $252.47 Subtotal $282.44 Total for work completed to date Scope Item #2 $6,659.94 Estimated Design Time to complete current Pump Station Design at Pond 2 for a 100% ID set Assumptions/Exclusions: a. This is a proposal to finalize the pump station design for Pond 2 of the Burlingame Phase IIB irrigation system and provide limited construction administration services,subject to assumptions and scope limitations stated herein. Scope assumes that construction will be performed and completed prior to August of 2013. Requires that the Aspen Reuse line be installed and completed to supply a reliable water supply to the pond, and assumes that adequate supply and , storage, by others, are available to operate the pump and recirculation system. Assumes that the pump station will be utilized to supply 2 CFS to the parks recirculation system with a discharge pressure between 20-25PS1 at the pump. Assumes that the pump station will have a redundant pump system to supply 240GPM to the irrigation distribution system at a pressure not to exceed 105 PSI at the pump discharge to an irrigation distribution system designed by WHCE. WHCE is assumed to be as a sub-consultant to Mt. Daly Enterprises as a sub-consultant to OZ Architecture, and this agreement is nontransferable. Excludes modifications and changes presented by City of Aspen and Parks Department following June 8, 2012. b. The construction administration in this proposal is limited to that specifically expressed and is separate from construction administration specified in other agreements or proposals. WHCE Scope of Services and Estimated Costs: 1.0 Final Design: 1.1 BG Pond 2, Pump Station and Filtration Layout Design Completion—$3200: Preparation of final design drawings and specifications for the irrigation distribution pumping and filtration station in addition to previously billed services. Design of a pump station layout including isolation valves, pump filtration protection, discharge filtration, and low level/low pressure cut-off protection. This will be provided as an engineered design. All water supply information including legal shares, schedule of availability and infrastructure drawings are required from Client to complete this design. Excludes distribution system design and application design. Excludes pump building structural, architectural, mechanical, &electrical designs and engineering, also excludes wet well &supply design and associated civil engineering, can be added for increase in scope. Assumes two submittals with Burlingame Phase II 100%and one other coordination submittal. Specifications will not be a separate submittal item and are assumed to be included in the 100% Burlingame Phase IIB irrigation specification submittal. This is not a professionally engineered design. 1.2 Onsite Meetings-Client/Parks—$3400+1300 Reimb: Attendance on site to meet with Client or City of Aspen Parks department for coordination and pump design. Assumes two site visits. Travel assumed July through October 2012. Travel expense may be reduced if scheduled at least two weeks in advance and can be coordinated with other site visits for other WHCE clients or projects. 2.0 Construction Services: 2.1 Construction Inspection and Support and As-Built Drawings—Hourly: Construction inspection, support, and certification and as-built drawings can be added for the standard hourly rates plus expenses. As-built drawings and system certification required by jurisdiction will not be provided by WHCE, unless inspection and construction services are performed by WHCE and its staff. 2.2 Construction Administration (CA) Support—$2600: Review of shop drawings and materials and equipment submittals for the pump station and components of the pump design (Scope item 1.1). Response to limited contractor questions and request for information, 6 hours. Review of submitted as-builts, operation & maintenance manual, electrical control diagrams,skid layout with mechanical connections. 2.3 Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid coordination-CA—$1500+ 650 Reimb.: Attendance at a single prebid conference for contractors on site. Travel assumed April through September 2013. Travel expense may be reduced if scheduled at least two weeks in advance and can be coordinated with other site visits for other clients or projects. 2.4 Pump Construction Observation-CA—$1500 +650 Reimb: Attendance on site or in the City of Aspen to meet in person with Parks staff or project team. Per visit/ per meeting price. Travel assumed June through September 2013. Travel expense may be reduced if scheduled at least two weeks in advance and can be coordinated with other site visits for other WHCE clients or projects. 2.5 Onsite Meetings-CA—$3400+1300 Reimb: Attendance on site to observe installation of pump station with a second follow up site visit to observe demonstration by the contractor. Each visit assumes 810 miles of travel, 13 hours travel time, and 4 hours of onsite engineer's meeting attendance. Additional time can be added at the standard hourly rates plus expenses and mileage. Assumes lodging and expenses based on GSA per diem rates. Travel assumed April through October 2013. Travel expense may be reduced if scheduled at least two weeks in advance and can be coordinated with other site visits for other WHCE clients or projects. 2.6 Remote conference meetings-CA—$210 per meeting-5 meetings = $1050: Attendance via webex or phone for construction team meetings as needed per meeting. Each meeting assumes 1 hour of meeting time, and 1 hour of preparatory and documentation time. Additional time can be added at the standard hourly rates. Meetings need to be scheduled at least one week in advance. Total Western Heritage $17,950.00 Additional Scope of Services Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC Coordination with Western Heritage and COA Parks Department $1,100.00 One site visit with IPD related to this work $ 330.00 Participation via webex or phone-3 meetings $ 660.00 Reimbursables $ 209.00 Total Mt. Daly $2,299.00 Total Scope Item #2 Additional Services $20,249.00 3. Irrigation Water Source Change Due to the delay in the installation of the re-use line to service Burlingame Phase II, a new water source must be identified to provide irrigation water for all of Phase II. A potable water tap that was proposed to irrigate the northern portion of the site to re-vegetate Access and Infrastructure disturbance will also not be available. In this scenario Ryan Altenburg with Western Heritage has outlined the following course of action: A. Confirm the supply to Harmony Park Pond and its dependability, legal use & priority. This should be done in conjunction with legal counsel and get the local water commissioner involved to explain the administration at the diversion point upstream. The fact it is an open ditch supply means BG gets the benefit of return flows and the liability of water"borrowers". B. Determine historical hard evidence of the system operation by using the Maxicom system reports for the zone operations and pump station at BG Phase I,with confirmation by parks that the computer is not providing inaccurate data for run times or flows. Determine the magnitude of the current leaks from the existing system. C. Figure out if the Reuse line becomes available in the future for Harmony Pond and Pond 2 that the Golf Course can supply their mentioned water through the reuse system. Use this information in making decisions below. D. If we can get adequate supply from the Harmony Park Pond then a conduit from Harmony Pond to Pond 2 is advisable until the reuse line is active. Pond 2 is lower than Harmony Pond, though the preferred pipe alignment appears to be down the road of Phase I. If we plan to use Pond 2 for re-vegetation of A&I we return to the discussion of a temporary irrigation pond until the site is stabilized as Pond 2 is being used for water quality until the site is stabilized (by irrigated re-vegetation). E. We could consider upsizing the Harmony Park Pond to provide an increased storage amount,with allowable water level fluctuation, to be the primary source of water for Phase I & Phase II. We would also need to consider installing an expanded pump station or second pump station to handle watering all of the BG II. Power will need to be determined if adequate. Additional Scope Assumptions: This is a proposal to analyze and determine a solution to provide irrigation water to the Burlingame Phase II A&I and possibly Phase IIA construction for irrigation of reestablishment of vegetation. Assumes Park 1, Pond 2 is not available for storage, nor is the reuse line or domestic water system available for irrigation. The previously collected information will be analyzed and compared to recent maxicom consumption and use information as well as observation of Harmony Park Pond inflow. It is assumed that the Aspen Parks department will collect data and make observation of the inflow measuring devices and provide date in a usable format for analysis and comparison. Continued next page Additional Scope Services Western Heritage: 1.0 Analysis: 1.1 Water/Pump availability for Phase II—$1800: Obtain Maxicom usage reports for Burlingame and Harmony Park Pond Pump (Harmony Pump) from City of Aspen Parks department. Obtain electrical usage for a 13 month period of Harmony Pump to compare to maxicom usage as a data control. Advise parks department on frequency of monitoring inflow and observation of existing measuring devices. Also request any upstream flume measurement data, to be provided by Parks Department from Colorado Division of water resources water commissioner. Following receipt of data perform analysis and comparison to current usage and demand to determine available pump capacity for use with Phase II, and available water supply in Harmony Pond for use in Burlingame Phase II. Assumes Harmony Pump is on its own electrical meter or is the primary consumer of electricity for the subject meter. Excludes any site visits. Assumes data is legible, reducible, and usable. Assumes data can be obtained during 2012 drought season, specifically the months of July& August. Excludes data gathering by WHCE. 2.0 Recommendation: 2.1 Construction Inspection and Support and As-Built Drawings—$700: Provide operational recommendations for existing pump station and option to provide irrigation to Phase II A&I and Phase JIA for vegetation. Deliverables will be a written report describing recommended operations and amount of area or revegetation and irrigation can be accommodated with available pump and water flow. Excludes pump design or modifications, excludes pipe design. Total $2,500.00 Exclusions Date gathering by WHCE or Mt. Daly. Pump design or modifications and pipe design. Site visits or site meeting attendance by WHCE. Additional Scope of Services Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC Coordination with Western Heritage and COA Parks Department $1,100.00 One site visit with COA Parks during monitoring period $ 330.00 Total $1,430.00 Reimbursables $393.00 Total for Scope Item #3 $4,323.00 Please contact me as needed for clarification on these items. Sincerely, Susan Chism ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: July 23,2012 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Supplemental PROJECT#: 809003 Drainage Report Amendment XIV Supplemental Drainage Addendum to OZ Architecture AIA Document 8195-2008 CC: Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment XIV Proposed Amendment to AIA Document 8195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25, 201o. Description The attached proposal is and addendum to Amendment IV- Supplemental Drainage Report,Stormwater Management Plan Review and Design Implementation. Amendment VI contemplated one full project drainage report. This amendment complies and provides a separate manual to vary the owner modified scope of work from one full project drainage report, to two drainage reports,with the interim Access-Infrastructure Drainage Report(Phase 2a),followed by the overall drainage study for the Full Project Drainage Report(Phase 2b).Additionally,an amendment to the original scope for the Full Drainage Report is being requested based on extension in a submittal schedule and modification in scope. The original Amendment IV was a not to exceed proposal based on a schedule with the deliverable issued in Dec 2011.The plan was changed with the requirement to have a Drainage Report accompany the Al Permit submission. At this point Sopris Engineering,at the direction of the owner modified their approach and competed the Access Infrastructure Drainage Report. This report is in the final stage of review by the City of Aspen Engineering. Prior and in parallel to the Access Infrastructure study,the Master Drainage report was being compiled for submittal once the Al DR report was reviewed and accepted. Additional Description- See attached-Sopris Engineering LLC Proposal-Master Drainage Study Amendment,& Access&Infrastructure Drainage Study SE Job Number:11100.01&11100.02-A(Amendment XIV,Exhibit 1) & Amendment VI-Supplemental Drainage Report Deliverables See Attached Supplemental Drainage Report(Sopris Engineering) Amendment to Supplemental Drainage Report per attached Proposal $5,00o Access and Infrastructure Drainage Study per attached Proposal $35,675 Coordination meetings for Access&Infrastructure Drainage Study(3 meetings) $1,000 Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $3,125 7.5%of the Fee Fir1 ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Proposed Additional Services $44,800 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture) $2,084 Proposed Contract Amendment $44,800+$2,o84(reimbursable) Total Amendment XIV $46,884 I Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER,COLORADO 80301 WV/W.OZARCH.COM 7.27,2012 Page 2 of2 ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM 5411110 URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Proposed Additional Services $44,800 Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture) $2,084 Proposed Contract Amendment $44,800+$2,o84(reimbursable) Total Amendment XIV $46,884 Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller / uardo Illanes �- BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER,COLORADO 80301 WWW.OZARCH.COM July 19, 2012 Will Hentschel Associate Principal OZ Architects 1805 29th Street, Suite 2054 Boulder, CO 80301 Subject: Sopris Engineering Billing; Phase 2 Burlingame Ranch Drainage Analysis SE Project No. 11100.01 & 11100.02 Dear Mr. Hentschel, Per your request Sopris Engineering (SE) is writing this letter to outline the additional services that have been performed since commencing the original scope of work for Burlingame Ranch Phase 2 Drainage Study. Additional services were performed under the original proposal (SE Project No. 11100.01) as well as the Access and Infrastructure drainage study. The additional items and associated fees are outlined below: SE Project No.: 11100.01-Master Drainage Study(original scope of services) • Coordination and review of Alpine Engineering's grading plans to ensure compliance with rain garden sizing and locations • Coordination and review of Alpine Engineering's storm sewer layout for routing to and from proposed rain garden locations • Site sidewalk revisions to accommodate rain gardens To date the total amount billed under this original scope of work is $51,610. This includes the additional services outlined above. The estimated amount of billings associated with the additional services is $5,000. The original budget for the Master Drainage Study was set at $66,780 which leaves $15,170 to complete the deliverables of a Master Drainage Study (not including the additional services). SE Project No.: 11100.02-Access & Infrastructure Drainage Study All work performed under this scope of work has been tracked and billed under a separate job number. The total amount, including the latest revisions is estimated to be $35,675. Descriptions of this additional work have been included on the respective invoices. It is SE's understanding that this entire amount is an additional service that was not included under the original scope of work. I hope this letter clarifies where we are in regards to additional services. Please contact me with any further questions or if you need additional information Sincere y, Sopri- ngin 'n , LC / Ya Nichol, PE Pr. cipal 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704-0311 • Fax (970) 704-0313 Sornis ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN TO: Scott Miller DATE: September 13,2011 FROM: Will Hentschel PROJECT: Burlingame Ranch Phase II SUBJECT: Burlingame Phase II Supplemental PROJECT#: 809003 Drainage Report Amendment VI to OZ Architecture AIA Document B195-2008 CC: Chris Everson, Barry Crook, Rob FILE#: Taylor Amendment VI Proposed Amendment to AIA Document 8195-2008 Agreement between Owner and Architect for Integrated project Delivery for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II Project Dated January 25;2010. Description Our proposal is for a Supplemental Drainage Report,Stormwater Management Plan Review and Design Implementation based on the attached proposal by Sopris Engineering on July 8,2011. This proposal is being submitted as an enhancement to the current drainage report to fulfill current best practices and ensure that the owner,the City of Aspen,with have the most efficient and low maintenance drainage system possible. Additionally,we see that the supplemental drainage report may suggest opportunities potential cost savings but utilizing a more streamlined approach. Additional Description- See attached-Sopris Engineering LLC Proposal-Drainage Studies, Civil Design Services SE Job Number:Moo-A(Amendment VI,Exhibit 1) Deliverables See Attached Schedule • Kick off and Drainage Report Review/Fact Gathering September26,2011 • Coordination Meeting with COA Engineering September 26,2011 • Coordination Meeting with AEI/ OZ September 27,2011 • Schematic/Detailed Design Drainage Report for HPP&Calculation Review/Recommendations NPII SMP September 28—October 24 • Detailed Design Coordination Meeting with AEI/ OZ October 25,2011 • Detailed Design Coordination Meeting with COA Engineering October 26,2011 • Final Report and Design Recommendations October 27—November 17,2011 • Final Coordination Meeting with COA Engineering November 21,2011 • Final Drainage Report and Submittal December 5,2011 ***This schedule is estimated. The exact schedule will be set at the Kick-off meeting between COA and the OZ led Design team. If scheduling efficiencies can be realized,the duration will be shorter. Supplemental Drainage Report(Sopris Engineering) Supplemental Drainage Report per attached Proposal $62,130 Not to Exceed (work will be done hourly per attached billable rates) BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886DENVER BOULDERCOLORADO p.1 2011 Page iota •�Nigiogoo3o l d ranch ph kT Fnanagement\contr Pac{•RrmvRMAtt WWW.OZARCH.COM addendum vi supplemental drainage report\8ogoo3 contract amendment vi supplemental drainage ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM URBAN DESIGN ® INTERIOR DESIGN Administration and Coordination(OZ Architecture) $4,660 7.5%of the Fee Reimbursable Expenses(OZ Architecture) $2,485 ****Additional Site Design Modifications that affect the PUD approved Masterplan resulting in a review process and PUD modifications beyond administrative(IE,through a Public City Council Review&Hearing)will be done after mutual acceptance by the IPD team with owner approval at standard hourly rates for the OZ led IPD Team. It is understood that the final drainage report may require modifications to the engineering drawings prior to acceptance by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. These modifications are covered under this proposal. Once the final drainage report is determined and accepted by the City of Aspen Engineering all final modifications(except a major modifications to the PUD,as mentioned above)to grading,detailing and specifications for construction will be done in Implementation Documents Stage by the OZ led Design team at no additional cost to the owner. Proposed Additional Services $69,275(Not to Exceed) OZ Architecture proposes a 5o/5o split on the Additional services amount between the OZ Architecture Design Team and The City of Aspen. Proposed Contract Amendment $11,.1qc+$2,485(reimbursable) Total Amendment VI $35,880 Owner/Architect City of Aspen OZ Architecture Scott Miller Eduardo Illanes BOULDER PHONE:303 449.8900 1805 29TH STREET,SUITE 2054 FAX:303.449.3886 DENVER BOULDER COLORADO SPRINGS LAS VEGAS LAKE TAHOE BOULDER,COLORADO 80301 VNJW.OZARCH.COM g.o5.zou Page z of 2 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,2011 Page 1 of 6 Will Hentschel OZ Architecture 3003 Larimer Street Denver, Colorado 80205 Reference: Burlingame Ranch Phased-II Drainage Studies, Civil Design Services SE Job Number: 11100-A Dear Will: We are pleased to prepare this proposal to perform civil engineering and services in support of your project located at Burlingame Ranch, Aspen, Colorado. We will perform Civil Engineering services required to obtain approved designs for drainage plan from the City of Aspen Engineering Department as outlined in scope of work below. Scope of Work: Based on the information we received from you and Gary Brooks of Alpine Engineering, Inc. (AEI), a subsequent telephone conferences with you, discussions with City Engineer, and a copy of"Drainage Calculations for Harmony Pond and Drywells D4 and D5, Dated March 8, 2011 and attached site drawing exhibits, we have defined the engineering work required as outlined below. Harmony Pond Drainage Basin Drainage Plan(HPP) We will perform the following tasks that will include existing site condition analysis, and will compare it with Carter Burgess, Inc. (CBI) analysis dated June 2005 and September 15, 2005 and the drainage plan proposed by Alpine Engineering, Inc. We will prepare a drainage report per the requirements of the City's Urban Runoff Management, and regulations adopted recently by the City with the intent to receive approval from COA Engineering Department. Our approach to Part One drainage mitigation will differ from the AEI to the extent that no modification to HPP,the existing pond inlet pipe or the outlet structure will be done. 1. Coordination and Kick-off meeting with project Design Team: This work will involve a project meeting to coordinate and start work that will include current site condition assessment, evaluation of the exiting drainage patterns and verify changes to post as-built drawings. Additionally, we will conduct a project coordination meeting with COA Engineering staff and discuss CBI's drainage study and verify its impact on URMP's approach. 2. Response to COA comments originally issued on 10/18/10: Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) will review AEI's drainage report and their responses to City Engineer in conjunction with drainage system designs and for compliance with URMP. 3. Drainage Report for the HPP Delineated Drainage Area as shown in AEI's Exhibit: Our work for this category will include the following tasks and will be based on the City Engineer's design review comments mentioned above: SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,201 1 Page 2 of 6 • Drainage basin delineations for approximately 40%surface area, also designated as the southern section of the Phase-II and associated offsite basins. • Stormwater routing and conveyance analysis using the City's URMP spreadsheets and selected routing software. • HPP detention capacity verification for historic versus developed flow volumes. We will assume an irrigation base flow of 0.9 cfs, and we will incorporate CBI's existing condition flows. SE will Provide Calculations for 5-yr, and 100-yr storm events including the HPP's water quality capture volume (WQCV). • SE will Provide design recommendations for stormwater routing, collection, and conveyance including non-impactive HPP outlet improvements if available. We realize no changes to Harmony Park amenities is desirable. 4. Phase-II On-site WQCV and runoff detention capability: SE will perform a detailed analysis for the southern sub-basins within Phase-II as explained above to determine in-line bio-retention swales and rain gardens capabilities within the flood routing paths. We will provide possible integrated on-site stormwater mitigation enhancements. S.HPP Outlet Structure: This task will include an analysis of the existing pond outlet capacity, development of its current condition output hydrograph in order to mimic the existing runoff release capabilities as requested by the City Engineer. 6. Coordination of Revisions to Southern Phase-II Stormwater Management Facilities: We will coordinate the design of system revisions and enhancements including grading with project team for inclusion in final design. It is understood that SE will provide design option(s)to project team, and AEI will perform design revisions. SE will review AEI's design changes for compliance and conformity to SE's final drainage report. 7.HGL and EGL Calculations and Plotting: SE will perform a system wide HGL and EGL calculations and compare the results to AEI's design based on the proposed system calculations accepted by the Engineering Department. 8.Design Review Meetings with City Engineering Staff: SE will facilitate and attend up to three (3)meetings with COA Staff to review the design approach and calculations. SE will also attend up to two (2) meetings with project team to facilitate and prepare its final drainage report. Northern Phase-II Stormwater Management Plan These engineering services will include the following tasks and will address the City of Aspen Engineering standards and other pertinent regulations as they relate to Burlingame Ranch Phase-II housing project. 1. Review of Engineering Department Comments: This work will be performed in order to address all project issues raised by the City Engineering Department to include the following work items: SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,2011 Page 3 of 6 -A joint project coordination meeting with AEI, COA engineering staff, Project Manager, and perhaps Parks Department staff to finalize the overall requirements of stormwater management and irrigation water supply. - Attend design review meetings with COA engineering staff and AEI for completion of SE's drainage report. 2. Pond-2 Sizing: Calculations to accommodate onsite detention and release of water quality capture volumes as defined in AEI's recent drainage designs report will be performed by SE for compliance with URMP. SE will determine an irrigation base flow or maximum water surface elevation based on information from the Parks Department to accommodate irrigation water demands. It is our understanding that the primary source of water supply is the reclaimed water line and the secondary source of supply will be a potable water supply line for the project. 3. Level Spreader(s): SE will coordinate with AEI to determine the appropriate level spreader(s) sizes and configurations throughout project boundaries and/or specify alternative outlet protection facilities. 4. Stormwater Runoff Calculations: SE will perform stormwater calculation to determine Pre-development and post-development runoff volumes for 5-yr and 100-yr rainfall events as defined in URMP and based on Carter Burgess, Inc. report for storm events. 5. HGL and EGL Calculations: SE will perform HGL and EGL calculations for the proposed storm sewer system. Final Design Coordination Final site and stormwater management system designs will be coordinated with AEI to produce necessary implementation documents required for this project. This work will include progress design reviews and final design reviews by SE to ensure compliance and conformance to SE's final drainage report and Engineering Department' requirements. Sopris Engineering, LLC, at its sole discretion may elect to perform any applicable hydrologic/runoff analysis and calculations method or modeling software as outlined in URMP to model the basins and facilities under either part of the scope of work as explained above. Drainage Report This professional engineering work will include completion of final drainage analysis and preparation of a drainage report by SE for the entire Phase-II development. Engineering Services Fee Structure: As requested, our estimate of fees is based on a total professional engineering work, which includes the work outlined above. Our fees will not be exceeded without prior written authorization, and any additional engineering work, if requested beyond final submittal to City Engineering Department will be based on T&M rates established in this proposal. Total Phase-II Project Engineering Fees: $62,130.00 SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,2011 Page 4 of 6 The additional work to provide engineering services during construction are not a part of this estimate. Services Not Included: Services excluded from this proposal are design services, landscape plans,soils/geotechnical services, structural design,geological hazard investigations,excavation and stabilization design,construction engineering services,construction staking,as-built survey or as-built plans, construction management plan,environmental studies,water rights research,wildfire studies,traffic studies,or any other special or unusual requirements.We can provide certain additional services based on a negotiated fee. Reproduction costs and other authorized services will be performed on a time and materials basis in accordance with the enclosed Schedule of Rates dated January 2011. Acceptance of Proposal: In accepting this proposal,the client warrants that funds are available to compensate SE,and that these funds are neither encumbered nor contingent upon the subsequent granting of approvals,permits,or financial commitments by lending institutions or other entities. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to submit our proposal for this project. SE looks forward to working with you. Acceptance of this proposal may be indicated by signing the enclosed agreement and returning one signed copy to our office. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerel , S• ' EN/'r E G,LLC anc/ ichol,P.E. 1 Prin ipal SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,2011 Page 5 of 6 Sopris Engineering, LLC Schedule of Rates (Effective January 2011) Total project charges are based on hourly rates,plus direct job expenses as follows: Personnel Charges Principal Engineer,Principal Surveyor $170.00/hr. Project Manager $120.00/hr. Project Engineer(P.E.),Survey Manager(L.S.) $105.00/hr. Design and/or Field Engineer,Survey Supervisor $90.00/hr. Technician,Field Observer,Party Chief $80.00/hr. Technical Typist,Clerical $50.00/hr. Three-man Survey Crew $160.00/hr. Two-man Survey Crew $140.00/hr. Robotic Survey Crew $140.00/hr. GPS Survey Crew $140.00/hr. Courtroom Expert Testimony $250.00/hr. Court and Deposition Preparation $170.00/hr Deposition $200.00/hr Computer Charges Computer Plots $20.00/ea. Online Research Additional$20.00/hr Misc.Charges Photocopies $0.15/ea. Blackline/Blueline prints/small color $1.50/ea. 24"x 36"Color prints $20.00 ea. Mylar Sepias $30.00/ea. Vehicle Mileage $0.50/mi. Overnight Delivery(in state) as charged Overnight Delivery(out of state) as charged Custom Billing Forms $20.00/hr Outside Consultants or sub-Contractors Billed at Cost plus 10% Other Direct Project Expenses Billed at Our Cost SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313 Burlingame Phase-II Drainage SE Proposal No. 11100-A July 8,2011 Page 6 of 6 AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING,LLC Project Name: Burlingame Ranch Phase-II Drainage—Civil Services for Site Development Proposal No.: 11100-A Date: July 8,2011 The services covered by this Authorization form shall be performed in accordance with the following provisions and the enclosed Sopris Engineering,LLC(SE)proposal letter listed above unless otherwise specified. 1. Time Schedule: SE will make every reasonable effort to complete all services,which are specifically to be furnished under this agreement,in a timely manner. 2. Professional Standards: SE shall be responsible,to the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional engineers/surveyors in the same type of work in the Client's Community,for the professional and technical soundness,accuracy, and adequacy of all work furnished under this Authorization. SE makes no other warranty,expressed or implied. 3. Termination: Either CLIENT or SE may terminate this Authorization by giving twenty(20)days written notice to the other party. In such event,CLIENT shall forthwith pay SE in full for all work previously authorized and performed prior to the effective date of termination. If no notice of termination is given,relationships and obligations created by this Authorization shall be terminated upon completion of all applicable requirements of this Authorization. 4. Legal Expenses: In the event legal action is brought by CLIENT or SE against the other to enforce the obligations hereunder or arising out of any dispute concerning the terms and conditions hereby created,the losing party shall pay the prevailing party such reasonable amounts for fees,costs and expenses as may be set by the court. 5. Payment: Monthly invoices will be issued by SE for all work performed under the terms of this agreement. Time accounting cuts off on the 25th of the month(invoice date). Invoices will be sent out on or about the last day of the month. They will be sent to the client at the address indicated at the bottom of this Authorization form. Invoices are due and payable on receipt. Finance charges at 1 1/2%per month(18%Annual Rate)will be charged on all amounts which are over,30 days past due. Client/Owner agrees to pay reasonable collection and attorney's fees in the event of nonpayment. 6. Assignment of Agreement: This agreement shall be binding on the heirs,successors and assigns of the parties hereto and is not to be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other. 7. Ownership of Documents: All reports,plans,field data,field notes,calculations,estimates and other documents prepared by SE as instruments of service,shall remain the property of SE unless there are other contractual agreements. 8. Limitation of Liability: SE's liability to the CLIENT for any negligent act,error or omission is,in the aggregate,limited to an amount not to exceed the fee earned under this agreement,or$50,000,whichever is greater. Please provide the following information: CLIENT: Billing Name and Address: Approved for CLIENT: By: (Please print and Sign) Phone No. Title: Date: SOPRIS ENGINEERING • LLC civil consultants 502 Main Street Suite A3, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 (970)704-0311 Fax:(970)704-0313