jacobs confidential trip report...

JACOBS

CONFIDENTIAL TRIP REPORT

FILE:

FROM: Bill Tsiforas/Tim Morris

PERIOD: January 12-14, 2010

SUBJECT: City and County of Honolulu Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Monthly Progress Meeting

REFERENCE: Project Management Oversight Contractor Services for US DOT/FTA FTA Contract: DTFT60-09-D-00012 / FTA Project: DC-27-5140 IN C1X29502 / Sub-CLIN 0002B

A. INTRODUCTION

This Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) Trip Report provides a summary of activities associated with the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project during the subject period.

B. SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

The purpose of the report is to provide the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with a summary of discussions and activities from the following West Oahu/Farrington Highway (WOFH) Notice to Proceed (NTP) #1 Schedule of Values meeting, Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP)/Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP) workshop and WOFH Project DB Kick-Off meeting that was held January 13-14, 2010 with the City and County of Honolulu (City) for the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project ("Project").

The following activities occurred during the subject trip: • January 12, 2010 — Monthly Progress Meeting (summarized in Monthly Report) • January 13, 2010 — West Oahu/Farrington Highway (WOFH) Notice to Proceed (NTP)

#1 Schedule of Values meeting • January 13, 2010 — Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP)/Bus Fleet Management Plan

(BF1ViP) Discussion • January 14, 2010 — WOFH Project DB Kick-Off meeting/Design Workshop Agenda

review meeting

AR00116564

PMOC Trip Report January 12-14, 2010

of 14

The following table provides the list of participants for each of the activities

Attendee Organization WOFH DB NTP #1 Meeting

BFMP/RFMP Meeting

WOFH DB Kick-off Meeting

Toni Hamayasu City .( Phyllis Kurio City Richard Tones City .( Jerry Iwata City .( Faith Miyamoto City .( Dick Kaku City .( Darin Mar City .( Ken Caswell City .( Kenneth Bnamo City .( Simon Zweighaft InfraConsult (PMSC) .( Harvey Berliner InfraConsult (PMSC) .( .( Wes Mott InfraConsult (PMSC) .( Mark Hickson InfraConsult (PMSC) .( Khalil Allen InfraConsult (PMSC) .( Don Durkee Subconsultant (PMSC) .( Jim Van Epps PB (GEC) .( Tom Willoughby PB (GEC) .( Kerry Stevenson PB (GEC) .( Mark Scheibe PB (GEC) .( .( Tim Mantych Jacobs (PMOC) .( .( .( Bill Tsiforas Jacobs (PMOC) .( .( .( Tim Morris Jacobs (PMOC) .( .( .( Arun Virginkar Jacobs (PMOC) .( .( .(

C. SUMMARY OF MEETINGS AND ACTIVITIES

1. WOFH DB Contract NTP #1 Schedule of Values Meeting

The meeting began on January 13, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. at the City and County of Honolulu offices in Honolulu, Hi. The objective of the meeting was for the PMOC to understand the basis of the reimbursable amount of $27 million and items in "Attachment A" of NTP #1, which is limited to the elements of Preliminary Engineering (PE) whose principal purpose is refinement and validation of information supporting the NEPA process. Following is a synopsis of the items discussed and actions having been, being or to be made:

a. Review of Schedule of Values • The City opened the discussion by providing an explanation of the Kiewit contract

schedule of values proposal summary (exhibit 16a in Kiewit's contract). The City also referred to the Kiewit "Horse Blanket" linear schedule which is tied to the schedule of values. The linear schedule/schedule of values is broken down into several sections (section B-E) and a total cost is associated with each of the sections based on the activity that Kiewit will be performing.

AR00116565


of 14

PMOC requested a further explanation of how the City arrived at the $27 million dollars, which is the maximum reimbursable amount to be paid to Kiewit by March 1, 2010 for issuance of NTP #1 activities. PMSC responded the WOFH contract is a $482.9 million dollar lump sum contract. The payment is based on a schedule of milestones and the payment terms are in Special Provisions (SP) 6 of the General Contractors Design Build (GCDB) Chapter 6 provisions. The maximum reimbursable amount is $27 million under NTP #1. The contract payments for the first 90 days are $19.4 million, of which Insurance and Bonds total $7.3 million.

• PMOC inquired about Request for Proposal (RFP) Part 2 and where it mentioned issuance of multiple NTPs in the contract PMSC responded the language is included in the contract and will be provided to the PMOC.

• PMSC stated the expected duration is for NTP #1 is 90 days from December 1, 2009 to March 1, 2010. The NTP is pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the contract. Thirty five milestone activities have been identified for NTP #1. Twenty one activities are for one lump sum payment and nine will start within the 90 days but will not be completed within the 90 days. Fourteen activities are monthly payments. All of these activities will start in NTP #1, but only one activity (Item 15 — Activate Hub Office) will be completed within the 90 days.

• NTP #1 is strictly limited to the elements of PE whose principal purpose is refinement and validation of information supporting the environmental review process. Until FTA issues the Record of Decision (ROD) no action would be taken by Kiewit, which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.

b. NTP #1 Not To Exceed Value • PMSC stated the NTP #1 activity grouping consists of the following:

o Bonds and Insurance (2) — required by contract o Preparation of applicable plans (11) — required to commence work o Management and Administration (10) — management of work activities o Mobilization and Activation (7) — required to do work o Permits/Coordination (5) — required to do work

• PMSC discussed Exhibit 22 of Kiewit's contract that was not provided to the PMOC or FTA previously (see Attachment B for Exhibit 22 information). The Exhibit shows the 34 activities, planned achievement (date), baseline schedule activity ID and payment schedule. The exhibit also provides the City's payment breakdown within the first 90 days and the total NTP #1 value.

PMOC is concerned that some of the activities discussed in Attachment B may not be associated with the NEPA activities and validation of information supporting the environmental review process. For example, the Safety Plan and Administration activity could have been pushed to NTP #2, but since the City authorized the contractor to perform this activity with NTP #1, the contractor is obligated to incur costs.

AR00116566


of 14

• The PMOC asked if the GEC I designer will have to provide any changes to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) based on NTP #1. The City responded the DB contractor could have changes that might affect the NEPA process, but the City did not provide any specific information.

• Without the ROD, the City will not be able to issue NTP #2 to Kiewit. The PMOC asked the City what they are planning to do if NTP #2 is not issued in 90 days or by March 1, 2010. The City responded that they are planning to issue NTP #1A, but a budget has not yet been established. However, the City will have to re-negotiate with Kiewit as required by the contract. The PMOC responded that the City should inform the FTA of there plans of issuing NTP #1A and to provide the FTA with the level of detail that is shown in Attachment A and also a thorough explanation of the line items to be authorized.

• The City asked the PMOC why the FTA limited the City to NEPA for NTP #1 when the City could have been continuing with PE activities which they are authorized to perform. The PMOC responded they weren't involved in conversations between the FTA and Corporate Council. Don Durkee responded the City wasn't given that opportunity and were told by the FTA Headquarters attorney the City was limited to NEPA activities. The PMOC reiterated the City go back to the FTA and explain each of the line item activities under NTP #1 especially if the City decides to extend NTP #1.

• The City responded that load test and demolition of shafts activity could be included in NTP #1A. The City continued discussing the other line item activities associated with NTP #1.

Issues/Concerns It is the PMOC' s professional opinion that NTP #1 is associated more with mobilization of the DB team than strictly limited to the elements of PE whose principal purpose is refinement and validation of information supporting the environmental review process.

c. Review of Contract Schedule • The PMOC requested to discuss Kiewit's schedule. The City responded that they were

not prepared to discuss that schedule in detail yet. The PMOC inquired about Kiewit's baseline schedule submittal within 45 days of issuance of NTP #1. The City responded the GEC I consultant has reviewed Kiewit's schedule and provided comments. Kiewit must incorporate the four NTPs in their baseline schedule. The PMOC requested a copy of the approved baseline schedule once it is finalized.

d. Discuss Pending NTPs • The PMOC stated that the City should share future NTPs with the FTA and PMOC in

advance of their issuance. The purpose of this review is to ensure City remains within the constraints of the New Starts requirements.

Issues/Concerns

AR00116567


of 14

It is the PMOC' s professional opinion that there are some risks associated with the WOFH DB contract that may significantly affect the schedule and erode any apparent savings the City realized from the favorable bids submitted for this contract. The risks involve the realization that NTP #2, 3, and 4 will not be issued by March 17, 2010, as stipulated in the contract with Kiewit.

2. Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP)/Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP) Discussion

The City and the PMOC discussed the Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFA/fP) and Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP). The objective of the meeting is the result of an evaluation to determine whether procedures and policies have been developed and documented to effectively perform regulatory, technical, and administrative management of the project.

a. BFMP Status

The FTA issued a memorandum in May 1999 to Regional Administrators titled "Guidance: Bus Fleet Management Plan for New Starts". FTA's objective in issuing such guidance was to ensure that bus service would not be degraded during design and construction of a Grantee's rail project. It further stated that the BFA/fP should address how the Grantee will:

• Maintain a bus fleet and facilities for the level of service and area currently served; • Establish quality of service measures and adequate monitoring of the bus service; and • Provide capital and operating funds that will be required for bus service in the area.

To affectively assess and monitor a Grantee's bus fleet management and performance, FTA requires the grantee to give a clear explanation of its bus system status in the past, at present, and as projected in the near future in major areas such as ridership, service standards, peak level of service requirements and operating spares, operations & maintenance performance vis-à-vis standards, operations & maintenance staffing, future service/facilities expansions, and funding sources for fleet procurements/rehabilitation projects. These need to be demonstrated with appropriate historical data (as reported to the National Transit Database) for the periods of 3-5 years prior to rail construction, and projections for the duration of the rail construction and at least 1-3 years after the rail service begins.

The City had previously submitted the Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP), Rev.0, dated April 2008 to FTA and is in the process of revising it. The City requested PMOC' s preliminary input prior to its next submittal. The highlights of this meeting discussion are summarized below.

• As recommended by the previous FTA PMOC, City adopted Baltimore MTA's BFMP format in preparation of its plan; City requested PMOC' s concurrence of this format prior to next revision. The PMOC emphasized that our review of the BFA/fP update will focus primarily on complying with FTA's Bus Fleet Management Plan guidelines outlined in Hiram Walker's Dear Colleague memo and will not favor any specific format. The PMOC provided City a copy of FTA's guidance. Per City's request, the PMOC conducted a cursory review of City's current BFMP during the meeting. The PMOC noted that the content is generally acceptable and appears to address requisite topics related to bus fleet management.

AR00116568


of 14

The PMOC offered the following suggestions to enhance the current BF1\,/fP: • Add details related to load factor policy, basis of ridership forecast, funding plans and

sources for procurement/rehab of buses, and maintenance facilities capacity/expansion plans

• Add description to definitively state how bus service will not be degraded as a result of the rail project

• To the maximum extent practicable, use a consistent time frame for all exhibits, tables, spreadsheets, etc. (i.e. 3-5 years prior to the start of design phase and after the start revenue operation of the rail project)

The City requested the PMOC to provide any samples of the BF1\,/fP; the PMOC provided an electronic copy of Minneapolis Metro's BF1\,/fP Rev.13 dated May 2009 that it had submitted to FTA as part of Metro's Central Corridor Light Rail Transit project Final Design grant application.

Issues/Concerns None

b. RFMP Status

The City had previously submitted the Rail Fleet Management Plan (RF1\,/fP) Draft, dated May 2009 to FTA and is in the process of revising it. The City provided the PMOC an informational copy of the same and requested PMOC' s preliminary input during the meeting prior to its next submittal. The highlights of this meeting discussion are summarized below.

The PMOC emphasized that our review of the RFMP update will focus primarily on complying with FTA's Rail Fleet Management Plan guidelines outlined in Hiram Walker's Dear Colleague memo and provided City a copy of the same. Per City's request, the PMOC conducted a cursory review of City's draft RF1\,/fP during the meeting. The PMOC noted that the format is generally acceptable and appears to address requisite topics related to rail fleet management. Specifically, the RFMP follows FTA's 8-step guidance in computing Peak Vehicle Requirements (PVR) and Operating Spares Ratio (OSR). The PMOC suggested adding details of the railcar in the RFMP update. City responded that it will do so only after the award of the Core Systems Contractor (CSC) contract due to confidentiality of the of the selection/award process.

Issues/Concerns None

3. WOFH Project DB Kick-Off meeting/Design Workshop Agenda Review Meeting

The meeting began on January 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at Kiewit's office in Honolulu, Hi. The PMOC attended the WOFH Project DB Kick-Off/Design Workshop Agenda Review meetings. The following is a synopsis of the items discussed and actions having been, being or to be made:

a. Previous Meeting

AR00116569


of 14

• Since this was the kick-off meeting for the WOFH project there were no previous meeting minutes to discuss or review.

• Harvey Berliner from the City requested that Kiewit keep a master list of closed items so that the City can refer back to items if needed.

b. Safety • Kiewit is currently working on the safety plan and is scheduled to submit the safety plan

on February 2, 2010.

c. Quality • Kiewit plans to submit the Quality Management Plan (QMP) on January 22, 2010

including the design component. The Contractors Quality Management Plan (CQl\SP) will be submitted to the City on February 12, 2010. Mr. Berliner (City) stated the Rapid Transit Department (RTD) Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) starts on February 1, 2010 and there may be a delay in the review of the CQl\SP. Kiewit responded that their QAM will meet with the RTD QAM when he starts working at the RTD to discuss the QMP and the CQMP.

• Kiewit requested a current organization chart from the RTD. The City responded that they are in the process of updating the Project Management Plan (PMP) for the Federal Transit Administration and will provide the organization chart to Kiewit as soon as it is available.

d. Environmental • Kiewit is working on the Project Environmental Plan (PEP) and their goal is to provide

the City with a submittal by February 1, 2010. Kiewit would like to submit a draft and review the PEP together with the City and asked who the lead environmental person is for the City. Mr. Berliner responded that Faith Miyamoto is the lead for the City but Kiewit may want the General Engineering Consultant (GEC) Parsons Brinkerhoff (PB) to review the PEP.

e. 5-Week Schedule Review • Mr. Berliner (City) stated that Kiewit's schedule should only reflect Notice to Proceed

(NTP) #1 activities. Mr. Berliner also mentioned that Kiewit's schedule shows an NTP #2 date of February 14, 2010 and should reflect an NTP #2 date of March 1, 2010. Kiewit asked the City what they should show in the schedule for NTP #3 and NTP #4. The City responded Kiewit should reflect 120 days from the contract signing or March 17, 2010. The City stated Kiewit's baseline schedule should reflect the contract and if there are any changes the schedule can be adjusted. Kiewit responded that they would make the reflected changes.

• Kiewit stated they would like to receive payment for the Bonds and Insurance. The City responded, per the contract, Kiewit can receive payment five days after approval of their baseline schedule. Kiewit stated they can't wait for three weeks to get paid and requested

AR00116570


of 14

a change. The GEC agreed to review the schedule jointly so that Kiewit can incorporate their comments and hopefully get the schedule approved and be able to receive payment quicker.

• Kiewit discussed the following information from their five week look ahead schedule: o Office Mobilization — Kiewit stated they are currently working on renovations to the

Hub Office which is an old Kaiser Permanente hospital. The building is approximately 35,000 square feet with plenty of parking. Kiewit anticipates the DB team should be able to move into the Hub Office in three weeks (February/March 2010).

o Safety — Target date for Safety Plan and Incident Management Plan is February 1, 2010.

o Quality — The QMP, CQMP and the Design Quality Management Plan (DQMP) will be completed at the same time. Kiewit stated the Geotechnical Exploration Quality Control Plan should be completed by the end of this week.

o Environmental — PEP should be completed this week and the DB team will perform an internal review. Kiewit is working on the Construction Waste Management Plan and the City responded Kiewit should submit a draft to the City and once comments are incorporated Kiewit can provide a final submittal.

o Compliance Plan — Kiewit invited the City and GEC to attend Kiewit's internal compliance training. Kiewit is working on their EEO and internal compliance plan.

o Planning tools — Kiewit is working on their Administrative Plan, Contract Administrative Plan and will work with the City and the GEC on the submittal matrix. The City responded that Kiewit and the GEC's IT departments need to discuss the contract management software.

o Permits — Permit meeting scheduled on January 19, 2010 and it is critical to establish a status of the permits. A Right Of Way (ROW) meeting is scheduled on January 20, 2010.

o Design — A design workshop is schedule on February 3, 2010. The meeting was rescheduled to focus on foundation and foundation related design and track alignments. The City responded the focus is on NEPA related design.

o Geotechnical — Kiewit stated the Drilling and Sampling Plan, Geotechnical Plan repost and Load Test Design (Shafts 1 & 2) are all on schedule.

o Drilling — Kiewit stated long lead items will happen after the NTP #2 date of March 1, 2010.

o Design Foundation — Kiewit stated all work associated with this item is to validate NEPA.

o Maintenance of Traffic — Kiewit stated the early Traffic Maintenance Plan (TMP) for exploratory drilling was submitted on January 15, 2010. The City responded they hired a traffic engineer and would like him to review the TMP.

f. Public Information • Kiewit would like to arrange a preliminary meeting with the City to discuss public

information. The City stated they would arrange a meeting. The City stated Toni Hamayasu (City) requested a one week look ahead for all meetings including a sentence that describes the meeting.

AR00116571


of 14

g. Utilities • Kiewit asked the City when the utility agreements will be provided. The City responded

they are working on getting the signed agreements. The City is paying for all the costs for utility relocations and the utility companies have been slow with providing the signed agreements. Kiewit asked if the agreements will be signed by February 1, 2010 and the City responded they think it may happen by then.

• The City stated the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT) wants the City to take over Farrington highway when it is under construction including the maintenance. Kiewit will be responsible for performing what HDOT is required to perform on the highway. This may result in a change order for Kiewit to perform HDOT' s duties for the highway.

h. Submittal and RFI Status • Kiewit submitted 12 RFIs that were responded by the GEC and a few submittals. The

City requested Kiewit to provide a RFI and submittal log.

i. Potential Change Orders (PCO) • None

k. Contract Change Orders (CCO) • None

1. Miscellaneous • The PMOC request that Kiewit provide them with a copy of the weekly progress meeting

minutes. The PMOC will also be attending the weekly progress meetings when they meet with the City on a monthly basis.

Kiewit concluded their weekly progress meeting at 11:00 a.m. Kiewit held a Design Workshop Agenda review meeting with the City from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. which the PMOC attended as well. The purpose of the Design Workshop Agenda review was to finalize the Agenda with the City in anticipation of the meeting that is scheduled for February 3, 2010. The Agenda (Attachment C) can be found in the attachments to this report.

Attachments A PMOC January Meeting Agenda B Schedule A from NTP#1 for Contract No. CT-DTS-1000137 C Design Workshop Agenda (Rough Draft) Attachment A: PMOC January Meeting Agenda

MEETING AGENDA

Grantee: City and County of Honolulu Project: Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Subject: Monthly Progress Meeting

AR00116572


of 14

Date: January 12-13, 2010 Time: 9:00 AM Honolulu Location: Teleconference

Call-in Number: 1-866-365-4406 Passcode: 5185105

Participants: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) City and County of Honolulu (City) InfraConsult — Project Management Support Consultant (PMSC) Parsons Brinckerhoff — General Engineering Consultant (GEC) Jacobs Engineering Group — Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC)

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1. Previous Action Items (Attachment A)

2. NEPA Update

3. Procurement Update • General Engineering Consultant II • West Oahu/Farrington Highway Guideway DB Contract • Kamehameha Highway Guideway DB Contract • Maintenance and Storage Facility DB Contract • Vehicle/Core Systems DBOM Contract • Station Design Packages

4. Preliminary Engineering Phase Update • Technical Capacity and Capability (staffing update) • Status of management deliverables

• Project Management Plan (PMP) • Quality Management Plan • Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan • Bus Fleet Management Plan • Rail Fleet Management Plan • System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) • System Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (SSEPP) • Safety and Security Certification Plan (SSCP) • Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP)

• Status of design activities

5. Project Schedule Update

6. Financial Update • Current Baseline Project Budget • Update of Project Budget (status of bottom-up estimate) • Expenditures • SCC Workbook

7. Other Items • FTA Roadmap • Letters of No Prejudice • State Safety Oversight Agency

AR00116573


of 14

• Real Estate Acquisition • Grantee Monthly Report Outline • Operations Peer Review Update

8. Status Update of PE Approval Letter Requirements (Attachment B)

9. New Action Items (Attachment B)

10. Look Ahead (Attachment C)

Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1. West Oahu/Farrington Highway Contract

• Review of Schedule of Values • NTP #1 NTE value • Review of Contract Schedule • Discuss pending NTPs

2. RFMP/BFMP Work shop

3. Project Site Tour (PMOC only)

Thursday, January 14, 2010 1. West Oahu/Farrington Highway DB Kick-Off Meeting

2. West Oahu/Farrington Highway Design Workshop

AR00116574


of 14

Attachment B: Schedule A from NTP#1 for Contract No. CT-DTS-1000137

Coup Total SM Value (in

I G

rou

p

Planned Achievement

Baseline Schedule

Milestone Title dollars) (Date) Activity ID Payment

01A 1 Payment & Performance Bonds $5,267,000 1 4-Dec-09 A1000 LS 01A 2 Insurance $2,046,000 1 4-Dec-09 A1010 LS 01A 3 Project Management Phase 1 $4,000,000 3 6-Dec-10 A1030.10 Monthly (12 Mo) 01A 4 Project Quality Management Plan Draft $213,000 2 12-Jan-10 A1040.10 LS 01A 5 Project Quality Management Plan Final $71,000 2 23-Feb-10 A1040.20 LS 01A 6 Project Quality Management $18,183,000 3 21-Mar-13 A1041 Monthly (40 Mo) 01A 7 Safety Plan & Administration $682,000 2 21-Mar-13 A1050 Monthly (40 Mo) 01A 8 Coordination with Local Agencies $659,000 5 21-Mar-13 A1060 Monthly (40 Mo) 01A 9 On Site Security, Communications, & Project $455,000 3 21-Mar-13 A1070 Monthly (40 Mo) 01A 10 Utility Permits $284,000 5 29-Jun-10 D271 LS 01A 11 Other Permits $114,000 5 29-Jun-10 D272 LS 01A 12 Mobilization 1-50%@ 5% of Contract $11,637,000 4 1-Apr-10 A1020.10 LS 01A 13 Activate Design Office $200,000 4 30-Dec-09 A1020.10A LS 01A 14 Activate Hub Field Office $800,000 4 1-Mar-10 A1020.10B Monthly (2 Mo) 01A 15 Activate Design Team $400,000 4 31-Mar-10 A1020.10C Monthly (4 Mo) 01A 16 Activate Construction Management Team $1,600,000 4 30-Jul-10 A1020.10D Monthly (8 Mo) 01A 17 Activate Equipment $200,000 4 31-Mar-10 A1020.10E Monthly (4 Mo) 01A 18 Activate Sub & Suppliers $800,000 4 31-Mar-10 A1020.10F Monthly (4 Mo) 02A 19 Design Management & Quality $17,460,384 3 26-May-11 D1.1 Monthly (18 Mo) 02A 20 Archeological-Historical Plan $60,661 2 26-Apr-10 D1.12 LS 02A 21 Hazmat Plan $14,556 2 26-Apr-10 D1.13 LS 02A 22 Track Alignment & Profile Plans $1,128,341 2 26-Feb-10 D1.14 LS 02A 23 Design Workshop $399,770 3 16-Nov-09 D1.2 LS 02A 24 3D Subsurface Modeling $48,529 3 27-Jan-10 D1.20 LS 02A 25 Design QA Plan $662,748 2 29-Jan-10 D1.3 LS 02A 26 Agency Coordination & Permitting $1,205,000 5 26-May-11 D2.7 Monthly (18 Mo) 02A 27 Field Investigation Prop-am $2,010,669 3 13-Aug-10 D211 Monthly (8 Mo) 02A 28 Design Foundations Area 1 $300,729 3 30-Apr-10 D221-1 LS 02A 29 Design Foundations Area 4 $300,710 3 31-Mar-10 D221-4 LS 02A 30 Agency Master Plan $60,661 2 27-Jan-10 D1.17 LS 04A 31 NPDES Implementation & Permits $168,000 5 24-May-10 A4010 LS 04A 32 Environmental Compliance Plan Draft $268,500 2 25-Feb-10 A4020.10 LS 04A 33 Environmental Compliance Plan Final $89,500 2 26-Apr-10 A4020.20 LS 05A 34 Public Information Plan $57,000 2 25-Feb-10 A5000 LS 05A 35 Public Information Prop-am Implementation $2,339,000 6 21-Mar-13 A5010 Monthly (40 Mo)

Total Bonds & Insurance

Pay Within Total NTP1 90 Days NTP Value

$5,267,000 $5,267,000

$2,046,000 $2,046,000

$1,000,000 $1,000,000

$213,000 $213,000

$71,000 $71,000

$1,363,725 $1,363,725

$51,150 $51,150

$49,425 $49,425

$34,125 $34,125 $284,000 $114,000

$5,818,500

$200,000 $200,000

$800,000 $800,000

$300,000 $300,000

$600,000 $600,000

$150,000 $150,000

$600,000 $600,000

$2,910,064 $2,910,064 $60,661 $14,556

$1,128,341 $1,128,341

$399,770 $399,770

$48,529 $48,529

$662,748 $662,748

$200,833 $200,833

$754,001 $754,001 $300,729 $300,710

$60,661 $60,661 $168,000

$268,500 $268,500 $89,500

$57,000 $57,000 $175,425

$19,235,872 $26,561,953

$7 313 000 $11,922,872

AR00116575


of 14

AR00116576

PMOC TR 10-01-13 PMOC Trip Report

of 14

Attachment C: Design Workshop Agenda (Rough Draft)

PRIMARY PURPOSE: Validate what is said in the EIS

OVERVIEW OF DESIGN EFFORT: • Design Organization

o Kiewit Chart o PB Chart

• Task Force Meetings • Discipline Coordination • Day-to-Day Interface

DESIGN CONCEPTS: • Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) • Utility Relocate • Geotechnical

o Investigation o Test Shafts

• Guideway o Alignment, plinth locations, details o Span Arrangement o Superstructure o Substructure o Drainage

• Rail/Systems • Civil Structures

ISSUES/PROCESSES: (Separate meetings may be ongoing) • Permits • Utility Agreement Process • Aesthetics • Tree removal • HDOT Agreement • ROW Schedule • Interface • Environmental Compliance (EIS/ROD)

REVIEW PROCEDURES: • Work Package Structure • Milestone Deliverable Schedule (MDS) • Definitive Design • Interim Review — where needed • Over-the —Shoulder Review • Time allowed for reviews • Submittal Process • Weekly Design Manager Progress Design Meetings (Kiewit-HNTB-PB)

AR00116577

jacobs confidential trip report...

Documents