HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-26088 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2006-26088
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$73,741, TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND
URS CORPORATION -SOUTHERN, DATED JUNE 27, 2001, TO PROVIDE
HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION OF
THE REASONABLE ASSURANCE REPORT FOR THE MIAMI BEACH GOLF
CLUB MAINTENANCE BUILDING, TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP); AMENDMENT
TO BE FUNDED BY THE 2001 GULF BREEZE FUND PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FOR THE MIAMI BEACH GOLF COURSE, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $5,349.78; BY THE STORMWATER FUND PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,837.78; AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,553.44, FROM THE
AMERICAN GOLF SETTLEMENT.
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2001, the Mayor and City Commission approved
Resolution No. 2001-24499, authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with URS
Corporation-Southern ("URS") for Program Management Services to manage construction
projects for City facilities and parks ("Program"), pursuant to Request for Qualifications No.
111-99/00 (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, URS has been providing satisfactory professional services and
assisting City staff in the planning, programming, design review, construction
administration, scheduling, budgeting and consultant coordination; and
WHEREAS, the City has requested that URS provide hydrogeologic consulting
services for the preparation of the Reasonable Assurance Report (PAR) to address the
concerns of the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) referenced in RFI-5,
dated April 13, 2004 for the Miami Beach Golf Course maintenance facility storm water
injection well (SWIW); and
WHEREAS, the proposed scope of work is intended to service the storm water
management systems of both the maintenance facility and the green waste facility and
provide support for the natural attenuation monitoring program for the arsenic plume; and
WHEREAS, FDEP has indicated the need to evaluate the geology and
hydrogeology of the area to ensure that the operation of the storm water injection well
would not affect drinking water sources (surface or groundwater) and would not affect the
arsenic plume located in this vicinity; and
WHEREAS, FDEP has also requested additional information to provide reasonable
assurance that the discharge into the drainage well has a minimum potential to i) rise into a
preferential pathway in a Class G-II aquifer system and ii) adversely impact any surface
water bodies in the vicinity of the project site via groundwater discharge; and
WHEREAS, in its response to the Class V well application, FDEP has requested
information regarding the impact of the storm water injection activities on the partially
defined arsenic plume; and
WHEREAS, FDEP has required that the City provide an RAR prior to the issuance
of a permit for the installation of a new storm water drainage well at the Miami Beach Golf
Club; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost to produce the documentation required by the
FDEP is $73,741.00; the fee of $73,741.00 includes URS' fee of $64,459.00, a 10%
contingency ($6,446.00), and a 4% CIP Fee ($2,836.00); and
WHEREAS, performance of this work will allow the City's contractor to proceed with
the installation of the well, and complete construction of the maintenance yard; and
WHEREAS, the Administration would recommend that the Mayor and City
Commission approve an Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement with URS to provide
additional hydrogeologic services, as more particularly set forth in "Exhibit A" to the
Amendment, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and
City Commission hereby approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute Amendment No. 3, in the amount of $73,741.00, to the Agreement
between the City of Miami Beach and URS Corporation Southern, dated June
27, 2001, to provide Hydrogeologic Consulting Services for the preparation of
the Reasonable Assurance Report for the Miami Beach Golf Club maintenance
building, to address the concerns of the Department of Environmental
Protection; Amendment to be funded by the 2001 Gulf Breeze Fund previously
appropriated for the Miami Beach Golf Course, in the amount of $5,349.78; by
the Stormwater Fund previously appropriated for the Public Works Department
environmental work, in the amount of $32,837.78; and appropriating funding, in
the amount of $35,553.44, from the American Golf settlement.
PASSEDAND ADOPTED this l:tth dayof~T~nujry~j006.,
bLEm~ Robert Parcher [ ~ MA~ David ~~~CU~ON
T:~GENDA~006~jan1106~consent~URS Amend.3-RESOL~006 1 11 06 jsp doc -- ' ~''
City Date
Condensed Title:
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
A Resolution of The Mayor And City Commission approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
Execute Amendment No. 3 to the agreement between the City of Miami Beach and URS Corporation
Southern, dated June 27, 2001 to provide Hydrogeologic Consulting Services for the Miami Beach Golf
Club Maintenance Building, in the amount of $73,741.00, to be funded by Gulf Breeze fund, Storm water
fund, previously appropriated, and appropriating funds from the American Golf Settlement.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
I Ensure well designed quality capital projects.
Issue:
Shall the City Commission adopt the aforementioned Resolution to approve an Amendment No. 3 to URS
Corporation Southern to provide hydrogeologic consulting services for the preparation of a Reasonable
Assurance Repod as required by FDEP.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On June 27, 2001, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution No. 2001-24499, authorizing the
City to enter into an agreement with URS Corporation-Southern ("URS") for Program Management Services
to manage construction projects for Facilities and Parks, pursuant to the guidelines established in the
Request of Qualifications No. 111-99/00. Under the agreement, URS assists City staff in the planning,
programming, design review, construction administration, and scheduling, budgeting and consultant
coordination for the projects covered by the agreement.
The City of Miami Beach (CMB) has requested that URS Corporation provide hydrogeologic consulting
services for the preparation of the Reasonable Assurance Report (PAR) to address the concerns of the
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) referenced in Attachment-1 to RFI-5, dated April 13, 2004
for the Maintenance Facility stormwater injection well (SWIW). FDEP's concerns were first brought to City
staff as a result of the permit approval process for the SWIW. A requirement of the permit is to provide
FDEP with the PAR, for their review. Once the PAR is approved a permit will be granted by FDEP and the
City can commence with the well installation for the maintenance facility.
The referenced project includes the installation of a single SWIW to serve the maintenance and green
waste facilities. FDEP has indicated the need to evaluate the geology and hydrogeology of the area to
ensure that the operation of the stormwater injection well would not affect drinking water sources (surface or
groundwater) and would not affect the arsenic plume located in this vicinity. FDEP has also requested
additional information to provide reasonable assurance that the discharge into the drainage well has a
minimum potential to i) rise into a preferential pathway in a Class G-II aquifer system and ii) adversely
impact any surface water bodies in the vicinity of the project site via groundwater discharge.
Based on the requirements for the arsenic monitoring and the RAR for the maintenance facility SWIW, the
City has requested that URS prepare the PAR as outlined in the attached Amendment # 3,which delineates
the scope of work to address FDEP concerns and obtain the required permit to perform the work of the well
installation which is in the Tran Construction, Inc. contract for construction for the Miami Beach Golf Course
Maintenance Facility.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I N/A
Financial Information:
Funds: ii!iiiii!iiiiiiiiii?i!!i!i!ii~ii~i!i~ii!i!~i!i~i~i~i!~i~ii~?i!?~!ii!i~!!iii~ 32,837.78 427-0427-000312-Stormwater
i i! ii l i !i iii!ii - Previously appropriated
`~ii!~ii!~iiiiiiii:i~!iii~i~i!ii!~i!~!ii~!i!ii;iiii~!iiii~i2i!i~ii!i!i!!ii!i~i!i $5,349.78 380-2272-067357-Gulf Breeze-
iii!?iii!iiiiii!ili!i?i?iiiiiiii?iiiiiii!ii!ii311i!?!iiiiilil $35,553.44 American Golf Settlement -
~:~:~;~!~i~:~!~i~!~:~:~i Appropriated in this Resolution
OBPI i ii!! i i!i i~!i~:~iJ!i !~iliiiii! $73,741.00
....
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Graciela Escalante, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator
an 1106\consent\URS Amend 3 -S
BEACH
.~CH 2006 01.11.06
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
E7E
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez \ ~
' O
DATE: January 11, 2006
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $73,741, TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH AND URS CORPORATION - SOUTHERN, DATED JUNE 27,
2001, TO PROVIDE HYDROGEOLOGIC CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
THE PREPARATION OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE REPORT FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH GOLF CLUB MAINTENANCE BUILDING, TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(FDEP); AMENDMENT TO BE FUNDED BY THE 2001 GULF BREEZE FUND
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FOR THE MIAMI BEACH GOLF COURSE,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,349.78; BY THE STORMWATER FUND
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,837.78; AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,553.44, FROM THE
AMERICAN GOLF SETTLEMENT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
Funding, in the amount of $32,837.78, was previously appropriated from Fund 427 for
Storm Water from Public Works Department sources for environmental work; funding, in
the amount of $5,349.78, was previously appropriated from Fund 380 for the Miami
Beach Golf Course; funding from the American Golf Settlement is being appropriated in
this Resolution.
ANALYSIS
On June 27, 2001, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution No. 2001-
24499, authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with URS Corporation-Southern
("URS") for Program Management Services to manage construction projects for Facilities
and Parks, pursuant to the guidelines established in the Request for Qualifications No.
111-99/00. Under the agreement, URS assists City staff in the planning, programming,
design review, construction administration, and scheduling, budgeting and consultant
coordination for the projects covered by the agreement.
City Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
URS Contract Amendment 3 '
Page 2 of 4
The citY of Miami Beach (CMB) requested that URS Corporation provide hydrogeologic
consulting services for the preparation of the Reasonable Assurance Report (RAR) to
address the concerns of the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) referenced
in Attachment-1 to RFI-5, dated April 13, 2004 for the Maintenance Facility stormwater
injection well (SWIW). FDEP concerns were first presented to CitY staff as a result ofthe
permit approval process for the SWIW. A requirement of the permit is to provide FDEP
with the RAR, for their review. Once the PAR is approved a permit will be granted by
FDEP and the City can commence with the well installation for the maintenance facilitY.
As part of the improvements of the Maintenance FacilitY, a storm water injection well was
selected for storm water management. In their response to the Class V well application,
FDEP requested information regarding the impact of the storm water injection activities
on the partially defined arsenic plume.
The original permit application for the construction of two drainage wells at the Miami
Beach Golf Course was submitted to FDEP in May of 2003. In June of 2003 FDEP
responded that additional information was needed in order to grant the permit. The City
and its consultant responded in July 2003 to the questions raised in the Request for
Information (RFI). But in August, 2003 FDEP once again rejected the permit and asked
for additional information from the City. It was at this time that they first raised issues
about the remedial work that the City had previously committed to perform. The CitY was
not aware at the time that the permit submittal was made, that the previous
contamination and remedial work would be an issue since the Miami-Dade Department
of Environmental Regulation and Management (DERM) had previously addressed these
matters, and the City had implemented the agreed upon plan.
It was at this time also that the request for environmental media handling and disposal
was first made and that reports would have to be provided to address these concerns.
This would also entail documentation of the methods used for disposal of wastes at the
site. Further information was provided in September, 2003 but in October, 2003 FDEP
again responded that the CitY had not satisfied the requirements and that further
information was needed. In December, 2003 FDEP wrote to the City explaining that the
application for permit was still incomplete and that several questions raised needed
further response. It was ~t this time that further documentation on confining of soil
strata; studies to determine potential impact to water sources; studies showing that the
proposed wells would not impact the existing arsenic plume; and a monitoring plan were
requested.
At this time the City proPosed to FDEP to separate the permit into two distinct phases,
one for the well at the Clubhouse Building and one for the well at the Maintenance
Building. The City argued that the well at the clubhouse was not in proximitY to the
arsenic plume and that therefore there would be no impact to the water sources from the
construction of this well. The CitY would continue addressing FDEP's concerns on the
other well separately. On July 1, 2004, FDEP agreed to this proposal and issued a
permit for the well at the Clubhouse which was then constructed and is in operation. The
PAR for.the clubhouse well was accepted under the provisions of the permit.
Concurrently, the discussions on the other well continued. In August, 2004 the City
began the process of obtaining proposals for the services required to address the issues
raised by FDEP regarding the well at the Maintenance Building. A proposal was
obtained that was deemed not complete and not exhaustive and it was at this time that
the CitY decided to approach URS to perform the hydrogeological services required. It
City Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
URS Contract Amendment 3
Page 3 of 4
was also at this time that the City decided to combine the needs of the Maintenance
Building with the needs of the green waste facility adjacent to it and address all
environmental issues together. It was determined that this would provide economies of
scale, consistency in the design and installations, and would also address all FDEP
issues at the same time.
Consequently, CIP and Public Works worked together to develop the services criteria,
determine the needs of both departments, negotiate an appropriate fee, and identify the
funding sources available. This took some time since the City wanted to make sure that
all FDEP concerns were addressed for both facilities. Discussions with both
departments, with URS and with FDEP were held during this time to insure that this
approach would be final and conclusive. All available information from previous
assessments, monitoring, evaluation of contamination and removals of materials, field
analyses, coordination of both facilities needs, etc. were evaluated in order to obtain a
proper and complete proposal. The results are what is being presented in this resolution
and Commission Memo and is what has been agreed to by both departments involved.
The proposed scope of work is intended to service the stormwater management systems
of both the maintenance facility and the green waste facility and provide support for the
natural attenuation monitoring program for the arsenic plume. The referenced project
includes installation of a single SWIW to serve the maintenance and green waste
facilities. FDEP has indicated the need to evaluate the geology and hydrogeology of the
area to ensure that the operation of the stormwater injection well would not affect
drinking water sources (Surface or groundwater) and would not affect the arsenic plume
located in this vicinity. FDEP also requested additional information to provide
reasonable assurance that the discharge into the drainage well has a minimum potential
to i) rise into a preferential pathway in a Class G-II aquifer system and ii) adversely
impact any surface water bodies in the vicinity of the project site via groundwater
discharge.
Based on the requirements for the arsenic monitoring and the RAR for the maintenance
facility SWIW, the City requested that URS prepare the PAR as outlined in the attached
Amendment # 3, which delineates the scope of work to address FDEP concerns and
obtain the required permit to perform the work of the well installation which is in the Tran
Construction, Inc. contract for construction for the Miami Beach Golf Course
Maintenance Facility.
Please note that, although this scope is focused primarily in responding to FDEP's
request for information regarding the impact of the maintenance facility SWIW, the field
activities include the installation and sampling of the monitoring wells for the arsenic
natural attenuation monitoring program. Combining the investigation for the green waste
facility site and the maintenance building will provide substantial cost benefits to each
project by eliminating the unnecessary duplication of effort. Monitoring well installation
activities for the natural attenuation monitoring and vertical extent assessment will be
performed at the same time.
CONCLUSION
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has required that the City provide a
Reasonable Assurance Report prior to the issuance of a permit for the installation of a
new storm water drainage well at the Miami Beach Golf Course maintenance Facility that
City Commission Memorandum
January 11, 2006
URS Contract Amendment 3
Page 4 of 4
is part of the Project. Final completion of the maintenance building is currently pending
the resolution of this issue. The facility installations are complete and are waiting
electrification by Florida Power and Light so that testing and training can be completed.
A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is expected after this process. The total
estimated cost to produce the documentation required by the FDEP is $73,741.
Performance of this work will allow the Contractor to proceed with the installation of the
well, and complete construction of the maintenance facility. The fee of $73,741 includes
the URS fee of $64,459.00, a 10% contingency ($6,446.00) and a 4% CIP Fee
($2,836.00).
Attachments
T:~AGENDA~006~jan1106\consent\U~S Amend 3 MEMO-MBGCCH 2006 01.11.0 jsp.doc
Exhibit A
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
1.0 INTRODUCTION
URS Corporation is pleased to provide the City of Miami Beach (CMB) the following
proposal to provide hydrogeologic consulting services for the preparation of the
Reasonable Assurance Report (PAR) to address the concerns of the Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) referenced in Attachment-1 to RFI-5, dated April 13,
2004 for the Maintenance Facility stormwater injection well (SWIW). The proposed
scope of work is intended to service the stormwater management systems of both the
maintenance facility and the green waste facility and provide support for the natural
attenuation monitoring program for the arsenic plume. The proposal price distributes the
costs of to be charged to the Environmental Resources Management (ERM or Public
Works) Department and those costs associated with work to be charged to. the CIP
Department.
The referenced project includes the installation of a single SWlW to serve the
maintenance and green waste facilities. RFI-5 indicated the need to evaluate the
geology and hydrogeology of the area to ensure that the operation of the stormwater
injection well would not affect drinking water sources (surface or groundwater) and
would not affect the arsenic plume located in this vicinity.
Item 2 of Attachment 1 of RFI-5 requests additional information to provide reasonable
assurance that the discharge into-the drainage well has a minimum potential to i) rise
into a preferential pathway in a Class G-II aquifer system and ii) adversely impact any
surface water bodies in the vicinity of the project site via groundwater discharge.
It is URS' understanding that the application for a SWIW for the adjacent green waste
facility is pending.
1.1 Arsenic in Groundwater
According to DERM's files, a Limited Site Assessment Report (LSAR) was prepared by
M&E in December, 1996. DERM requested additional evaluations to delineate the extent
of the arsenic in the groundwater. Arsenic was found in soil above the Soil Cleanup
Target Level (SCTL) and in the groundwater above the Groundwater Cleanup Target
Level (GCTL) of 0.05 mg/L. The report also indicated that the arsenic plume in
groundwater extended beyond the western boundary of the maintenance facility into the
golf course, beyond the fence line on the east and south, and into the trash station on
the north. The storage and preparation of monosodium methane-arsenate were
suspected to be the source of arsenic contamination.
In July 1998, M&E submitted a Site Assessment Update, which indicated levels above
groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs) and SCTL of arsenic in the vicinity of the
maintenance facility and the surrounding areas. Please note that at that time, the GCTL
was 0.05 mg/I. Currently, the standard is 0.01 mg/I. The data in the report is insufficient
to delineate the extent of arsenic on the basis of today's standards.
In May 1999, M&E prepared a Contamination Assessment Report Addendum. Based on
the results, DERM accepted the remedial action of excavation of soil from "hot spots"
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
with appropriate disposal. A proposed a Natural Attenuation Monitoring Plan for the
arsenic in groundwater has been submitted to DERM.
It is URS' understanding that DERM will provide CMB and M&E with the number,
location and specifications of the required shallow monitoring wells. This information will
be provided to URS.
1.2 Other Past Environmental Issues
Other past environmental issues that have been identified in the vicinity have included a
report of a possible petroleum discharge into a storm drain and the presence of
ammonia in the groundwater. URS has been informed by the CMB that these issues are
no longer a concern and has been eliminated in the following proposed scope of work.
2.0 STORMWATER INJECTION WELLS
As part of the improvements to both the maintenance facility and the green waste facility,
stormwater injection wells have been proposed. A number of factors are in favor of the
proposed stormwater injection well. The disposal of stormwater would occur
sporadically, depending strictly on rainfall. At the same time, vertical infiltration from
rainfall would be occurring throughout the golf course, further lessening the impact of the
stormwater well. The evaluation of the results from the stormwater injection well
installed at the Clubhouse indicates that area has a high capacity for disposal.
The near surface geology of the barrier islands of Miami Beach consist of recent
sedimentary deposits overlying the Key Largo Limestone Formation. The depth to
groundwater in Miami Beach ranges between four and eight feet in depth, depending on
the surface topography. There is a thin layer of G-Ii class groundwater, overlying the
subjacent G-Ill class water in various areas of the barrier islands. Recharge to this G-II
groundwater is through rainfall infiltration. This groundwater is not used, as its Iow
volume and close proximity to G-Ill water make its use impractical.
The distinction between G-II and G-Ill class groundwater is defined by the concentration
of total dissolved solids (TDS). G-II are groundwater supplies that contain less than
10,000 mg/L and are considered potable with treatment; while those that exceed this
value are considered G-Ill and not potable. In order to further minimize the impact of the
stormwater disposal, injection will be into a zone of G-Ill groundwater, where the total
dissolved solids (TDS) exceeds 15,000 mg/L. The depth of this zone at the Clubhouse
test well was between 40 and 50 feet below land surface.
CIP and ERM have indicated that they would like to serve the maintenance facility and
the green waste facility by the same SWIW that has been approved for the maintenance
facility. This will require a modification of the existing permit. Permit modification costs
are not included in this proposal.
2.1 Maintenance Facility Stormwater Injection Well
As part of the'improvements of the Maintenance Facility, a stormwater injection well was
selected for stormwater management. In their response to the Class V well application,
FDEP has requested information regarding the impact of the stormwater injection
activities on the partially defined arsenic plume.
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
The Metcalf & Eddy 1996 and 1999 reports indicate that the area surrounding the
proposed stormwater injection well has arsenic in the groundwater at concentrations
above the GCTLs as indicated in Miami-Dade Chapter 24 and FAC 62-777. Current
standard for arsenic has been lowered in Miami-Dade County to 0.01 mg/L.
Consequently, the 0.05 mg/L plume described in the 1996 and 1999 reports is a portion
of the existing plume, which must be considered to be larger. The 1999 study included
the installation of shallow (12' deep- 2' casing, 10' screen) and deep (35' deep - 30'
casing, 5' screen). Arsenic was detected in the shallow wells, but not in the deep well.
Conservatively, one could say that the arsenic is located in the zone between -2 and -30
feet below land surface (BLS). As the shallow wells had long screens, it is not possible
to establish at what depth the arsenic is concentrated.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Based on the requirements for the arsenic monitoring and the RAR for the maintenance
facility SWIW, URS has prepared the following scope of work. Please note that,
although this scope is focused primarily to respond to FDEP's request for information
regarding the impact of the maintenance facility SWIW, the field activities include the
installation and sampling of the monitoring wells for the arsenic natural attenuation
monitoring program.
Combining the investigation for arsenic will provide substantial cost benefits to each
project by eliminating the unnecessary duplication of effort. Monitoring well installation
activities for the natural attenuation monitoring and vertical extent assessment will be
performed at the same time,
The scope of work is divided into four work orders.
3.1 Work Order 1
Work Order I (WO-1) will consist of two tasks for the preparation of field activities to
resolve the outstanding environmental issues at the Maintenance Facility.
3.1.1 WO-1 - Task 1 - Review of Existing Documentation and Monitor Well
Location
It is URS' understanding that all monitoring wells that had been installed by the previous
consultant have been destroyed.. The locations for the shallow monitoring wells will be
provided by CMB, as per DERM's instructions to M&E. A site inspection will be
performed in order to establish the proposed locations of monitoring wells and ensure
that there are no access problems, overhead obstacles or buried utilities in the study
area. Unless there are as-built drawings locating buried utilities, a private locater will be
used to identify their location.
3.1.2 WO-1 - Task 2 - Preparation of a Draft Field Scope of Work
Based on the site inspection and review of past reports, URS will prepare a draft Field
Scope of Work for preliminary discussion with OMB. The draft Field Scope of Work will
be prepared with the objective of responding to the requirements for shallow monitoring
and to delineate the vertical extent of arsenic in the soil and groundwater.
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
URS will recommend the installation of 1" diameter micro-wells. These small diameter
wells have been accepted by DERM in some cases. URS will contact DERM to ensure
that these wells will be acceptable to DERM.
It is estimated that the field activities will require the installation of ten 15' shallow wells.
The vertical extent of arsenic in the area of the proposed SWIW will be evaluated using
a DPT rig,. to obtain groundwater samples at five foot intervals from the land surface a
projected depth of 40'. These samples will be used to evaluate the possible vertical
extent of the arsenic.
3.2 Work Order 2
Work Order 2 (WO-2) will consist of the performance of the Scope of Work created in
WO-I. The following presents the conceptual plan for field activities. The monitoring
wells will serve to evaluate the arsenic in the groundwater.
3.2.1 WO-2 - Task 1 - Evaluation of Contaminant Distribution
In order to evaluate the current concentrations of arsenic, URS proposed to collect soil
and groundwater samples from up to ten shallow (15') monitoring wells and vertical
profiling in the area of the proposed SWIW.
Soil samples will be collected from the vadose zone of all monitoring wells. These
samples will be analyzed for total arsenic. Groundwater samples will be collected from
all monitoring wells. Duplicate samples will be collected from two shallow wells and one
deep well. The samples will be analyzed for total and dissolved arsenic.
URS plans to propose using 1"diameter micro-wells, installed using direct-push
techniques (DPT) for the shallow wells. The groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed
maintenance facility SWIW will be evaluated using a DPT rig to establish the
concentration of arsenic with depth. These small diameter wells have been accepted by
DERM in some cases. URS has contacted DERM to clear the use of these microwells.
The DPT rig, fitted with a Hydropunch or equivalent, will be used to obtain groundwater
samples at five foot intervals from the land surface a projected depth of 40'. These
samples will be used to evaluate the possible vertical extent of the arsenic.
3.2.2 WO.2 - Task 2 - Report Preparation
Based on the results of WO-2 Task 1 URS will prepare boring logs, well construction
detail figures, groundwater sampling logs and laboratory analyses results for submittal to
CMB, which will be used by M&E for the preparation of the Natural Attenuation
Monitoring Report to DERM. URS will use the information from the shallow wells
together with the vertical profiling data as supporting documentation to the RAR,
recommendations on design modifications for the SWIW and a detailed cost estimate for
Work Order 3.
3.3 Work Order 3
Work Order 3 (WO-3) will cover the activities associated with the installation of the
SWIW test well, obtaining the data and preparation of the PAR for the maintenance
facility SWIW.
3.3.1
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 1 I, 2006 Commission Meeting
WO-3 - Task 1 - Installation of Stormwater Injection Test Well
URS will be present during the installation of the stormwater injection test well in order to
collect samples. Based on the results of the analyses of the groundwater samples
obtained as part of WO-2, the vertical extent of the arsenic contamination will be taken
into consideration and the length of the surface casing will be adjusted. For purposes of
this proposal, it is considered that the surface casing will be 30' in length. This surface
casing will allow separation of the contaminated area and will prevent downward
migration of arsenic during the installation of the inner well casing.
For the purposes of this proposal, URS is considering that the stormwater injection well
design has been modified as per the recommendations provided on January 17, 2005,
changing it from a final 24" diameter well to an 18" final diameter well with a 26" surface
casing.
In order to provide site-specific geologic information, standard penetration test (SPT)
methods, using a 2" diameter, 2' split-spoon, will be used to collect lithologic samples to
the maximum depth of the surface casing. The surface casing will be set using the pilot
hole created by the SPT. Once the surface casing has been set, the SPT will be
continued to a depth of 100' below land surface. The soil samples will be described in
the field to provide a lithologic log of the well.
Upon completion of the deep SPT, the final 18" casing would be installed and the
remaining open hole section would be reamed out.
During installation, groundwater samples will be collected and tested in the field using a
conductivity meter to help identify the separation between G-Il and G-Ill groundwater.
Injection into this more mineralized zone will also help reduce possible impacts to G-II
class groundwater. Based on the results of the analyses for arsenic from the shallow
and deep monitoring well samples, additional groundwater samples will be collected and
tested for dissolved and total arsenic every ten feet, using a submersible pump.
The results of the 'lithologic log and groundwater testing will be provided to FDEP upon
completion of the stormwater well construction activities.
3.3.2 WO-3 - Task 2 - Specific Capacity Testing
Specific capacity testing will be performed by the driller, using a submersible pump. If
acceptable to DERM, the water will be disposed of into an appropriate storm drain. This
information will be used to evaluate the impact of the stormwater injection well on
possible plume movement.
3.3.3 WO-3 - Task 3 - Data Analyses and Report Preparation
URS will evaluate the data collected (laboratory analyses, field lithoiogic description,
specific capacity testing) to establish the impact of the stormwater injection well on the
water quality and possible movement of the arsenic plume. The report will summarize
the field activities, results and recommendations for the operation of the stormwater
injection well.
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
4.0 SCHEDULE
It is URS' understanding the CMB, together with M&E, have met with DERM in order to
establish the requirements for the Natural Attenuation Monitoring Program for the
arsenic in the shallow groundwater. The schedule for the proposed scope of work in this
proposal depends directly on receiving the approved locations of the shallow monitoring
wells. Furthermore, it is URS' understanding that these locations should be provided
near the end of August 2005.
For purposes of this proposal, once the location of the shallow wells have been
provided, it is estimated that the tasks associated with preparation of the draft Field
Scope of Work will require approximately one week from the date of the field inspection.
Review by CMB is estimated at one week. Once the scope of work has been approved,
the final budget for WO-2 will be prepared and submitted for approval by CMB within one
week.
Upon approval of the budget for WO-2, it is estimated that the performance of the field
investigation, laboratory analyses and report preparation will require between six to
seven weeks.
Upon approval of the budget for WO-3, it is estimated that the installation of the SWlW,
data collection and preparation of the PAR will require between six to eight weeks.
Please see the attached schedule.
Please note that the schedules and costs for WO-2 and WO-3 depend on the results of
WO-1.
5.0 FEES
URS Corporation proposes to perform the above scope of work on a Time and Expense
basis. Costs for the activities have been divided depending on the benefits derived by
either Public Works or ClP. The following table shows the proposed personnel hours
per task, rates and total costs
Work Order 1 Carlos F. Babu Stephen
Garcia Madabhushi Edward Marks Baumal
Task 1 - Review of
Existing Documentation
and Monitor Well 12 8 12 2
Location
Task 2 - Preparation of
Draft Field Scope of 8 8 8 2
Work
Total Hours 20 16.5 20 4
Personnel Rate $108.22 $65.80 $51.49 $108.22
,,
Subtotal Labor per
Person $2,164.40 $1,085.70 $1,029.80 $432.88
URS Labor Subtotal $4,712.78
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
The following details the reimbursable costs for WO-1
Reimbursables Items QUANTITY RATE TOTAL
Cellular Phones 2 $90.00 $180.00
Copying 1 $250.00 $250.00
Vehicle 1 $207.00 $207.00
Reimbursable Subtotal $637.00
URS Subtotal Fees WO-1
Environmental Resources Management (Public Works) Department Cost
ClP Department Cost
$5,349.78
$2,284.67
$3,032.21
Total costs for WO-1 are $5,349.78, divided into $2,284.67 for ERM and $3,065.11 for
ClP.
Work Order 2 Carlos F. Babu
Garcia Madabhushi Edward Marks Stephen
Baumal
Task 1 - Evaluation of
Contaminant Distribution 30 36 128 4
Task 2 - Reporting 16 41.5 32 2
Total Hours 46 77.5 160 6
Personnel Rate $108.22 $65.80 $51.49 $108.22
Subtotal Labor per $4,978.12 $5,099.50 $8,238.40 $649.32
Person
URS Estimated Labor Subtotal $18,965.34
The following details the reimbursable costs from URS for WO-2
.... Reimbursable Items QUANTITY RATE TOTAL
Cellular Phones 2 $90.00 $180.00
Copying 1 $250.00 $250.00
Vehicle 2 $207.00 $414.00
Estimated Reimbursable Subtotal $844.00
Total URS charges for WO-2 are $19,809.34, divided into $9,542.77 for ERM and
$10,266.57 for ClP.
Subcontractors' expenses are billed at cost plus 5%. Subcontractor charges are divided
based on the benefits derived by ERM or ClP as follows:
Subcontracted Services -
Estimated Quantity Rate 5% Mark Up Total
Utilities Clearance 1 $1,600.00 $80.00 $1,680.00
2" 15' Monitoring Wells 9 $8,250.00 $412.50 $8,662.50
DPT. Vertical Arsenic 9 $2,200.00 $110.00 $2,310.00
.
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
Extent Sampling
Surveying Services 1 $4,250.00 $212.50 $4,462.50
Laboratory Analyses - Soil 10 $17.50 $0.88 $183.75
- Arsenic
Laboratory Analyses -
Groundwater - Arsenic - 11 $15.00 $0.75 $173.25
Shallow Wells
Laboratory Analyses -
Groundwater- Arsenic and
9 $30.00 $1.50 $283.50
Total Dissolved Solids -
Vertical Profiling
Field Sampling Equipment 3 $450.00 $22.50 $1,417.50
Monitoring Well
Development Water 10 $150.00 $7.50 $1,575.00
Disposal
Soil Sample / Drill Cuttings 6 $250.00 $12.50 $1,575.00
Disposal
Estimated Subcontracted Services Subtotal $22,323.00
Total costs for WO-2 are $42,132.34. This is divided equally into $21,066.17 between
ERM and ClP.
The following estimate for WO-3 assumes that the costs for the SWlW have already
been budgeted and authorized. This includes the cost modification for increased cost of
steel and surface casing.
The following tables present a conservative estimate for Work Order 3. Please
remember that upon the completion of the Scopes of Work and incorporation of the
comments and/or additional requirements from DERMa revised estimate for WO-3 will
be provided. The following should only be used as a possible guide for future budgeting.
Work Order 3 (Estimate) Carlos F. Babu Edward Stephen
Garcia Madabhushi Marks Baumal
Task 1 - SWIW Installation 12 12 60 2
Task 2 - Specific Capacity Testing 6 6 12 2
Task 3 - Data Analyses and Report
Preparation 16 20 24 2
Total Hours 34 38 96 6
Personnel Rate $108.22 $65.80 $51.49 $108.22
Subtotal Labor per Person $3,679.48 $2,500.40 $4,943.04 $649.32
URS Estimated Labor Subtotal $11,772.24
Reimbursable expenses for WO-3 are estimated as follows:
Reimbursable Items .Quantity Rate Total
Cellular Phones 2 $90.00 $180.00
Copying 1 $250.00 $250.00
Exhibit A URS Corporation
January 11, 2006 Commission Meeting
Reimbursable Items Quantity Rate Total
,
Vehicle 1 $207.00 $207.00
Estimated Reimbursable Subtotal $637.00
URS Subtotal Estimated Fee WO-3
$12,409.24
Subcontractors' expenses are billed at cost plus 5%. These expenses for WO-3 are
estimated as follows:
Subcontracted Services -
Estimated Quantity Rate % Mark Up Total
Laboratory Analyses - Groundwater 10 $15.00 $0.75 $157.50
- Arsenic
Laboratory Analyses - Groundwater
- Total Dissolved Solids 10 $15.00 $0.75 $157.50
Soil Sample / Drill Cuttings 10 $250.00 $12.50 $2,625.00
Disposal
Field Sampling Equipment 1 $450.00 $22.50 $472.50
Specific Capacity Data Collection
Equipment 4 $275.00 $13.75 $1,155.00
Subcontracted Services Subtotal $4,567.50
,,
Total Estimated Fee WO-3
Environmental Resources Management (Public Works) Department Cost
ClP Department Cost
$16,976.74
$8,488.37
$8,488.37
Total fees for WO-3 are estimated at $16,976.74. On the assumption that this single
well will serve both the Maintenance and Green waste facilities, the cost is divided in
two, $8,488.37 each, for the ClP and ERM.
For budgetary purposes, the following summarizes the expenses for WO-1, WO-2 and
WO-3.
CIP Dept. Public Works ERM Dept. Total
Total Fee WO-1 $3,065.11 $2,284.67 $5,349.78
Total Estimated Fee WO-2 $21,066.17 $21,066.17 $42,132.34
Total Estimated Fee WO-3 $8,488.37 $8,488.37 $16,976.74
Estimated Proiect Total $32,619.65 $31,839.21 $64,458.86
Total estimated project costs are $64,458.86, of which $32,619.65 will be the CIP
Department's responsibility and $31,839.21 will be the Environmental Resources
Management (Public Works) Department's responsibility. Please note that this does not
include the cost of the SWIW, which URS assumes has already been approved.
Costs associated with permit modifications to include the green waste facility into the
maintenance facility SWIW permit and modifications in the size of the SWIW in order to
accommodate the runoff from the green waste facility will be addressed by ERM.
T:gAGENDA~2006\jan 1106\consent\URS Amend 3 -EXHIBIT A-MBGCCH 2006 01.11.06 jsp.doc