Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15201 ORD - 10/31/1979nh:10-29-79:1st AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 15049 PASSED AUGUST 8, 1979 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REVISED ARCHITECTURAL AGREEMENT WITH TOTAL DESIGN FOUR FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND PLANNING WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRANSIT MAIN- TENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION FACILITY, A SUBSTANTIAL COPY OF SUCH AGREEMENT AS REVISED IS ATTACHED HERE- TO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, MARKED EXHIBIT "A", AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ' TO BE ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That ordinance no. 15049, passed August 8, 1979, be amended so as to authorize the City Manager to execute a revised architec- tural agreement with Total Design Four for architectural and planning work to be performed in connection with improvements to the Transit Maintenance and Administration Facility, subject to approval from the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration (UMTA), substantial copy of which revised agree- ment is attached hereto and made a part thereof, marked Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. The necessity to authorize the aforesaid agreement, Subject to approval from the Urban•Mass Transportation Administration, at the earliest practicable• date creates a public emergency and an imperative public necessity requiring the suspension of the Charter rule that no ordin- ance or resolution shall be passed finally on the date of its introduction but that such ordinance or resolution shall be read at three several meetings of the City Council, and the Mayor having declared that such emergency and necessity exist, having requested the suspension of the Charter rule and that this ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction and take effect and be in full force and effect from and after its passage, IT IS ACCORDINGLY SO ORDAINED, this the .51$1 .day of October, 1979. ATTEST: City Secretary. APPROVED: DAY OF OCTOBER, 1979: J. BRUCE AYCOCK, CITY ATTORNEY By Assistant Ci y torney MAYPR THL"CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS . 15221E CONTRACT ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF NUECES X The City of Corpus Christi, hereinafter called "City" or "Recepient", and Total Design Four, Architects, hereinafter called "Architect" or "Contractor", whether one or more, agree as follows: I. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED. The Architect hereby agrees, at his own expense, to prepare a study, develop a program, assess environmental impacts, and prepare preliminary designs for a new bus maintenance and administration facility for the Corpus Christi Transit System, in accordance with the Request for Proposal dated February, 1979, Appendix "A" attached herewith and made a part of this contract. I1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Architect's services shall include generally the following: All work is to develop a preliminary design and maintenance plan for centralized maintenance and administration facilities that will meet the short and long-term needs of the Corpus Christi Transit System. All designs and estimates for these facilities must be to a sufficient level of detail for filing a Section 3 capital grant application with UMTA. In addition, the study must consider environ- mental impacts of the proposed facilities, and reports and permit applications necessary for environmental approval must be prepared. -The specific services to be provided by the Architect are specified in Appendix "B", "Planning Study Proposal - Bus Maintenance and Administrative Facilities" - Corpus Christi, Texas, dated 16 April 1979, and as further clarified in Appendix "C", letter record of conference with City staff dated 18 July 1979. III. TRANSFER OF INTEREST. The Architect shall not assign or transfer any interest in this contract without prior written consent from the City. IV. SUBSTITUTION OF SUBCONTRACTORS. Architect shall submit all substitutions of subcontracts to the City for approval. The City shall determine if the minority business enterprise percentage goal will be decreased by substitution of a minority contractor with a majority contractor. V. NONDISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this contract, Architect agrees to be bound by the Title VI Civil Rights assurances set for in Appendix "D" and made a part hereof. VI. ORDERLY RENDERING OF SERVICES. The Architect shall complete all work required by this agreement within four (4) months from date of authorization by the City. VII. PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT. The City agrees to pay the Architect for his services a fee of $23,000. 1. Upon execution of this agreement, a sum of $1,000. 2. Upon submission and review of Tasks 1 to 5, a sum of $7,200. 3. Upon submission and review of Tasks 6, 7, and 8, a sum of $7,900. 4. Upon submission and review of Task 9, a sum of $4,600. 5. Upon final approval by the City of the Final Report, a sum of $2,300. VIII. TERMINATION OF CONVENIENCE. .The City may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, at any time by written notice to the Architect. The Architect shall be paid its costs, including contract close—out costs, and profit on work performed up to the time of termination. The Architect shall promptly submit its termination claim to be paid the Architect. If the Architect has any property in its possession belonging to the City, the Architect will account for the same, and dispose of it in the manner the City directs. IX. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT. If the Architect fails to perform in the manner called for in the contract, or if the Architect fails to comply with any other provisions of the contract, the City may terminate this contract for default. Termination shall be effected by serving a notice on the Architect setting forth the manner in which the Architect is in default. The Architect z .. will only be paid the contract price for services performed in accordance with the manner of performance set forth in the contract. If it is later determined by the City that the Architect had an excusable reason for not performing, such as a strike, fire, or flood, events which are not the fault of, or are beyond the control of the Architect, the City, after setting up a new performance schedule, may allow the Architect to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience. X. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS A. Audit and Inspection of Records. The Architect shall permit the authorized representatives of the City, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Comptroller General of the United States to inspect and audit all data and records of the Architect relating to his performance under the Contract until the expiration of three (3) years after final payment under this contract. The Architect further agrees to include in all his subcontractors hereunder a provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the Grantee, the Department of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their duly authorized representatives shall, until the expiration of 3 years after final payment under the subcontract, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of such subcontractor involving transactions related to the subcontractor. The term "subcontractor" as used in this clause excludes (1) purchase orders not exceeding $10,000 and (2) subcontracts or purchase orders for public utility services at rates established for uniform appli- cability to the general public. The periods of access and examination described above, for records which relate to (1) litigation of the settlement of claims arising out of the performance of this contract, or (2) costs and expenses.of this contract as to which exception has been taken by the Comptroller General or any of this duly authorized representatives, shall continue until such appeals, litigation, claims, or exceptions have been disposed of. B. Interest of Members of or Delegates to Congress. No member of, or delegate to the Congress of the United States, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any benefit arising therefrom. it ,T C. Prohibited Interest. No member, officer, or employee of the • Public Body or of a local public body during his tenure or one year thereafter shall have any interest direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof. D. Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this contract, the Architect shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex or national origin. The Architect shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, religion, color, sex or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be•limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff, or termination; rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. E. Minority Business Enterprise. In connection with the performance of this contract, the Architect will cooperate with the project sponsor in meeting his commitments and goals with regard to the maximum utilization of minority business enterprises and will use its best efforts to insure that minority business enterprises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to compete for subcontract work under this contract. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness our hand in duplicate, each of which shall be considered an original, on the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI By R. Marvin Townsend ///1'—yam 3Y COUNCIL /6'.0/"79 DAY OF L £�.{ , 1979: J. BRUCE AYCOCK, CITY ATTORNEY By / C/OJ �l j. City Attorneys i Director of .!7 ance r y� SECRC"e'ARY TOTAL DESIGN FOUR/17, / By , •l' ; r %} �` fTCGC m-ri-1.04A k - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS PLANNING STUDY FOR BUS MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES FOR THE CORPUS CHRISTI TRANSIT SYSTEM FEBRUARY, 1979 R L.- L, t•R ,:,1r. 16 I.5 . The City of Corpus Christi, Texas,•is requesting proposals from qualified consultants to develop a program, assess environmental --pacts, and prepare preliminary designs for a new bus maintenance and administration facility for the Corpus Christi Transit System. The following information is to facilitate the timely oreparatioa and submission of a proposal for services for the work; described in the study objectives under paragraph VI below. BACKGROUND bF CORPUS CHRISTI TRA41'SIT SYSTEM The Corpus Christi Transit System is owned by the City of Corpus Christi, and operates as a part of the City's Department of Traffic and Transit_ It was acquired by the City in 1967, when the previous (private) owner threatened to cease operations. The transit system has a fleet of 42 General Motors diesel transit buses, used in regular transit service and in intracity charters, and four over—the—roar 'coaches, used for intercity charters. Twer'y—eight of -the transit buses are • 1967 models; the others are 1976 models. Twenty—eight buses are used in peak— hour transit service, on 12 routes. In addition to the full size transit buses, the transit system operates nine vans for specialized services for ,.`Per-ry and handicapped persons. Two of the vans are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Yearly mileage is approximately 1,200,000 miles in regular transit service, 250,000 miles in local and long distance charter service, and 250,000 miles in specialized van service: ,Approximately two million passengers are carried Yearly. The transit system employ about 85 persons. The transit capital -improvement program calls for replacing some of t.,e older transit buses with new full size bases. In addition, a number of smaller -transit buses and specialized equipment for elderly and handi- capped service will be acquired, so that the fleet will become more diversi- fied. The fleet is not •expected to grow substantially in the next few years, but the new transit facility she•ild allow some provision for expansioa of operations in the future. The current administration and maintenance facility used by the Corpus Christi Transit System is nearly 40 years old, and is not suitable for main -- raining and servicing modern transit buses. The'voters of Corpus Christi, as a part of a bond election in November, 1977, approved a project to build a new transit maintenance and administration facility. It is anticipated that EO percent of the project cost will be provided by the Urban Mass Transporta- tion Administration-(UNTA) under Section 3 and Section 5 capital grants, and that the 20 percent local share will be provided by the State of Texas (13 percent) and the'City of Corpus Christi (7 percent)_ The City staff has conducted a preliminary site analysis for the new transit facility. PROPOSAL. METHODOLOGY, SELECTING, EVALUATION, PROCESSING & STUDY OBJECTIVES Pro,osel Constraints Proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal are to conform to the following conditions: A. A contract evolving from this request will be between the City of Corpus Christi and a consultant. Sub -agreements between a proposing contractor and other firms/individuals, for the purpose of executing' work elements described are discouraged. 3. Five (5) copies of the proposal arc to be received no later than 5:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, April 17, 1979 Tire Department of Engineering g & Physicai Development.' By. - James K. Lontos, P.E., Director Engineering & Physical Development City Hall, 302 S. Shoreline Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 (Nand carried proposals may be delivered to City Ball, 302 S. Shoreliee, Fourth Floor, Corpus Christi, Texas.) II. Proposal Content No limit is recommended as to the level of detail to be included in -the proposal. However, the proposal must at a minimum include the following: (a) Name of firm (or firms if joint venture). • (b) Size of firm(s) to include both home and branch offices. (c) Brief history and primary experience of firm. (d) Brief description of work completed or underway by firm that relates to the scope of work described in attachment. (e) List agencies for which management performed. Planning, or related work has been (f) Lit the professional disciplines needed to develop this study and the proposing-firm(s) ability to provide this expertise. One -paragraph summaries of related education and experience of the firm(s) key personnel to be associated with -study are to be presented: Also, indicate amount of time to be spent on project by the listed personnel_ (g) Using the work program description in "The Study Objectives", present the method proposed to accomplish the required work. • (h) A schedule of progress reports,' task development stages, and output reports for review is to depict anticipated project scheduling_ III. Consultant Selection Procedures Consultant procurement and selection will be made as follows: (a) Requests for proposals are being sent to all consultants having indicated an interest by letter and to all architectural and engineering firms in the City. Other firms who request Wn opportunity to submit proposals shall be promptly furnished a copy of the request for proposal. (b) Proposals returned to the City within the specified response time shall be considered by the Department of Engineering and Physical Development and the Department of Traffic and Transit. The two Departments shall use the "evaluation criteria" specified below to determine their recommendation as to the top three candidates prior to selection. 1 IV. Consultant Evaluation Criteria 1. Specialized experience and technical competence in connection with the type of services required; 2. Past record of performance on contracts, including such factors as control of costs, quality of work, and ability to meet schedules; 3. Capacity to perform the work (including any specialized services) within the time limitations;• _ 4. Geographic location of the candidate and its familiarity with the area in which the project Is located; . 5. Proposed method to accomplish the work required; 6. Volume'of work previously awarded to the candidate by the grantee with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of work among qualified firms; 7. Avoidance of personal and organizational conflicts of interest; and 8. Estimated cost. V. Budget and Time of Performance Limitations A total dollar amount available for this work is $23,000_ The project will span no more than 4 months. As indicated in the proposed schedule, work will commence on authorization and a final project report will be submitted by 120 days VI. Study Objectives A. Preparation of the Construction Program, including an evaluation of the Administrative portion as well as the operational pori It should take into consideration parking and access for employee and operational vehicles. B. A preliminary facility design and site plan. C. Cost estimates, including architectural and engineering costs, site preparation, construction, landzcapiny, and equipment_ D. An environmental assessment to bo included by the City es part of the application for UMTA funding. E. Recommendat_ons.for the construction of the Bus Maintenance and Administration Facility with necessary raps, sketches, and all other pertinent support material. F. Six (6) draft copies of the report for review by the City staff_ After approval and acceptance of the final draft, the consultant shall prepare 25 copies for submission to the City. P A R .S O N S• S R I N C ' Q U A D E & D O U G TAL x: •', D-S G\ Fa.R PLANNING ARCHITECTURE CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT I Donald Greene, AIA William H. Holland, AIA James B. Boggs, AIA J. Carter Howatd, AIA' Horner C. Innis, PE Robert R. Conolly, AIA Fred C. Kirkham, AIA Dietrich H. Broun, AIA Clarence 0. Upchurch, Jr., AIA Mr. Jimmy Lontos, City Engineer City of Corpus Christi P. 0. Box 9277 Corpus Christi , Texas 78408 Re: Bus Maintenance and Administration Facilities Planning Study Proposal • , • Dear Mr, Lontos: Corpus Christi Office 18 July 1979 Thank you for allowing Total Design Four and Parsons-Brinckerhoff to clarify portions of our proposal to the City of Corpus Christi for the Bus Maintenance and Administration Facil ities Project during our meeting in your office wi th you and Tom Stewart on 5 July. Mel Kohn of Parsons-Brinckerhoff and Clarence Upchurch and Kini Crosskno from our office join me in our appreciation for your professionalism and cordiality during our conference. Our notes from the meeting reflect the following discussion of our proposal: 1. Referring to our Organization Chart following page 16 of the RFP: a The City expressed concern about the number of people (19 different ones) we show for such a small job. Most of the specialists would be used only to review interim, draft and final reports. They would not visit Corpus Christi and their involvement might be limited to one or two days. Mel Kohn will now be Principal -in -Charge for PBQ&D instead of Salter since Mr. Kohn has been made an officer of the firm. b. The landscape architect would only review the conceptual drawings and develop ,noise or other environmental buffers as required. The structural , electrical and mechanical engineers would merely provide input to the conceptual drawings and cost estimates. P.O. DRAWER 3947 101 NORTH SHORELINE SUITE 300 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78404 512-884-8811 P.O. BOX 2085 FIRST NATIONAL BANK TOWER SUITE 612 HARLINGEN, TEXAS 78550 512-428-4571 TABLE OF Co: TENTS (Corpus Christi Cus Maintenance) LetLer of Transmittal Table of Contents 1. Introduction Pa q_ e 2. Study Methodology 1. Task 1: Bus Facilities and Operations Data Collection Task 2: Facilities and Operations Program plan 2 Survey and Identification of Candidate Sites Task 4: Acquisition Analyses3 Task 5: Development 5 Task 6: Establishment p-ent and Analysis of Alternatives s_ablishment of Evaluation Criteria Task 7: AlternativeEvaluation ' l 7 • Task o: DraftEva u and Suer. 7 of Preliminary i Ston And Manages ent Report Win' Operations 8 Task 9: Finalization of Rreliminary Design, Operations And Management Report 8 Task 10: Identification of Environrmental Requirements Task 11: Establishment of Environmental Baseline 9 Task12: Preliminary ron-r.Data 9 Tasr, Envi ental EvaluationIO 13: Draft Environmental Reporte artj Ta- 14: Environmental Rn udPreparation 10 pc �s and Permit Suppprt 11 - 12 3• Management Plan Brief Summaries of Key Personnel - 13 — ifi 4_ ”le ani: 1. INTRODUCTION The prmary pUrpOSe of this study is to develop a preliminary design and maintenance p1an for centrdlized Ptenance and administration facilities that will lint the short- and long-term needs of the Corpus Christi Transit System. All desisns and estimates for these facilities must be to a sufficient level of detail for filing a Section 3 ca:)ital grant application with MIA. In addition, the study must consider environzantal *acts of the proposed facilities and reports and permit applications necessary for: environmental approval must be Prepared. - Although the RFP indicated the'City staff "has conducted a preliminary site analysis for the new transit facility", we believe the Study must address the rehabilittion, no-build and new site alternatives. Candidate sites must be identified and compared on the basis of such factors as availability, cost, zoning, environ:nental impact, traffic flow, etc. - . The Study i.iethodology, including a Task Flow Chart, is detailed in Section 2 of this proposal. It should be kept in mind, however, that although we identify and schedule discrete tasks requiring specific skills, design of a complex sys- tem is as m"ch a creative and erpirical process as it is an analytical one. He also know thn findings of any one task are likely to influence the outcome of several other tasks. Therefore, we expect most tasks to proceed in an iterative manner, as information is received and.incorporated into. the various stages of ' . the Study. • ' _ __.-- Our proposd :.:anagemont Plan is shown in Section 3. Highly qualified per- sonnel of Total Design Four and Parsons Brinckerhoff have been designated to •meet the various requirements of the Study. Brief summaries of experience have - • been included for the key staff members as well as detailed resumes. Section 4 includes material describing Total Design Four, Parsons Brincker- hoff and similar or related work performed by the team members. Also included in Section 4 is a Standard Form 256 for each firm which shows their individual sizes. 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY The general scope of this ambitious report Study has as its in which: ) analysis product an ver - ..mance and administration ;1 an alternative a^a]Jsis is made J necessary and recommendation ad rinds, tion facility, (2) alternative for a bus (3) a construction program is sites iniry facility design andare reviewed arta a gn site plan are prepared;(5) costeestimat; (4) a made; . an environmental assessment is r estimates are , e- pre,�aret . rates d ria ,and (6) The scope of the study and the limited budget nuke it terest of time and cost that all available data developed essential -in the in - In the following methodology P by others be utilized_ FlFlow Chart, of gy we have addressed of r all the Cit' requirements. A o Cg. 1, and a Preliminary Schedule,' t•he endediousthisksection. Th. There The Flow Chart shows the interrelationships ork, Fig. 2, are Included at completion of the work,effort. scheduling tasks acj ita effort. y of several Lasks to facilitate Tasks are includes! in re- quirements es included met-bythe work progra;n to ensure that all environmental re - theand maintenance facilities. These tasks Drill be accomplished the City in its planning for the centralized bus garage the other work of the study, so that the processplished in project can e completedeyso quickly, parallel clearance as of environmental and cost-effe y possible. for ��lvel as e. _-- Because a number of steps and agency the Because er tasksf areyd y reviews are required in this It is therefore proposed to initiate tothe needbe on ed technical work process, possible to allow sufficient e Patrt" of the study_ ` commended bus facilityowsutine for environmental documentation after as co:: en alternative has been selected_ Both the scheduling re- d scoping of all the environmental tasks -have been conducts awareness of the ultimate objective as mnof the necessaryltmaof the environmental worn with a rttooo to couplets as rnsny of tt!teltvironmental nentalermits and approvals as effort:k rhe secure to complete of the approvals for the City, and time-frame study. For this reason, we have a- attentionposspecsible nithe theiresed only sequencing, to the have veloasemphasized that that allaenvirron;r flta1ial analysesl to ntfo approval_ be condu- The individual tasks that constitute the appropriate for project approval_ Maintenance/Garage Facilities StudyProposed Work Program for the Bus are described in the following: TASK 1: BUS FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS DATA COLLECTION - Ob.ec`ive: Review and evaluate existing and projected bus operations and Gain- tanan p actices in Corpus Christi and identify existing system characteris- tics, deficiencies, and needs to and in design of the centralised maintenance - fac_ilities. �_rls- -z- Activities: The study team ,;ill interview City taff to current and projected bus operations and maintenance 5act an esderThend- in of tervieus will focus on characteristics of the lnis_ rhe in - in the following areas: transit and ;:;ainteanice operations a. Rus routes ilqd schedules. lies. b. Route mileage. c. Revenue and non -revenue mileages. d. Plans for route and schedule changes. e. Ridership trends by route or corridor. f. Fleet size by type, aue g. Anticipated fleet nt: condition. sizes anddacquisitions. h. Facility condition, access, and throughput capacity. i. Existing equipment, equipment needs. j. Gus access needs to facilities. k- Current maintenance work flow, by vehicle, type and activity including detailed labor breakdown. 1. fiaintenance frequency and cost history, by vehicle type. m• General facility -operations, n. Labor costs, oprations,r,ntenance,rgeneral .and administrative. Access and parking needs of employees_ In addition, all available City planning documents will be consulted to corroborate and supplement the information obtained from the interviews. The review will be conducted to provide a basis for establishing maintenance procedures, intermediate and long-range manpower requirements, equipment needs, vehicle storage space, overall space utilization, optimumparking inventory, etc. garage size, Product: A technical memorandum, summarizing all data, review procedures, and conclusions. The output of this task will aid development of the Facilities and Operations Program Plan in Task 2, and the Alternatives Development and Analysis in Task 5. TAS; 2: FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM PLAN Objective: To develop and document functional',,operational and organizational requirements, and resulting design criteria for the proposed centralized facil- ities bus ;maintenance program. Activities: The study•team will review the data collec:.ed under Task 1 and, in accordance with practices, formulate operations and facility design criteria for the concept of a centralized maintenance program. This will cons -leer- function- al, operational and organizational requirements, considering a range of options including rehabilitation of existing facilities or complete centralization. Facility and operations planning will address physical aspects, including equipment specifications, maintenanceP rocedures, manpower requirements, and - 3 - ice and size requirements. In partir_ular, :ice and maintenance operations will > r`'el:rireu relationships .he following be defined including pS bettr�en areas_ 1 hose applicable in a• Sus storage. b. Parts storage. c. Service (cleaning, fueling, brake adjust;::ent). d. Fare collection. e. Shops (unit maintenance f. Golly work.> s'.�_hee metal, etal , signs, upholstery)_ g. Painting (body, touch-up, h. Light duty maintenance (lubrication; oil, i. Heavy maintenance (transmissions , eir ctires etc.)_ dministrative conditioning offices. c �, engines, brakes). j. Ak. Employee areas (washrooms, lunchroom lockers, etc 1- Conference room. ). Short- and long_tserneonspment for needs and specifications will also be" defined, including following: a. Lifts, hoists. b. !:'aching. c. Fueling. d- Shop equipg:ent. e. Cleaning. f. Fare collection. g. Fork lifts. • h. Storage bins. i. Diagnostic equipment. j. Service trucks. • k. Lubricating equipa.ent_ 1. Small tools. n. Tire racks. n." Oil dispensing. o. Safety practices. Organizational alternatives, including, for thermaintenance ftcilities_ the status quo, will be determined existing organization of operatorsto identify ng will be compared with the re- quired changes_ / irpacts and the extent of An evaluation of fare box revenue collection undertaken to determine appropriate and practical dailyactivities will be the revenue at a centralized facilit working procedures for processing general specifications for farefboxy Key Issues to be Lonsidered e.,er� general sp for the dailys collection equipment and will include fare collection activities. practical operating Al) these functionai, operational and then be translated into an integrated set orf plaannational considerations will pning, design and implementation - 4 - cr.ceria, and summarized in e preliminary Program Plan for the proposed centra- lized facilities. Product: A technica ar )! ira;,t a b.r.c •-up !.r for the work of Task 1 memo COnta inin j the recommended P atertal. This,.,;hl serve as a royra;,i Plan, plus a]1 • s, 5 and 6. set of nur:aa_;ye grr'dc; Ines DEHTIFiCATIO1 OF CANDIDATE SITES will identify :or the alternative review process the po- by the City staff. The attracti•ness of e particular site dering the following:' TAS!; 3: SURVEY AND I Objective: This task tenting sites studied will be defined consi a. Suitability for location of the maintenance activities and functions identified inTaskr 2, acilities Open Plan. This will primarily concern area, Confns iguration,nd Zrap physiography, access, and the availability of necessary utilities liie for the Facilities_ b. Location with regard to major existing and projected bus service corri- dors, to minimize dead -head mileage. c. Compatibility with the surrounding physical and social environment.- Sensitive ecological areas will be avoided, and sites adjacent to or near incompatible land uses (e.g., noise sensitive receptors and resi- dential development) will be eliminated. d. Attitude of local governmeemit officials and affected land owners proposed acquisition for use as a burs maintenance area. towards Activities: Early efforts in Task 3 will -focus on reducing the number of possi- ble sites studied by the City staff to no more than two. Preliminary data on operating characteristics, surrounding land use, street access, etc-, t-:ilI'be used to identify these sites. The existing maintenance facility location will • be examined as part of this phase. It should also be noted that while ft is possible additional sites will be discovered later in the study, it is antici- pated the final list of feasible sites and the recommended alternative site will be drawn from this initial list. Each of the sites on the initial list of candidates will then be subjected to closer analysis as more detailed information is made avail 2, 4 and 11. As operational concepts are -refined able from si e 1, other factors such as: ,the ani:lysis will connsider a. Physical suitability. - size - configuration - physiography - 5 - b. Street access. c. Physical and social environmental setting end anticipated impacts to this setting. d. Availability and cost. e. Government approval rt,,,:re:rents and prospects. - It will be essential to maintain close communication between the consultant staff and the'City to ensure that unattractive or :aar�inal sites are eliminated from considerations as early as.ossible, while promising sites are identified for further scrutiny. • The identification and preliminary analysis of candidate sites wili continue to the extent that the results of other task efforts mare it necessary. Prod.rct: A summary technical memorandum wi11 be issued, sites in Corpus Christi with potential detailing he proposed se maintenance facilities.It suitability for location of the proposed will include all descriptive data such as location, size, owner, approximate cost, access,physiographic etc. The memo will summarize all efforstodate regardingaecological acquisition, ion, description, will discuss major impediments to acquisition, acquisitfon, and ,uisition, if any. TAS: 4: ACQUISITIo:. AtALYSES Objective: The anlayses perforated in this task will Senerate information on the _ problems, costs, and fiscal.i;rpects of site acquisition, of a sufficiently de- tailed nature to assist in the completion of Task 3, S of Candidate Sites, and Task 7, ,Alternatives Evaluation nand Sand Selected Ition.fication ion. Activities: It is expected that interviews with City officials, rm "Focal realtors, and other real estate interests will provide information on property market val- ues and all steps necessary for property acquisition. This will include, but not be limited to, permit requirements, zoning variances (ifany),and any o exec- utive or council approvals. If deemed appropriate by the Cit, initial acwiti the property ower will be rade and his selling interestandnaskin contact determined. g price ' A preliminary survey of the property's legal',tatus will also be determine the presence of any made, to, etc. Ifobvious encumbrances, such as easements, liens, this preliminary survey indicates the possibility of encumbrances en any property which could delay or prevent its expeditious acquisition or lease, the consultant will, at the direction of the City as an addition to the Scope of Services, co;rmission a title search on the property by a reputable title'con- pany. For any site under consideration which is presently developed, order -of -mag- nitude estimates of demolition costs will be tion cost estimates prepared later in this made, to be included in taxescur- rentlysruc- payable ,;i study. Further, property p y ble on each candidate site will be determined, allotting calculation of the potential impact on local tax bases. - 6 - • f_ prec:�:ct: The output of this las'.•- rf Product: will be a technical memorandum t information for each of containing the -.•� sites ide^titled in Tasr. 3: a• Summary Of discussions to ) r;2tC winowner (optional), andrelevant town b. Approximate market value of the property, and asking price (optional). c. Acquisition schedule and actions required to obtain the property, in- cluding local goverment approvals, (e.g., d. Dcct1Olition requirements and s .zoning variances). e. Results of the associated ssione f."Title Searcy:"- (if co:rnissior:ed)_ Calculation of impacts on City tax bases. The information in this r::=1rorandugr will serve as input to Task 7, tives Evaluation and Selection. Alterna- tives TAS; 5: DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS CF ALTERNATIVES Objectives: The The ob°�^ e,tive of this task is to analyze requirements and develop workable number of conceptual facility design alternatives and garage facilities. a erna`ives for the bus mainte— nance Activities: Cased -on the Facilities and Cperations Program Plan developed last: 2 and the alternative sites provided ander Tas:: 3, conceptual site utiliza- tion plans will be developed. under The schematic concepts,wil1 reflect alternative approaches tion_ Functional relationships will be establish- to site utiliza- tions imposed bythe and/or d, and constraints and in- cluded sites the surroundings will be identified andlinita- in the design development. Tentative'construction schedules and opportu- nities for phasing will be identified, and order-of-;aagnitude construction cost estimates will also be prepared. The conceptual facility desicn alternatives, together with the alternative sites, will be further evaluated duriny the process of selecting a recommended bus maintenance and garage alternative. Product: The product of this task will be design_-oncepts for two alternative systems for the facilities program. The concepts bill include schematic draw- ings, tentative construction schedules and possibilities for phasing, and order - of -magnitude cost estimates. TASK 6: ESTABLISHMENT OF EVALUATION CRITERIA Objectives: To identify specific factors for evaluating ` project alternatives, and to develop a procedure thtcombinestthese sfactors into an evaluation algorithm. -7- _h :vities: Using the output-of Tasks 1 through 5, categories of evaluation crht_ria will be derived. Examples of thew include system performance with respect to the program plan, capital construction costs, acquisition costs, operating or maintenance costs, labor unpacls, environmental and community irn- paC,tS, traffic inpactS feedback ;,n':C'::; of bus fleetnr, , c'CterlstiCs, and ccnStrllCtjCr) Gtagin�,. size a.. O,tcrctilOnachar- For each category of criteria, specific measures of effectiveness, both quantitative and qualitative, will measure of effectiveness under the category e d. "sAsystem an example, n aggregate,� a quantitative annual dead-head mileage. qualitative t i veStea urefofrneffe° effectiveness s A et.<,litative measure of effectiveness under the category of environmental impacts might be the visual appeal of the proposed alternative, or aesthetic A matrix of measures of effectiveness versus alternatives, e Planning Balance Sheet or a Goals Achievement Matrix, will be designer to a eprocedures will be developed for weighting the various rneasuresand scoring the project alternatives. Product: This task wilt yield an alternatives evaluation fora and procedure to be used in Task 7. TASK 7: ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION AND SELECTIoI Objective: To evaluate the project alternatives developed in Task 5 and to select the "best" bus maintenance and garage facility alternative. Activities: Key members of the Project Team, usino the methodology prwhous asks, will -individually evaluatees developed in the evaluation factors on the alternativeevaluations for. This will ll by-weighting ranking the qualitative factors and assigning values to the quantifiablerfac-e tors, for all evaluation categories. The results of the scoring will be dis- cussed and an alternative selected for further development. Following selec- tion, a brief technical report outlining the evaluation process and the steps leading to selection of the recommended alternative will be prepared. Product: An Alternatives Evaluation Report and maintenance plan recommendation to be forwarded to the City staff for final reviL,r and approval. -TAS; 3: DRAFT OF PRELIMINARY DESIGti, OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT REPORT Objective: Develop the conceptual plans of the selected alternative to a pre- liminary design level, and provide the City with critical grant app-l-ication in- formation. Activities: The study team will develop final physical layouts of the selected site which clearly identify the sizes and relationships of all programmed spaces, functions and operations. The layouts hili include a site plan showing - 8 - rough sitework and grading, major utilities, paving, 1ightint • Bui1dine flow plans will show all administrative and J> andc,as well operr.tional spaces and will also include support plans will be supplemented major equipment spaces, as r;ell as - lr_d preliminary t installations_ The which ::ill ,•••!i :•ritli } J builr•i�ng .• indicate Conceptual sectioas ns and eleevations, treatment. A } structural implications report will be prepared describing the intended operation as ationhof the • selected system alternative, with consideration giventheroe v maintenance proyrarn and to the facilities in t" to both eh relationship to revenue operations. Preliminary construction costs will be estimated, based on unit area and building function/construction type factors, and equipment washers, hoists, cranes, dynamometers, r require systems, - washetc. Further, a phased construction schmeters, cyclone cleaners, fueling on line in a timely manner will be recommendePriorities will beestablished on the basis of need, bring critical maintenance activities financing site availability and construction time, and the neiba psoofam. overall ."Product: Six copies of a draft report of the PD0:IR stud "cwments- This will include documentation suitable for at } fatacchcenmenttnt of the UTA capital grant application. and review and TASK 9: FINALIZATIOrN OF PRELIMINARY DESIGN, OPERATIONS AND �A1rAu,•r r r Objective= To Et•IE..T REPORT prepare and produce a final PDO&?9 report for the study_ Activities: Following review and approval of the draft report by the City, a fina] report will be revisions required esprepared for the study. This document will incorporate any pro- duced and iof the review. Twenty-five copies :rill be pro- dequiredd to the City. Product: Final Preliminary Design, Operations and Management Report_ - TASK 10: IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS objective- To identify environmental *responsibilities study, information on agency at the outset permits, and to gather information whicllewilleensuremens �technr ical assessmentsandcompliance with all environmental regulations. procedural • Activities: As the initial concepts of the meeting be held with UMTA Regional officials sin Fortedli":orth toe determine, a or initiate determination of the following: • a• Environmental status of the project as an "exempt" action). (e 9•> if the project might b. The extent of the information needed for a detemination of g qualify projectsignificance, and - 9 - c_ the appropriate scope of the environmental work if an environmental impact statement is required_ Continuing coordination will be mint. agenciesrequired, lined throughout tasks and strategies as q ed, and the City will be�bre the on project troen L+l g esfor meeting briefed environmental � the requirements. onrrental Product: memorandum will be r Product: An efforts heepreparedgsummarizin theh detail environ- mental ationsmefor probable l results of thethe initial environmental ass sl encs, pros before permit requirements, and for o eo+ d the schedule for vedrer,- capital grant application can be ming TASK 11: ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL approved_ ENVIRONMENTAL BASELIf,E DATA Objective: To develop data on docu- mentation for federal existing conditions to in tatio , and_ state determinations of provide sufficient and do tigyi highlight potential selectinu alternative garage and raint significance,it i to sitasses, mitigation. potential problems at the y sites which gation-candidatefacility sites, ;,rich may require Activities: Site-specific data will be compiled based published information, and interviews, in the onf field inspections, Air following technical a•' quality, noise, areas: bus system/maintenance and energy consumption (with respect to the existing b. Socio-economic conditions. c. Land use, cultural and historic/archaeologic d. Water, ecological, and land resources. e. Scenic yzc resources_ and visual quality resources. f. Traffic, transportation, safety, and access conditions. As part of this task, preliminary environmental • identi- fying and evaluating the alternative candidate sites will criteria for use in Product: A technical, memorandum or working paper also be developed. Product: existing tech l memconditions nn m w rkin is necessary, g ;x111 bes document which _Report with the content requirements aofd an En ironment sum- marized (EAR, (It should be noted that an to7be Ecoipletedtonly fcoo?iy, ermination of the impact significances isorequiredlfordt°e7 ro Assessment t Y if a project.) • TASK 12: PRELIM•IINARY ENVIRONNE„TAL EVALUATION Objective: To qualitatively used y determine and document P facilities at the alternative candidate determinations of sig probable timpacts of the pro- posed selection andfsignificance, and to develop sites for the federalrmaand additional r state Y planning tasks. information for the - 10 - ivities: A as preliminary ti!Tich r;lh` � sessment trili be completed to determine the i;a,. is result from imp1 eJ ntation of the proposed facilities a t candidate sites. A technical L r orandom whic:, qualitatively summarizes th of the pacts in each technical area under Task 11 the im- pacts review agencies. ; ncll be r:nitis to the appropriate Coordination with the mercies during this review will aid in exnediti ;n a determination an E ental orthe project's cr,vi. - Environmental 'ai status Impact Statement 1S 1'CCialt'ed_ i.e.,l•E't::IC'ti e The output of this task will allow develof,:.:ent of final environmental cri- teria for use in selecting the reco;;::tended facility alternative. Product: The environmental study team will prepare a memorandum or working pa- per summarizing in a qualitative fashion the results of the environmental impact analysis in each technical area. This memo will conform, if necessary, to the content requirements of an UTA Environmental Assessment Report. TASK 13: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREPARATION Objective: To complete the necessary impact assessments for the recommended bus garage and maintenance facility, and to prepare the documentation required for the environmental review process for the project. (This task will be completed only if the Federal and state review of the project's enviro;:mental status de- termines that an EiS is required for the project and is considered beyond the scope of this Study.) Activities: Based on data developed in Tasks 11 assessments for the recommended alternative will bedcceple12, ted,lto theeilevel oft detail required for a Draft EIS, including the following: to level of a. Studies to establish operational parameters and traffic data systems and the recommended garagefor the bus and maintenance facility. b. Air quality, noise, and energy impact assessments. Final assessments of probable socio-economic, visual quality, land use, C. cultural, and historic/archaeological d. resources impacts. Final assessments of probable water, land, and ecological impacts. resources Continuous coordination will be maintained with the appropriate state and local agencies and with U?iTA during the impact assessments and subsequent com- pletion and circulation of the Draft EIS. Product: The environmental Assessment Report (EiR) for meet the requirements for a necessary. study team will prepare an Environ.; orae impact use in preparation of a Draft EIS, which will also preliminary Draft EIS under U?;TA regulations if K 14: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND PERMIT SUPPORT Objective: To provide support to the Cit of the environmental permits'•for the recommended facilif Corpus ty, duringtprovide preparation port to the extent that it is - ;.oss i �>l e on end to oalsup- being obtained. :chile final environmental approvals Activitjes: -Using information compiled for the • '^' (:ctivi a 1 permit applications will be Environmental Impact Assessment • priate agencies. Coordination will be maintained asted drequi+redetod texpedite approval of all permits. ap`"' °- agency preparingtheDraftOEISeforfthe projectof the lwillr also0beopro coordination with thet completion date of the basic study. provided through the Product: The consultant will prepare all supporting materials for • cations and provide assistance through the completion date of the study toward securing an approved permit apai- Final EIS. - 12 - TASK 1 Bus Facilities and Operation Data Collection TASK 11 Facilities a Operations Program Plan Establishment of TASK 12 Environmental Preliminary nviro mental Baseline Data Evaluation Negative Declaration/ DEIi: Decision TASK 5 - Development a; Analysis of Alternatives ir II TASK 3 Survey and. Identification of Candidate Sites - TASK 10 Identification of Environmental Requirements 1 TASK 7 Alternatives Evaluation K 7 ernatives ection �ITY• ;VIE: TASK 13 Draft Envi- ronmental Report Pre- paration (DEIR) if Required :1.i (Y U;- CORPUS CHRISTI BUS i 1AI UTEUAf•rCE/ADNI11I STRATI01 FACILITIES STUDY FLOW CHART TOTAL DESIGN FOUR. lot N. SHORE LINE SUITE 300 CORPUS:CHRISTI TEXAS 7840 CO?MUNITY REVIEW (If Desired) CITY REVIEW TASK 7 TASK 8 Alternatives Draft Prelim- Evaluation fie- inary Design, port and Main- Operations and tenance Plan Management Recommendation Report TASK 14 Environxnea. Permit Support TASK 9 Preliminary Design, OpE ati_ons, anc Management Report • T,_. -L DESIGN FOUR IOi LSHOREL!NE SUITE 300 CORPUS.cHnlsT 1 TEXAS 78401 C=ITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI BUS i?AIUTEI;A:.10E/ADi'1IIIISTRAtTIJi'! FACILITIES STUDY PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE OF WORK MTP 1 Bus Facilities and Opera - 'j tion Data Collection 2 Facilities and Operations Program Plan 3 Survey and Identification of Candidate Sites 4 Acquisition Analyses 5 Development and Analysis of Alternatives Establishment of Evalua- tion Criteria 6 16 . 7 Alternatives Evaluation and Selection 2 Draft Preliminary Design, • Operations and Management Report 9 Preliminary Design, Opera- tions, and Management Report 10 Identification of Environ- mental Requirements 11 Establishment of Environ- mental Baseline Data 12 Preliminary Environmental Evaluation 13 Draft Environmental Report Preparation (DEM • 14 Environmental Permit Support V City Review Input .moi.on i,c'.q Live 1) rcLtrdl:.i.un vr!r:;ur; rY:ik • r•1ANAGE4-nl- PLA;; :•.re have selected a Project Teary and develepe,t a managementfor this study that will assure the City of Corpus all a;or%: fast; :�.., ..- approach s, production of 1 Christi e smooth F sigh quality design, : progression of Lara, and thorough documentation of , -' maintenance and management in ns, and of rgoughant andoo all work, jnc; .grit environmental - ana'iys permit applications. g n�lrore;ental analyses, Total Design Four and Parsons Brincker;;off have committed experienced sen- ior staff members to conduct .thisproject, respon- sibilities and schedules for all �and we have outlined specific r sibili specialized skills participants. Individual) ebrn }. and experience to this J> tea members bring multidisciplinary Project Team capable of providing the Lbroa her, they cooftservi a needed for the project's successful completion_ ° l importance e of the Project Team has the cag services Of nith is the fact final design and even construction management. beyondt c n current studyt con- tinuity of planning and design. through -J can be assured of The TD -`'our -P3 is Chart. IIeD-Fo , teary presented graphically on the following each nam we have indicated the f g Organization time that will be dedicted to percent Chart eachsindividual's to- tal Manager Clarence Upchurch, IA. project.. The . establishes hasn Pro - ager of Pa47,D Dallas office, Mr. Upchurch and dr- Malvin J. k' still direct the entire study.ohs, Man- ager Advisory Board: Sidney Graves, f:r_ Graves, a Proj E'i% s loston off ice, also is Deputy Technical Director Manager ted Architect in -- --Design. Specializing in transportation facilities,has Manager and Architect for 1•U';RTA'S Bradyhe Architecture and Urban eserved as Project Atlanta, and as Project Architect for severalPprojects, including the conceptual Gus Maintenance Facility in and functional planning of a 3,000 car parking garage and the South Braintree Rapid Transit Station complex in guidance to the TotaloDesign Four architects, In addition to providing advice and with site p architects, idr. Graves will -also be planning. concerned Advisory Board: Sigurd Gravy. Dr. Gravy is the PBQ&Dtechnical- planning projects. rniis University si and a He is a professor of Urban Plannir:c at Columbia Universof ity permanent member of the U.S.A./U.S.S.R. exchinge program of technical ex- _ perts in urban planning and computer use. His art cles on transportation issues are widely published in professional periodicals. Advisory• Board: Debbie C. • ivsotsdDes Allee. Ears_ conducted by Allhe iss the ntc;;nrdirector for en-' design and management of environentalDstudiese hfors tmajor yearsait l grams, including highway - experience in the 9 ghway and rapid transit projects.major capital investment pro - Advisory (Board: Julie H. Hoover: in PB Mrs. Hoover s flew York office- Her experience in is currently ger of Planning and social analyses include project torr, public independent ndeparticipation and Bored and inde community research. Her most notable efforts tProe. and agerrfornt spon- sored as Project Manager for the - 13 - „�tiun<:1 Study Participation '•- of Citizen in F!{; •• of 'rc!y were documented by �%� Projects_ The results FU,f in -a handbook identifying effective citizen cation mechanisms: "Involving Citizens in Metropolitan Region Transportation arming: (FNA/SES-77/11).. 1' An Advisory Board consistingsenior . vitt assure complete of principals f � 1 coordination, adherence hest technical and PnnD ,,,and on -tune Performance to the highest technical of the assignment. standards Following this section we have included detailed company - key members of the Project Team shown on the Organization Chart_ Highlights from those resumes are presented below. resumes for the . Officer -in -Charge: J. Carter Ho;;ald. t,r. Ho!•;ald, Vice President of Total De- sign Four, supervises the planning divisions of both • over fifteen p •' offices_ He years experience in management of planning and architecture.teams. Officer -in -Charge: Winfield 0_ Salter. i",r• Salter, PBQ�D, is.Manager of the firm s Southern Region. He is the technical director all transit activities conducted by 1 a Senior Vice President of ofboaad of three joint the firm and serves on the ventures active in transit system studies and design - Mr. Salter has over twenty-five years of experiencer system study, was in the studies mass .� design.and construction_ He ;;as dire5tor of transportation improvements in the Houston -Galveston. studies for mass regions. �lvesto:r and Dallas -Fort Worth - Project Manager: Clarence Upchurch. i•;r. Upchurch has ten as a Project i,as pro in the Corpus Christi area., H years of experience 50 of TD-Four`projects_ coordinates approximately PProximutel,V - --- Deputy Project Manager: 1%elvin J. Kohn: ir. Kohn., Assistant Vice President, presently Manager of the '--- Dallas office of P,, gr _is ager of several transportation planning assignments for the cities of Dallas, r'Q � He has served as Project [•;ar+.- ;ort Worth and Garland, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments- Cne such study included Site Analysis and Prelirrrinary Design of a proposed Fort ' Worth Transportation Terminal. Site Ac uisition Studies: Michael Giikerson. Mr- Gilkerson researches data for various TO -Four studies. He is an active member of the Steering Connittee for Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (RUDAT) - Corpus Christi Stud member of the RUDAT Implementation Task Force. He _ analyses for the Santa Anna and Aransas Nationaei}di recently es. While and at Texas Tech, Mr. Gi } kerson completed site work Texas.' The, .Participated in an urban design study to study• consisted of transporatation and traffic analyses. Crosbyton, Traffic Studies: C. Michael Halton. Dr. Walton is presently'_ son of civil engineering at the University so theol� y of Texas in Austin. as Hesspecint alizLs planning and administration of transportation and traffic projects. - 14 - Maintenance Operations and Management: Melvin J. Kohn. Environmental Studies: n Alfred J. Agiola. Ad- vanced Technology Ue, -- Mr. A•n;iola is manager of P3's Ad- Jy ,:art:aent rid supervises projects in the environmental, ener- gy and transportation fields. He has directed the preparation r,t10t Of Environmental ornthI:;zct$td:ete Statements and is C1rrently ProjectManager of i"/a•se Studies for the NTA Downtown Mobility System Project. Environ--omental Studies: Edward the roc nral Sl iass; L Findlex. f•lr. Findley is currently evaluating system. He elated with modifications i^ the MARTA (Atlanta) system. s for rine years of experience in the preparation various projects, on of emvircna: aaT Architectural Planning: J. Carter Howald. Mr. Howald, Chief of the TD-Four planning division, served for two years as Station Planner for UAS, Corpus Christi. He attended the Summer Institute at the Air Force Academy which was sponsored by the Office of Civil Defense. Computer applications and urban plan- •ning t-.ere the main areas of study. Mr. Howald recently wrote the Environmental Impact Assessments for both the Aransas and Santa Anna'i;ational Wildlife Refuge Headquarter projects during siLe analysis plans of each project. He also recently completed • plan for a 400 acre subdivision in the CorpusChtre initial master • Christi area. Engineering Sup ort: Eugene U rb-n_ fir. Urban has a strong background phases of Civil Engineerin• cround in alla long recordg• His extensive engineering experience includes a of subdivision'layouts, utility systems, streets and parking areas. He is a city engineer for several cities in south Texas-and is familiar with the unique site requirements of the Corpus Christi area. Enginring -alayoutuandort: eostlessiruate. fir. Tang participated in civil and structural oe is assigned to cot s for transit studies in Dallas and Fort Worth. Hex is Dallas office and is a licensed professional engineer in Enmineerin.. Su .ort: Hector Sanchez. fir. Sanchez is the chief electrical engi- neer responsible for the design and review of auxiliary electrical systems for the MARTA (Atlanta) facilities. • Engineering Support: Y.en^it• Feldman. design for the port: project. an_ tor. Feldman is presently p J He has extensive experience in thendesignd lof)ftl��C systems for various-types of buildings. - ' HVAC Landscape Architect: J. Phil Cerry. Mr. Berry is the Landscape, a TD-Four consuitant. He has held various positionsdesigner of l pa departmn nts throughout Texas. He served as A in—several parks Corpus Christi for three years. Assistant Park Superintendent for - 15 - Cost Estimating: Dietrich Braun_ Mr. Braun has over twenty years experience in arcnrtectura and cost centro_. He is in charge of TD -Four's com- puterized rnasterspec system. Mr. Braun taught various architectural technology courses at Del Mar College. new in-house Cost Estimating: Charles U. '• and transportation engineering.aleKoch. Mr. Koch has extensive experience in construction.cost estimates fr' access andparkingently in the City civil Dallas. r 9 design plans and - 15 - OFFICERS -IN -CHARGE iE J. Carter Howald (TDF) (10' u. (PE) (5) t( ;/o! :MA iAGEI'Er PLAN ORGANIZATION CHART r- CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI PROJECT MAHA6ER ADVISORY BOARD C. Upchurch (50) f S? dreg Graves (15) DEPUTY PROJECT'MANAGER SITE ACQUISITION STUDIES Michael R. Gilkerson (10) TRAFFIC STUDIES C. Michael Walton (10) IIAINTENANCE OPERATIONS M. J. Kohn (5) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES iE Alfred Angiola (5) E. L. Findley (5) .. J. Kohn (10) • (00) Indicates Individual percent of time nrnnosar, r, i,;. r,,:;.;.,-, Sigurd Grave (5) Debbie Allee (5) Julie Iioover (5) ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING iE J. Carter Ifowald (5) Sidney Graves (5) ENGINEERING SUP?ORT iE Civil: Eugene e Urban_ (5) Structure], rang Tang- (5) - Electrical: -.Hecto_ Sanchez (5) Mechanical: Kermit Feldman (5) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Phil Barry (5) COST ESTIMATING Dietrich Braun (5) Charles W. Koch (5) ' DE8fg- . FORr• ARCHITEECTUI?E�vG CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT Donald Greene, AIA William H. Holland, AIA James B. Boggs, AIA J, Carter HowaId, AIA Homer C. Innis, PE Robert R. Conolly, AIA Fred C. Kirkham, AIA Dietrich H. Rrrnin AIA Mr, Jimmy Lontos, City Engineer City of Corpus Christi P. 0, Box 9277 Corpus Christi, Texas 78408 Re: Bus Maintenance and Administration Facilitie 'Planning Study Proposal Dear Mr, Lontos: Corpus Christi Office 18 July 1979 Thank you for allowing Total Design Four and Parsons-Brinckerhoff to clarify portions of our proposal to the City of Corpus Christi for the Bus Maintenance and Administration. Fdcilities Project during our meeting in your office with you and Toni Stewart on • 5 July. Mel Kohn of Parsons-Brinckerhoff and Clarence Upchurch and Kim Crosskno from our office join nie in our appreciation for your professionalism and cordiality 'uring our conference. • Our notes from the meeting reflect the following discussion of our proposal: 1. Referring to our Organization Chart following page 16 of the RFP: a. The City expressed concern about the number of people (19 different ones) we show for such a small job. Most of the specialists would be used only to review interior, draft and final reports. They would not visit Corpus Christi and their involvement might be limited to one or two days. Mel Kohn twill now be Principal -in -Charge for PBQ&D instead of Salter since Mr. Kohn has been made an officer of the firm. b, The landscape architect would only review the conceptual drawings and develop noise or other environmental buffers as required. The structural, electrical and mechanical engineers would merely provide input to the conceptual drawings and cosi estimates. . 1S July 7.979 Page 2 2, The City was concerned about the detail in our proposal and whether or not we could accomplish all the services indicated, • 'a. l•le pointed out that everything mentioned in the proposal would necessitate being addressed for an UMTA submission but the detail or depth to which ti.re address each item would be shallow, b. We.will f•ely on existing data and interviews with City staff - no new data will be developed, c. Ode anticipate the City -developed alternative sites (Torn Stewart said about 15) will be analyzed only, and it is anticipated the number for in-depth review will be narrowed down early in the review process to perhaps three or four sites. 4!e will make. a brief review of aerial maps, etc., to determine that potential sites have not been omitted (an unlikely occurrence). d. Tasks 13 and 14 were stated to be beyond the scope of this study. We believe it will not be necessary to develop a full EIS if the best site is selected. How- ever; we showed the tasks on our Flow Chart so the City would have a full overview of the assignment. 3. The City asked about our use of a "study. team" on various tasks. Miel Kohn explained that our use of that phrase merely referred to Total Design Four and Parsons-Brinckerhoff, not • to a large number of•peopte on a specific assignment. 4. Route Studies, We indicated that a full-scale route analysis,• would not be made, but we would merely solicit comments from City staff. Also, we would probably traverse some routes to get a better knowledge of the operation and the environ- mental considerations. We might also recommend some minor changes to specific routes to accomniodate a particular site by minimizing dead head mileage; but no full-scale route analysis would be accomplished 7I Al its duly 1979 Page 2 5, Toni Stewart indicated much of the material lelisted in Task 1 is available. 1 6. Site Review. We do not intend to make any title searches unless authorized separately by the City and at additional cosC (ire state that in Task 4). We assume the City will • provide tax data on the sites, ..s • This information is submitted to clarify our proposal and assist you in your selection process. We are grateful to you for the opportunity,-_.-. - _r Sincerely, Carter Flowa1d, AIA rincipa1 JCH/mas E s• • APPENDIX D During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (here- inafter referred to as the ",contractor") agrees as follows: (1) Compliance with Regulations: .The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimina- tion in federally -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "DOT") Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the' Regulations),' which are herein incorporated by ref- erence and made a part of this contract. (2) Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to • the work performed by it during the contract, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not • participate either directly or indirectly in the - discrimination prohibited by section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations. (3) Solicitiations for Subcontracts, Including Proc-irements of Materials and Ecuipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding ornegotiationmade by the con- tractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials or leases. of equip- ment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the contractor's ob- ligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin. (4) Information and Reports: The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by • the Recipient or the Urban Mass Transportation Adminis- tration (UMTA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders and instructions. where any information is required or a contractor is in the ex- clusive possession of another who fails or refuses to ft - (5) furnish this information, the contractor shall so ce_- tify to the' Recipient, or the Urban Mass Transportation, as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information - . for Noncompliance: In the event of the con- tractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the Recipient shall im- pose such contract sanctions as it or the Urban Mass Transportation Administration may determine to be ap- propriate, including, but not limited to: - (a) Withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or (b) Cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part. (6). Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor shall in- clude the provisions of paragraph (1) through (6) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials ---and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Recipient or the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration may direct as a means of en- forcing such provisions including sanctions for non- _ compliance: Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threateded with,. litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the.contractor may request the Recipient to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the Recipient, and, in addition, the con- tractor may,reguest the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.