Attachment 1 - Draft HJZH 22-1007 Statement of Work 31 OCT 24.pdf

DRAFT

STATEMENT OF WORK

for

HJZH 22-1007, POLE LINE ROAD OVER EAGLE RIVER - DESIGN

Project Overview

This is a request for professional services in support of a bridge replacement project on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Alaska.

The 673d Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) is seeking a professional services consulting team to provide bridge and roadway design for the replacement of the Pole Line Road over Eagle River bridge. The replacement includes realignment of the structure and its approaches.

This design project will be administered by the 673d Contracting Squadron and the 673d Civil Engineer Squadron. Except for their involvement in any permitting requirements, the US Army Corps of Engineers will not have a role in this project.

Background

The existing Pole Line Road over Eagle River crossing is a 140-foot single span steel Bailey thru-truss bridge. The structure is a single lane crossing with a steel grating deck. The bridge is founded on timber mudsills. A recent project to armor the waterway adjacent to the bridge with riprap appears to be in good condition. Based on the 2021 inspection and load rating, the bridge is posted for 29 tons for type 3S2 vehicles and 31 tons for type 3-3 vehicles.

The approaches for the bridge are gravel surfaced. The horizontal and vertical alignments are not desirable and can be problematic when environmental conditions are not ideal. Additionally, the sharp curves at each approach have proven difficult for large trucks with trailers in tow.

Overhead utilities and a large diameter waterline are in the vicinity of the work.

As-built plans for the bridge and road are not available.

Scope of Work

The project includes demolition and disposal of the existing bridge, construction of a new bridge, and realignment of both approaches. It is expected that the waterway alignment and cross section will be maintained.

This first portion of the bridge replacement project includes design only. The selected consulting team is expected to produce 100% bid-ready plans and specifications. Additionally, the consulting team will provide the CES an opinion of cost for the proposed work. When funded, the bridge construction work will likely be awarded as a lump sum contract.

Support during bidding and construction is not included as part of this work. If the bridge replacement receives funding, the CES may advertise an additional request for professional services for support during bidding and construction.

The CES expects the selected consulting team to perform the required engineering services necessary for the demolition and design of the Pole Line Road bridge and its approaches. The specific engineering services to be performed by the consulting team are outlined below.

1. Task 1 Surveying. The surveying task requires the consulting team to perform topographic and stream channel surveys in the field in the vicinity of the bridge replacement as required to prepare base mapping for project design and preparation of construction drawings. Field work will generally consist of the following:

a. Control survey and establishment of vertical benches and horizontal control points. All work will be based upon Anchorage Bowl datum for horizontal control and USGS datum for vertical control, if existing horizontal and/or vertical control can be found within 0.5 miles of the bridge, otherwise assumed datum shall be used.

b. Topographic survey upstream and downstream of the existing bridge locating any topographic features deemed pertinent for design within the project area.

c. Stream channel sections suitable for hydraulic modeling in accordance with the latest editions of the DOT&PF Alaska Highway Drainage Manual and Alaska Bridges and Structures Manual guidelines.

d. Location and mapping of all wetland boundaries as determined by a certified soil scientist within the project area.

Prepare a topographic base map of the bridge area at a scale suitable for design, such as 1’ = 40’, or other agreed upon scale including stream channel, wetlands and spot elevations as required for preparation of design. In addition, prepare detailed topographic map of the proposed bridge at a scale of 1” = 20’.

2. Task 2 Geotechnical Investigation. This task includes the collection and evaluation of subsurface data, development of recommended structural road sections, and preparation of a Structural Foundation Engineering Report (SFER). Collection of data will include a minimum of one boring per proposed abutment location and borings at a spacing of about 500 feet along the proposed alignment. The findings will be provided in the SFER. Data collection and the SFER shall follow the recommendations of the latest editions of the DOT&PF Bridges and Structures Manual and the Geotechnical Procedures Manual.

3. Task 3 Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and Scour Evaluation. Hydraulic and scour analyses shall be performed to quantify existing, natural, and proposed hydraulic conditions and to outline scour countermeasure alternatives. A Hydraulics Report prepared in accordance with the DOT&PF Bridges and Structures Manual and the Alaska Highway Drainage Manual will be used to aid in the development of the bridge design.

Hydraulic engineering and design associated with the new bridge must meet 44 CFR 60.3 and be done by a qualified engineer licensed in the State of Alaska. The design must consider bank erosion and scour protection.

4. Task 4 Environmental Documentation and Permits. Using the design, the selected consulting team will obtain the necessary approvals and permits for the work. This project requires an evaluation of its environmental impacts. The environmental process for this project will adhere to:

a. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

b. 23 CFR Part 771 – Environmental Impact and Related Procedures

c. 32 CFR Part 989 Air Force Environmental Impact Analysis Process

d. NEPA Assignment Program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

e. Sections 103 and 104 of the 673 CES Standard Specifications for Road Construction

f. E.O. 11990 related to Wetlands

g. E.O. 11988 (others) related to Floodplains

5. Task 5 Bridge Design and Approach Alternatives. The selected consulting team shall investigate and present in a report three unique alternatives for the road and crossing. The bridge alternatives may include prestressed concrete, conventionally reinforced concrete, structural steel, or a combination of these materials. Timber bridges will not be accepted.

In selecting alternatives, the designer shall consider initial cost, initial maintenance, long term maintenance, constructability, serviceability, and lifespan. The Alaska DOT&PF has found that decked bulb-tee girders perform well in Alaska.

The report shall include the preferred alternative. Said report will include a description of the bridge, a drawing of each alternative, and a cost estimate based on preliminary quantity calculations.

6. Task 6 65% and 95% Design. This phase includes advancing the selected bridge and road alternative to a 65% and 95% level of design. The CES will perform a review at each design milestone and provide comments as necessary.

Referenced standards and publications that must be included in the design of the road, bridge, and structures are in the table at the end of this RFQ.

A licensed professional engineer proficient in bridge design and registered in the State of Alaska shall design or directly supervise the design of the bridge and ancillary structures.

7. Task 7 Final Design. The final design shall consist of signed and sealed bid-ready construction drawings, specifications, and engineer’s estimate. The specifications shall use the Alaska DOT&PF Standard Specifications for Highway Construction as the basis. The construction drawings shall be signed and sealed by the engineer of record who shall be a licensed professional engineer registered in the State of Alaska.

Additionally, load rating calculations shall be prepared for the new bridge in accordance with the provisions of the AASHTO MBE and Chapter 27 of the Alaska BSM using both the Load Factor Rating (LFR) and Load and Resistance Factor Rating (LRFR) methods as specified in the Alaska BSM. The designer shall submit load rating calculations along with the design and independent check calculations. If field changes to the structures occur, the CES will contact the engineer of record for a new load rating.

Design Parameters

1. Loads and Forces. The bridge and structures shall be designed to resist the loads specified in the AASHTO LRFD and Alaska BSM, including the following:

a. Dead Load. The bridge shall be designed for a not less than 4-inch-thick asphalt concrete wearing surface over the entire deck area between the face of barriers or curbs. An allowance for future utilities of 150 pounds per linear foot shall be included as a dead load component.

b. Live Load. The bridge shall be designed for the HL-93 live load.

c. Uplift. Any bridge spans shall be proportioned to prevent uplift at supports.

d. Wind Loads. Wind loads shall be calculated based on a minimum design wind velocity of

130 miles per hour (mph).

e. Seismic Design. The following minimum values and parameters shall be used for seismic design of bridges in accordance with AASHTO SGS. Additional investigation of the site and soil testing will be necessary to determine if the use of more stringent values and parameters is required.

Latitude: 61.317421° north

Longitude: 149.603493° west

PGA: 0.55

Ss: 1.5

S1: 0.66

Site Class: C

Seismic Design Category: D

Liquefaction Potential: TBD based on geotechnical investigation.

AASHTO 7% probability of exceedance in 75 years

The bridge shall be analyzed using the Elastic Dynamic Analysis/multimodal response spectra analysis method (AASHTO SGS, Procedure 2) or non-linear time history analysis (AASHTO SGS Procedure 3). Each pier shall be evaluated by “Push Over” analysis. Except for concrete filled pipe piles, all plastic hinges shall form in the columns, above ground where they can be readily inspected.

2. Bridge Geometry. The bridges shall be designed and constructed to match the proposed section, horizontal and vertical alignment, of Pole Line Road. The structure shall allow for two lanes of traffic and include shoulders and appropriate barriers.

Abutment and pier skew angles shall be less than 30 degrees, measured from a line radial or perpendicular to the highway centerline.

3. Bridge Railings. Bridge railings, barriers, and transitions shall be crash-tested in accordance with the provisions of the NCHRP Report 350 or AASHTO MASH. All bridge railing and transition railing shall meet the crash test requirements of Test Level 2 (TL-2) or higher.

4. Bridge Superstructure. Precast, prestressed concrete decked bulb-tee girders perform well in Alaska. However, open girder and box girder superstructures are permitted. Girders must be of the same material from span to span.

5. Bridge Decks. At least 2.5 inches of clear cover shall be provided over the top mat of the CIP deck reinforcing steel, with ½” being considered sacrificial. At least 2.25 inches of clear cover shall be provided over the top mat of precast concrete deck bulb-tee girder reinforcement. All bridge decks shall be protected with a waterproofing membrane which appears on the Alaska DOT&PF Qualified Products List and shall be covered with a minimum of 4 inches of asphalt concrete.

Open, filled grating decks, or orthotropic decks are not permitted.

6. Bridge Abutments. Abutments shall be designed and constructed of reinforced concrete.

Integral abutments are not permitted.

7. Bridge Piers. If needed, piers shall be constructed of reinforced concrete. Round column(s), pier walls, or pile extension bents shall be used for all piers. Spiral welded pipe pile is not permitted for use at the piers.

8. Bridge Foundations. Bridge foundation systems shall be designed to safely transfer structural loads to the underlying soils without causing excessive movements or distress to the bridge structures.

Schedule

The CES expects to award this design contract in early Fiscal Year 25. Major milestones are as follows:

Draft Structural Foundation Engineering Report NTP + 60 days

Draft Hydraulics Report NTP + 60 days

Bridge and Approach Alternatives NTP + 60 days

65% Design NTP + 120 days

95% Design NTP + 180 days

Final SFER, Hydraulics Report, and Design NTP + 210 days

Referenced Standards for Bridges and Structures

Author or Agency

Title Report or Section No.

Short Form

AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, second edition, with 2012 and 2014 interim revisions

AASHTO SGS

AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Isolation Design AASHTO AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications AASHTO LRFD AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware AASHTO MASH AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation AASHTO MBE AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Green Book AASHTO Roadside Design Guide AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th ed AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for

Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals

DOT&PF Alaska Highway Drainage Manual DOT&PF Alaska Bridges and Structures Manual Alaska BSM DOT&PF Alaska Highway Preconstruction Manual PCM DOT&PF Alaska Geotechnical Procedures Manual FEMA Flood Plain Management Criteria for Flood-prone

Areas

44 CFR 60.3 44 CFR 60.3

FHWA Compliance with National Bridge Inspection Standards

23 CFR

650.305

23 CFR 650.305

NCHRP Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features

Report 350 NCHRP Report 350

SSPC CS 23.00: Specification for the Application of Thermal Spray Coatings (Metallizing)of Aluminum, Zinc, and Their Alloys and Composites for the Corrosion Protection of Steel

CS 23.00 SSPC CS 23.00

Selection Criteria

The consulting team will be selected based on their qualifications and their proposed Firm-Fixed-Price to perform the work. All consulting teams wishing to be considered shall submit their qualifications based on the six sections identified below. A Firm-Fixed-Price for each of the seven tasks shall be provided.

Those consulting teams deemed qualified by an evaluation board in accordance with the qualifications criteria will have their total Firm-Fixed-Price evaluated. The qualified consulting team with the lowest total Firm-Fixed-Price will be awarded the contract.

The qualifications shall be limited to 15 pages. The qualifications will be evaluated based on the following:

1. Goals and Objectives. The consulting team will restate the goals and objectives of the project tasks to demonstrate their interpretation and understanding of the project.

2. Knowledge, Experience, and Staff. Provide an outline of the team’s background and experience with similar projects. Include key staff and their role on similar projects. Include a description of the consulting team’s knowledge of unique requirements of working on JBER. Additionally, the team should demonstrate their competency in the following areas:

a. The Alaska BSM, and AASHTO LRFD

b. Environmental documentation

c. Cold regions engineering

d. Cost estimating

Identify the personnel that will perform the work in each task and detail their training and experience. Identify the professional engineer(s) registered in the State of Alaska who will oversee the road and bridge portions of the project.

3. Work Plan. Include a detailed work plan identifying the tasks to be accomplished and the budget hours to be expended on each task and subtask for bridge and roadway design.

Demonstrate the team’s ability to accomplish the work in the required time shown in the schedule above. The work plan shall be in spreadsheet format and shall list each task and the number of hours for each staff person on that task. The work plan shall also identify the deliverables at key milestones in the project as well as any input/review to be provided by the CES. Do not include any costs in the work plan. The plan shall identify any faults and offer alternatives to the CES’ proposed schedule.

4. Location. Consultant team’s location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the project.

5. Past Performance and Quality Control. Response must describe previous projects the team has worked on that are related in size and scope to this project. Describe the dollar amount of the projects and a brief narrative of the successes of the projects. Address how the experience will help your team to perform under this contract. Provide references (contact name and phone number) for each project. Indicate which of the proposed firms and project staff was involved in each project. The CES reserves the right to investigate referenced projects, contact references and research other projects that the respondent has worked on.

Include in your response a description of your firm’s quality control process and how this process has affected the quality of your deliverables. Use specific examples.

6. Quality of Response. Offerors do not respond to this criterion. The CES will use this item to gauge the respondent’s ability to present clear, complete, and accurate documents.