BasisOfDesign_Attachment4&5.pdf

Attachment 4

EEagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements; Alternative Class 4 Estimate Narrative (SRD, 2016b)

Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements Alternative Class 4 Estimate Narrative

STAFFING TECHNICAL SERVICES LOGISTICS PLANNING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

CA Lic. No. 999572 A DIVERSIFIED SERVICES COMPANY CPUC-Verified WBE Class A Page | 1 VON ID 14060042

1 Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) Request As requested by Michael Love & Associates, SR Diversified is responding to a request to provide additional Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) support for the removal of two fish passage barriers on North Battle Creek, upstream and downstream of PG&E Eagle Canyon Diversion Dam near Manton, California. As with the engineer’s memorandums, the two locations will be described as Upper Barrier and Lower Barrier. This additional support is to develop three alternative Class 4 estimates as part of Phase 1.

This narrative can be supplemented further by the previously prepared “Alternative Analysis Constructability Review Memorandum, Rev 3” as prepared by Chris Cornell. As identified in the previously prepared alternative analysis memorandum, the three options to achieve access to support removal of the fish passage barriers are; (1) helicopter, (2) large crane, and (3) yarder. Per Michael Love & Associates’ request, we have developed Class 4 estimates based on boulder information provided by Michael Love & Associates, as well as our experience previously working in North Battle Creek/Eagle Canyon. For an overview and understanding of the various AACE estimate classifications, please see the table below.

Primary Secondary Characteristic

ESTIMATE

CLASS

MATURITY LEVEL OF

PROJECT

DEFINITION

DELIVERABLES

Expressed as % of

END USAGE

Typical purpose of estimate

METHODOLOGY

Typical estimating method

EXPECTED ACCURACY

RANGE Typical variation in low and high ranges

Class 5

0% to 2%

Concept screening

Capacity factored, parametric models, judgment, or analogy

L: -20% to -50% H: +30% to +100%

Class 4

1% to 15% Study or feasibility Equipment factored or parametric models L: -15% to -30% H: +20% to 50%

Class 3

10% to 40%

Budget authorization or control

Semi-detailed unit costs with assembly level line items

L: -10% to -20% H: +10% to 30%

Class 2

30% to 75% Control or bid/tender

Detailed unit cost with forced detailed take-off

L: -5% to -15% H: +5% to +20%

Class 1

65% to 100% Check estimate or bid/tender

Detailed unit cost with detailed take-off

L: -3% to -10% H: +3% to +15%

1.1 Generic Cost Information/Estimate Approach

Rather than adding random costs for consumables, we have used 5% of the labor direct costs for this calculation under Construction Materials M&S. These costs cover a variety of miscellaneous supplies and consumables, such as personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, safety supplies, power tools, hand tools, cutting wheels, etc.

Each scenario was estimated as a stand-alone project, which included site-specific mobilization/demobilization costs as well as work activity descriptions particular to each location.

Class A Page | 2 VON ID 14060042

Important to note, we have included a separate cost item to install cofferdams and provide stream flow bypasses at each site. This item would need to be an add-on cost to all three of the options estimated, if required.

All scenarios include Stormwater Pollution Prevent Program (SWPPP) and water quality type Best Management Practice (BMP) installations, as well as some clearing and grubbing, where required.

We have included costs in our estimates to hydroseed areas of ground disturbance for erosion control and environmental restoration. The cost per acre was developed using subcontractor quotes based on setting up their equipment a maximum distance of 500 feet from the area of application.

Each scenario assumes a light rock scaling of the hillsides above the barriers for rock fall mitigation, as required to provide worker safety. We have also included $7,500 for Geologist recommendation/inspection time as part of the rock fall mitigation effort.

All scenarios assume the use of hand-held rock drills to line drill holes approximately one-foot apart and mechanically split the larger boulders into approximately 1.5 cubic yard boulders weighing approximately 7,000 pounds or less. This size was chosen based on the table of boulder information provided by Michael Love & Associates. The table shows a 1.5 cubic yard boulder should weigh on the order of 3.3 to 3.4 tons, or 6,600 to 6,800 pounds. Although the helicopter, large crane, and yarder used in our estimates are sized to lift 8,000 pounds, it is prudent to have some factor of safety. Based on the dimensions of the boulders provided, along with the 1.5 cubic yard target size and line drilling approximately one-foot apart, a quantity of drilled-feet was estimated for each boulder. It should be noted that some of the boulders included for removal are already smaller than

1.5 cubic yards and/or 7,000 pounds. It was assumed these smaller boulders would not need to be drilled and split into smaller sizes.

All scenarios assume some survey work is required; not only for construction layout and boulder identification, but also for recording as-built conditions after the work is complete.

For boulder off-haul trucking, all scenarios assume a one-hour round trip cycle time. In our experience we have found that rock boulders can have some value, particularly to plants that can process boulders into aggregates. Therefore, we have not included any disposal fees.

Permit conditions can have significant cost impacts depending on resource agency perceptions and objectives. We have included costs for water quality testing, however, additional cost impacts could arise based on permit conditions.

1.2 Indirect Cost Estimate Details and Assumptions

For this Class 4 estimate, indirect costs have been factored in using a 20% mark up on the direct costs. A considerable amount of the “Indirect Costs” includes fuel, as well as Contractor Project Management. Fuel is one of the highest contributors that does not appear as a line item on the direct cost spreadsheets.

Besides Contractor Project Management and fuel, the indirect costs typically include the following items:

Class A Page | 3 VON ID 14060042

Pre-Mobilization/Demobilization Preparation and Procurement activities at the Contractor’s Headquarters

Miscellaneous freight

Overtime premium

Travel and subsistence for staff and crew

Office trailers, office supplies, and generator rentals

Cargo van storage containers

Cell phones and satellite communications

Laydown area general dumpster rentals/fees

Portable toilets and wash stations

Contractor quality control management

Escalation

Main office overheads

1.3 Estimated Cost Summary Table

Below is a summary table of the estimated costs based on the available information. As mentioned above, we have included a separate cost item to install cofferdams and provide stream flow bypasses (one at the Lower Barrier and one at the Upper Barrier). This cost item would need to be an add-on cost to all three of the options estimated, if required. The details of the estimated costs in the table are included in Appendix A.

COST ITEM DESCRIPTION

SRD ITEM

COSTS WITH

MARKUPS

FROM GREEN

SHEETS

SRD ITEM

COSTS WITH

20% INDIRECTS

& OVERHEADS

1 Remove Boulders via Helicopter and Rock Splitting 1,999,723 2,399,668

2 Remove Boulders via Cranes and Rock Splitting 2,062,947 2,475,537

3 Remove Boulders via Yarder and Rock Splitting 1,859,500 2,231,400

4 Add-on for Cofferdams and Streamflow Bypasses 780,903 937,083

Note, the SR Diversified estimated costs do not include contingency. The range of accuracy for a Class 4 AACE estimate is -30% to +50%. Although not included in our estimated costs, at this phase we recommend a minimum of 25% contingency added to our estimates. However, Michael Love & Associates and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may want to apply a different amount.

Class A Page | 4 VON ID 14060042

1.4 Scenario Scope of Work Descriptions and Assumptions

Below are summaries of the option-specific scope of work assumptions included in the estimated costs for the various scenarios. To minimize redundancy, we will not repetitively describe generic cost information and assumptions described above in Section 1.1 Generic Cost Information/Estimate Approach.

Option 1 – Remove Boulders via Helicopter

The advantage of the helicopter option is that there is some flexibility as to where to stage a landing zone (LZ). Another advantage is that vegetation impact and removal should be fairly limited to the local Lower Barrier and Upper Barrier removal sites. This option has the least amount of ground disturbing activities, and as such, requires the least amount of erosion control BMP’s (silt fence, wattles, etc.) and exclusionary fencing.

For this option we included placing aggregate base rock on the dirt road from the staging area south of the creek to the paved road (Long Road) to the south. This was assumed to not only provide winter access during the clearing and grubbing activities, but also help with dust control during the summer.

Option 2 – Remove Boulders via Large Crane

For the Lower Barrier, we included the cost for using a Manitowoc 300-ton lattice boom rough terrain crane operating from a crane pad located on the south side of the rim. Our previous Eagle Canyon Diversion Fish Ladder and Fish Screen project was successfully performed and supported with this same crane setup.

It was assumed the horizontal distances from top of rim to the Upper Barrier site are too great, even for a large crane. For the Upper Barrier, we included the additional costs of clearing and grubbing, excavation, and restoration of a temporary access road from the north side of the rim to a crane pad adjacent to the Upper Barrier site that would accommodate a 100-ton rough terrain crane with a 100-foot working radius. These additional costs to accommodate the smaller crane are significant and substantially contributed to this option being highest estimated cost. However, if a crane pad could be established on the north rim to within a 275-foot radius, where the Manitowoc 300-ton crane could service the Upper Barrier, we believe this option could decrease by approximately $100,000 and compete better with the yarder and helicopter options.

Based on the assumptions used, we have included placing aggregate base rock on the dirt road from Long Road to the staging area south of the creek to service the Lower Barrier; as well as placing base rock on the dirt road and new temporary crane access road on the north side of the creek to Battle Creek Bottom Road (to the north) to service the Upper Barrier.

Because this option includes the most ground disturbing activities, it also involves the most erosion control BMP’s and exclusionary fencing. Based on permit conditions from previous projects in the area, vegetation removal was only allowed from early September through the end of January. This required two mobilizations, with the first for vegetation and tree removal, and the second for beginning work in late spring/early summer, after spring runoff flows subsided sufficiently to maintain water control and perform the work in the creek. As such, rather than mobilizing and

Class A Page | 5 VON ID 14060042 setting up the cranes for vegetation removal within the Lower Barrier and Upper Barrier sites, we have included costs using a smaller helicopter (Bell 407) with a rated sling load of 2,500 pounds at sea level.

Option 3 – Remove Boulders via Yarder

For this option, we assumed a little more time would be required to remove trees from the Barrier sites along the hillsides to where the yarder would be set up. We also assumed there would be less erosion control BMP’s required than the large crane option, but more than the helicopter option.

We have included two mobilizations for the yarder. The first for vegetation and tree removal, and the second for the actual fish passage improvements. If a smaller helicopter were to be used for vegetation and tree removal, the costs for this option would increase.

Also included in this option is the installation of rock anchors in support of the yarder operations.

We have assumed three anchors on the yarder side of the canyon for yarder stability, and two anchors on the opposite side of the canyon for anchoring the skyline, for a total of 5 anchors at each barrier site. One disadvantage of using the yarder is its limited ability to work laterally once the yarder alignment is established and anchored. Additional anchors on the canyon rims, or supplemental winch type equipment, may be required to support working more laterally at the barrier sites with the yarder.

Although this option appears to be the most cost effective, the costs for this option are more likely to increase than decrease. As we developed the cost estimates for each of the three options, it became apparent the amount of time required to drill and split the boulders was much longer than the time required to actually remove the boulders from the creek. As such, equipment standby needed to be considered for both the crane and yarder options. In discussing a standby rate with Robinson Enterprises, a company that owns several yarders, they explained the equipment generates a significant amount of logging revenue for them during a good portion of the year.

Because this is a Class 4 estimate, we quickly settled on a standby rate of 50% of the operated rate;

however, due to the significant amount of standby time required, we could see this standby rate increasing.

Cost Item 4 – Add-on for Cofferdams and Stream Flow Bypasses

As previously mentioned, we have included this separate cost item to install cofferdams and provide stream flow bypasses at each site. This item would need to be an add-on cost to all three of the options estimated, if required.

We previously installed cofferdams and stream flow bypasses for the North Battle Creek Feeder Diversion and Eagle Canyon Diversion Fish Ladders and Fish Screen project. For this Class 4 estimate, rather than detail estimated costs, we assumed the cost to install, maintain, and remove the cofferdams and stream flow bypasses for this Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvements project would be similar in magnitude to the previous projects.

Class A Page | 6 VON ID 14060042

Exclusions As we developed the estimated costs, we attempted to track items or exclusions that were not included.

The major items are shown below.

Contingency

Design engineering (we have included minimal general construction engineering)

SWPPP Plan development by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and inspections by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP).

Additional dust control beyond placing base rock on the dirt roads (i.e. water truck)

Roadway bridge Improvements for mobilization of large cranes/loads, if required

Security

Traffic control

Permit fees

Rental or purchase of lands for construction use

Fish rescues by qualified biologists

Removal or management of any hazardous wastes

Restoration of riparian areas with special plantings

Summary As shown in Section 1.3 Estimated Cost Summary Table above, the yarder option appears to be the least expensive. However, as previously mentioned, this option has the most potential to increase in cost due to the likelihood of the standby rate used for the yarder to escalate, and the disadvantage of limited lateral movement. When adding the cofferdams and stream flow bypasses to each of the three options, the variances in estimated costs between any two options is less than 8%. With this in mind, and understanding these are Class 4 estimates, at this time it is difficult to completely rule out any one option.

The table below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Option Advantages Disadvantages Other

Helicopter Limited vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities

More expensive than yarder option Could be most expensive (see crane notes)

Large Crane

Flexibility of both lateral and vertical movements

Most expensive primarily due to temporary access road to accommodate smaller crane at Upper Barrier site

Potential to be less expensive than helicopter option if a crane pad could be established on north bluff within 275' radius to UBS

Yarder Currently estimated to be least expensive option

Estimated costs has most potential to increase Limited in lateral working movement

Class A Page | 7 VON ID 14060042

At the present time, we believe it would be prudent to keep all three options open. As the project design develops and additional information becomes available, certain options may become more obvious while others may become more apparent to eliminate.

Should Michael Love & Associates want any further information regarding this Class 4 estimate, please feel free to contact us.

SR Diversified, LLC

Steve Platt

Ap pe nd ix A

Po tt er

V al le y

De co m m is si on in g

CA

L ic.

N o.

A

DI

VE

RS

IF

IE

D

SE

RV

IC

ES

C

O M

PA

N

Y

CP

UC

-V er ifi ed W

BE

Cl as s A

Pa ge

VO

N

ID

nd er

V al le y

De co m m is si on in g

CA

L ic.

N o.

A

DI

VE

RS

IF

IE

D

SE

RV

IC

ES

C

O M

PA

N

Y

CP

UC

-V er ifi ed

VO

N

ID

nd er

V al le y

De co m m is si on in g

CA

L ic.

N o.

A

DI

VE

RS

IF

IE

D

SE

RV

IC

ES

C

O M

PA

N

Y

CP

UC

-V er ifi ed

VO

N

ID

nd er

V al le y

De co m m is si on in g

CA

L ic.

N o.

A

DI

VE

RS

IF

IE

D

SE

RV

IC

ES

C

O M

PA

N

Y

CP

UC

-V er ifi ed

VO

N

ID

nd er

V al le y

De co m m is si on in g

CA

L ic.

N o.

A

DI

VE

RS

IF

IE

D

SE

RV

IC

ES

C

O M

PA

N

Y

CP

UC

-V er ifi ed

VO

N

ID

Attachment 5

EEagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project Construction Schedule