Centennial ES Original Classroom 2025_SRGP Engineering Services RFP.pdf

1 | P a g e

SCIO SCHOOL DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORIGINAL CLASSROOM SEISMIC

RETROFIT

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR:

KIM ROTH

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT

Phone: 503.394.3261 Email: Rothk@sciok12.org

ISSUE DATE: August 27TH, 2025 RFP CLOSING (DUE) DATE September 17TH, 2025 (2:00 PM)

NO LATE RESPONSES WILL BE ACCEPTED

SUBMITTAL LOCATION

MAILING ADDRESS; 38875 NW 1ST AVE, SCIO, OR 97374

PHYSICAL ADDRESS; 38729 NW CHERRY STREET, SCIO, OR 97374

Attention: KIM ROTH, DISTRICT SUPERINTENTDENT

2 | P a g e

Introduction:

Scio School District (the “District”) is seeking proposals from firms for the structural engineering and design services for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Centennial Elementary Original Classroom (the “Project”), located at 38875 NW 1st Ave, Scio, OR 97374. In December 2024, the District applied for and received a Seismic Rehabilitation Grant (“SRG”) for the project through the Infrastructure Finance Authority: Business Oregon, based on the application prepared by ZCS, Inc. The intent of this RFP is for the consultant to provide an integrated design solution for the entire building. As part of this grant, a preliminary rehabilitation feasibility report was prepared for each portion of the project and is enclosed.

The District was awarded $2,443,300.00 for the design and construction of the Centennial Elementary School Original Classroom Seismic Retrofit.

The structure to be rehabilitated was constructed in the 1966 and is classified as a URM structure per ASCE 41. The building is single story with an approximate square footage around 20,400 SF. There have been no major additions since the original construction.

The District intends to use either the typical Design-Bid-Build procurement project delivery method or the CM/GC procurement project delivery method for this Project. Pre-Design/Schematic Design would begin immediately upon award and approval of the resulting design contract. Construction is anticipated to start in June 2026 with the Project completion expected by September 2026. The Project may be vacated during the construction period.

Scope of Work:

Perform a seismic evaluation of the building, per American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”) Standard 41-17 “Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings”. Develop rehabilitation and mitigation strategies per ASCE Standard 41-17 and the 2022 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (“OSSC”). It is the wish of the District to rehabilitate the building to meet the rehabilitation objective of “Immediate Occupancy”.

Based on research and evaluation efforts performed during the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant (“SRG”) in preparation for the project, the structural improvements listed in the enclosed evaluation report should be considered for the existing structure. Preliminary rehabilitation drawings (enclosed) were prepared to assist in defining the necessary scope of potential rehabilitation work for this structure.

The scope of work also includes the following services:

• Develop all construction documents for the project required for a CM/GC or hard bid construction delivery methods.

• Assist the District in the selection process for a CM/GC firm if CM/GC is selected as the method of delivery. The selection process will include the preparation and administration of the “Facts and Findings Report” and the “RFP” for the proposed alternative contracting method as outlined in the OAR 137-049-0600.

• Assist the District with the entitlement of the projects through the Authorities Having

Jurisdiction and the State Historical Preservation Office.

3 | P a g e

• Provide all construction administration services necessary for the implementation of the projects. Services include but are not limited to: Administering project logs, RFI administration, manages progress meetings, submittal review, change order review and verification of certified pay requests.

• Assist District Staff with SRG reporting requirements for the project as required.

Selection Process:

This Request for Proposals (“RFP”) and the selection process will be conducted pursuant to the terms of this RFP, the Oregon Attorney General's Model Rules for Consultant Selection, OAR Chapter 137, Division 48, and the District’s applicable Board Policies.

Compensation:

Compensation will be based on a total “not-to-exceed” amount for services and reimbursable expenses, with “not-to-exceed” maximums for the following individual phases of the design: Pre-Design/ Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents, Bidding, and Construction Administration services, including record documentation. Project Management services are requested in addition to the individual phases list above. The amount of compensation will be negotiated with the Apparent Successful Proposer.

Proposal Requirements:

The Proposer and all firms, subsidiaries and individuals providing professional services shall be currently licensed to practice in each of their respective areas of professional expertise in the State of Oregon, and shall comply with all State of Oregon Architect and Professional Engineer licensure requirements.

The submittal must include the following, in addition to what is required to comply with the Evaluation Criteria below:

• The firm’s name, address, phone number, and facsimile number;

• The name of the contact person within the firm and his/her email address;

• A list of the firm’s key personnel who would be assigned to this Project, by discipline;

• The name and Oregon registration number of the Project engineer who will serve as the Engineer of Record;

• The names of additional Project engineer(s) the firm proposes to provide services on this project, along with specific projects each of these persons has worked on in the past three years;

• Illustrations or photographs of at least three (3) relevant projects completed by the firm and involving the above named individuals; and

• The construction cost and building area (in gross square feet) of each reference project;

• Date of completion of each reference project;

• Location of each reference project;

• The function of each reference project;

4 | P a g e

• The construction delivery method used for each reference project;

• Whether the project was completed on schedule and within the budget or not;

• Responsibilities of those involved on each reference project who would provide services on these projects;

• Name, address and current telephone number of the owner representative most appropriate to discuss your firm’s performance on each reference project;

• A Gantt chart providing a proposed schedule for the Pre-Design/Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction Documents phases for each project.

If awarded the Contract, the Proposer must accept, as Contract performance obligations, the duty to actively pursue the plans as set forth in the Proposer’s response.

Evaluation Criteria:

Please indicate in writing the following information about your firm’s ability and desire to perform this work. Firms will be rated based upon the weight assigned to each item as noted in parentheses at the end of each statement below.

1) Firm Capabilities (10 points)

a) Describe your firm's background and experience, including company history, length of time in the industry, service area, staffing size and capabilities.

b) Describe your firm's design philosophy.

c) Describe your firm’s recent (past ten years) experience with design of renovations to public agency facilities (i.e. Fire Stations, Police Stations, Education facilities, etc.), and implementing the agency’s design criteria.

2) Project Team (15 points)

a) Provide your firm’s staffing plan and specify key personnel to be assigned to this project. Include an organizational chart, staff roles and a current resume of key personnel.

b) Describe what scope of services will be provided by proposing firm and whether sub-consultants are needed to complete this work. Identify the sub-consultants and the key personnel of the sub-consultants that you propose to use on this project.

3) Experience with the State of Oregon Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program (25 points)

a) Describe your experience completing seismic rehabilitation projects funded by the Business

Oregon SRG Program.

b) Provide record of performance on previously completed projects funded by the Business Oregon

SRG Program. Indicate whether the project met budget and schedule expectations.

c) Provide case studies on three (3) similar projects completed within the last 5 years. Include information about the size, construction type, building uses, construction delivery method and whether the project was completed on time and within budget.

4) Record of Performance & References (20 points)

a) Describe your firm's past record of performance on contracts with governmental agencies and private owners with respect to such factors as cost control, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, and contract administration.

5 | P a g e

b) Three (3) letters of reference must be provided, preferably for projects of similar type and size.

Provide contact information for each reference.

5) Project Approach (20 points)

a) Describe your approach to completing seismic rehabilitation projects and what special services, systems, or qualifications the firm has that would benefit the District in this project. Include familiarity with this project specifically and its specific requirements.

b) Provide examples of lessons learned and examples of how your firm has worked with Owners and Contractors to minimize surprises during seismic rehabilitation projects.

c) Proposed cost management & quality control techniques to be employed.

6) Project Location (10 points)

a) Describe your availability to and familiarity with the area in which the Project is located, including knowledge of design and construction techniques unique to the area.

b) Describe proposer’s plan to maximize and document local participation.

Evaluation Process:

The selection committee will score each submittal on the basis of responses to the evaluation categories.

Submittals will be rated based upon the weights assigned to each item as noted in the parentheses at the end of the categories.

Each category will be assigned a weight between 0 and 25. Each member of the evaluation committee will rank each firm in each category between 0 and 5, and multiply that number by the weight assigned to the category. The individual evaluation committee members will then total the weighted score from all of the criteria to obtain the total score. The result of this total score will be used to rank all respondents.

The RFP also requires reference information for your firm. The District will utilize this information and any other independently obtained references that can provide background on the firm. This information will not be separately scored, but results obtained from these and/or other reference checks will be utilized in evaluating and scoring in the other categories and in the final ranking.

The evaluation committee will meet and use the individual evaluation committee member rankings as a beginning of their discussion. The discussion of the responses will include firm strengths and weaknesses and the individual evaluation committee member scorings. The committee reserves the option to interview finalists as ranked from the results of the evaluation committee discussion and scoring.

Selection Procedure and Timetable:

The selection procedure described below will be used to evaluate the capabilities of interested firms to provide the professional services to the District for this Project.

August 27TH, 2025 Issue RFP

September 3RD, 2025 11:00AM Mandatory Site Visit/Pre-Proposal Conference

September 8TH, 2025 at 2:00 pm Questions and Solicitation Protests Deadline

6 | P a g e

September 10TH, 2025 Owner’s written response to questions

September 17TH, 2025 at 2:00 pm RFP response due

September 18TH, 2025 Optional Interviews with Selection Committee

September 18TH, 2025 Board Action to Approve Selection

September 22nd, 2025 Notice of Intent to Award

September 30TH, 2025 Selection Protest Deadline

October 2ND, 2025 District Finalized Contract

Submission:

Submit one original and three (3) copies of your written proposal, along with an electronic version on a USB flash drive, to be received by the closing date and time listed in this document to:

KIM ROTH, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT

Mailing Address: 38875 NW 1st, Ave, Scio, OR 97374

Physical Address: 38729 NW Cherry Street, Scio, OR 97374

Your response must be contained in a document not to exceed fifteen (15) single-sided pages including pictures, charts, graphs, tables and text the firm deems appropriate to be part of the review of the firm’s response. Resumes of key individuals proposed to be involved in this project are exempted from the 15-page limit and should be appended to the end of your response. No supplemental information to the 15-page Proposal will be allowed. Appended resumes of the proposed key individuals and client reference letters, along with a transmittal letter, table of contents, front and back covers, and blank section/numerical dividers, etc., will not be counted in the 15-page limit.

Information shall be presented in the same order as the above evaluation criteria. The response should be submitted in soft-bound (comb or spiral, spiral preferred – no three-ring binders) format. The basic text information of the response should be presented in standard business font size (minimum 10-point), and reasonable (prefer 1 (one) inch) margins. Your response must be signed by an officer of your firm with the authority to commit the firm.

The District may reject any submittal not in compliance with all prescribed public bidding procedures and requirements, and may cancel this solicitation or reject for good cause, all responses upon finding by The District that it is in the public interest to do so.

Please note that throughout this Project, the District will not accept responses or queries that require the District to pay the cost of production or delivery.

Telephone, facsimile, or electronically transmitted submittals will not be accepted. Responses received after the closing date and time will not be considered.

7 | P a g e

Questions:

All questions and contacts with the District regarding any information in this RFP must be addressed in written form to the Contract Administrator at the address, email or fax listed in this document.

Solicitation Protests:

Respondents may submit a written request for clarification or change or protest of particular solicitation provisions and specifications and contract terms and conditions (including comments on any specifications that a firm believes limits competition) to the Contract Administrator at the address, email or fax listed in this document. Such requests and protests must be received no later than 2:00 pm, September 8th, 2025. Such requests or protests must state the reasons for the request or protest and any proposed changes to the solicitation provisions and specifications and contract terms and conditions.

Failure to file a protest by this time will be deemed a waiver of any claim by a respondent. The District will issue a written disposition of each such protest no less than three (3) business days before proposals are due. If the District upholds the protest, in whole or in part, the District may, in its sole discretion, issue an addendum reflecting its disposition or take other appropriate action.

Change or Modification:

Any change or modification to the specifications or the procurement process will be in the form of an addendum to the RFP and will be made available to all firms via email from the Contract Administrator.

No information received in any manner different than as described herein will serve to change the RFP in any way, regardless of the source of the information. Any request for clarification or change or protest of anything contained in an addendum must be received by the date and time stated in the addendum, or they will not be considered.

Selection Protests:

Any respondent to this RFP who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection of a competing respondent may submit a written protest of the selection to the Contract Administrator at the following address within seven days after notification of that selection:

KIM ROTH, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT

Mailing Address: 38875 NW 1st, Ave, Scio, OR 97374

Physical Address: 38729 NW Cherry Street, Scio, OR 97374

Any such protests received by the Contract Administrator after the seven days will not be considered.

The protest must state clearly the basis (or bases) for the protest and any legal authority in support thereof. At the request of the protester, a hearing will be conducted before District staff. At such hearing, the protester and other interested parties will have the opportunity to appear and make an oral presentation of the basis for protest. The Director of Business Services will either uphold or deny the protest. If the protest is denied, the District will proceed to award the Contract as planned. The selection decision notification will be made by the Contract Administrator via email.

8 | P a g e

Proprietary Information:

The District will retain this RFP and one copy of each original response received, together with copies of all documents pertaining to the award of a contract. These documents will be made part of a file or record, which will be open to public inspection after responder selection and award is announced. If a response contains any information that is considered a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2), mark each sheet with the following legend: “This data constitutes a trade secret under ORS 192.501(2), and must not be disclosed except in accordance with the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS Chapter 192.”

The Oregon Public Records Law exempts from disclosure only bone fide trade secrets, and the exception from disclosure applies only “unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance”. Therefore, non-disclosure of documents or any portion of a document submitted as part of a response may depend upon official or judicial determination made pursuant to the Public Records Law.

In order to facilitate public inspection of the non-confidential portion of the response, material designated as confidential must accompany the response, but must be readily separable from it. Prices, makes, model or catalog numbers of items offered, scheduled delivery dates, and terms of payment will be publicly available regardless of any designation to the contrary. Any response marked as a trade secret in its entirety will be considered non-responsive and will be rejected.

Project Contract:

The District is seeking to award a contract to an engineering firm for pre-design / schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding, and construction phases. Construction Management services are requested in addition to the individual phases list above. The successful proposer is required to provide and execute a contract satisfactory to the District.

Certification of Compliance with Tax Laws:

By submission of your proposal, the signatory (a duly authorized representative of the submitting firm) must certify that the firm is not, to the best of their knowledge, in violation of any Oregon tax law. For purpose of this certification, “Oregon Tax Laws” means a state tax imposed by ORS 320.005 to 320.150 and 403.200 to 403.250, ORS Chapters 118, 314, 316, 317, 318, 321 and 323; the elderly rental assistance program under ORS 310.630 to 310.706; and local taxes administered by the Oregon Department of Revenue under ORS 305.620.

Insurance Provisions:

During the term of the resulting contract, the successful proposer will be required to maintain in full force, at its own expense, from insurance companies authorized to transact business of insurance in the state of Oregon, each insurance coverage/policy as set forth in the contract.

ESB/MBE/WBE:

The District is committed to increasing opportunities for Emerging Small Businesses and Minority and Women Owned Businesses, and the District strongly encourages its consultants to utilize these businesses in providing services and materials for the District contracts and projects.

9 | P a g e

Additional Requirements:

Pursuant to OAR 580-061, by submitting a proposal, the proposer certifies that the proposer has not discriminated against Minority, Women or Emerging Small Business Enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts.

Pursuant to OAR 580-061-0040, Proposers are hereby notified that policies applicable to consultants and contractors have been adopted that prohibit sexual harassment and that proposers and their employees are required to adhere to the District’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment in their interactions.

Exhibits:

Exhibit A - Structural Seismic Evaluation Report (including Preliminary Rehabilitation Drawings) prepared by ZCS, Inc – Centennial Elementary School Seismic Rehabilitation

End of RFP www.zcsea.com

Seismic Evalua� on Report For:

CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

38875 NW 1st Ave, Scio, OR 97374

Scio School District

Prepared By:

ZCS Engineering & Architecture

Ma! hew R. Smith, PE, SE, Principal

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, OR 97045

503.659.2205 | Ma! S@zcsea.com marksmith Text Box Exhibit A

Scio School District December 2024

Centennial Elementary School Seismic Evaluation Project No: P-2961-24

Project Summary Information

Building

Part

Part Name

Included in

Retrofit

Year Built

Type***

Nonstructural

Retrofits

Included in

Scope Y/N***

Previous Seismic

Retrofit Y/N***

(Year if Yes)

A Original

Classroom

Wing

Y 1966 URM Y N

B Gym/Cafeteria N 2002

C Classrooms N Unknown

*** Entries required ONLY for building parts included in proposed seismic retrofit. If building part was previously or is currently being retrofit, please list the building part’s Risk Category and retrofit design

Performance Objective, if known.

Nonstructural deficiencies posing life safety risk MUST be included in the scope of work and budget.

Seismic fragility inputs for existing buildings with previous seismic retrofits MUST be adjusted to reflect previous seismic retrofit measures completed for a building part.

Total Retrofit Cost $2,443,300

Retrofit Square Feet 20,400

Retrofit Cost per

Square Foot

$119.77

Is the campus within a tsunami, FEMA flood zone, landslide/slope instability, liquefaction potential or other high hazard area? If so, provide documentation

(e.g. the Oregon Statewide Hazards Viewer by DOGAMI). ** Projects within the code defined Tsunami Design Zone require consultation with DOGAMI prior to application submittal. Applicant shall include such documentation with the application.

Yes, per DOGAMI.

Seismic hazards ruled out per Geotech

Report. Yes, per FEMA

Flood hazard. Flood hazard ruled out per surveying report.

Engineering Report Checklist

☒ Engineering Report Cover Page

☒ Project Summary Page Page 1

☒ Building Parts Identification Page 5

☒ Statement of the Performance Objective Page 6

Summary of Deficiencies

☒ Structural Seismic Deficiencies Page 10

☒ Nonstructural Seismic Deficiencies Page 11

Summary of Mitigation/Retrofit

☒ Structural Mitigation/Retrofit Page 10

☒ Nonstructural Mitigation/Retrofit Page 11

Summary Construction Cost Estimate

☒ Direct Cost Page 13

☒ Indirect Soft Cost Page 13

☒ Certification Statement by Engineer Page 14

ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Checklist

☒ Basic Configuration Checklist Appendix B

☒ Building System Structural Checklist Appendix B

☒ Nonstructural Checklist Appendix B

☒ Retrofit Drawings & Sketches Appendix C

☒ DOGAMI or Geotechnical Report Appendix D

☒ Itemized Construction Cost Estimate Appendix E

☒ Rapid Visual Screening Appendix F

1.0 Project Introduction

Scio School District is located in Scio, Oregon in Linn County. The District operates five schools located within the community including the property of interest, Centennial Elementary School. The District has retained ZCS Engineering and Architecture (ZCS) to perform a seismic evaluation of Centennial

Elementary School that provides the District with an objective, comprehensive analysis of the condition of the building’s seismic resisting systems. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the seismic lateral resisting system deficiencies when compared to buildings designed using modern building codes.

This evaluation was performed in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers “Seismic

Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings ASCE/SEI 41-17”.

SEISMIC EVALUATION SNAPSHOT

Street Address 38875 N.W. First Ave. Scio, OR 97374

Evaluation Standard ASCE 41-17 (Tier 1 Analysis)

Building’s Risk Category IV

Target Building Performance Level Immediate Occupancy for BSE-1E and Life Safety for BSE-2E

Target Non-Structural Performance Level Position Retention for BSE-1E and Hazards

Reduced for BSE-2E

ASCE 41 Building Type URM

FEMA P-154 Seismicity Region (Table 2-2) High

ASCE 41-17 Level of Seismicity (Table 2-4) High

Cost Estimate $2,443,300

Cost/Square Foot $119.77

2.0 Building Description

The building being considered in this report is the Original Classroom Wing. ZCS has reviewed the building and its construction to classify its lateral system as identified in ASCE 41-17. This lateral system will be used throughout this evaluation. The lateral system present consists of URM. This determination was made after observing the subject facility and reviewing the available existing drawings. Descriptions of this structure type is listed below and specifically identify the lateral load resisting system. In addition to the lateral system present, ZCS has summarized the gravity load carrying systems of the subject facility including later in this section.

Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls URM – This building was initially reviewed as an RM1 construction type due to the presence of some reinforcing present in the wall construction. Through the RM1 Tier 1 evaluation it was determined that the walls are under reinforced. Accordingly, this building is classified as a URM. These buildings have a perimeter bearing walls that consist of unreinforced clay brick, stone, or concrete masonry. Interior bearing walls, where present, also consist of unreinforced clay brick, stone, or concrete masonry. In older construction, floor and roof framing consists of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing supported by wood joists, which, in turn, are supported on posts and timbers. In more recent construction, floors consist of structural panel or plywood sheathing rather than lumber sheathing. The diaphragms are flexible relative to the walls. Where they exist, ties between the walls and the diaphragms consist of anchors or bent steel plates embedded in the mortar joints and attached to framing. The foundation system may consist of a variety of elements.

Below is a figure identifying the building parts on campus and listing applicable information. See below for descriptions of building parts included in the evaluation and applicable building types as noted above.

Figure 1

Centennial Elementary School Key Plan **Photographs of the building parts included in this report are located in Appendix A.

Building Part A Construction:

• ASCE 41-17 Building Type(s):

o URM

• Roof Structure:

o Blocked plywood roof diaphragm supported by open web wood joists over classrooms o Straight sheathing diaphragm supported by wood beams over covered walkways

• Walls:

o Under-reinforced CMU walls

• Foundation:

o Slab-on-grade with conventional strip footings

BUILDING PARTS

A

Construction Year: 1966

Building Name: Original

Classroom Wing

ASCE 41-17 Building Type: URM

In Scope?: Yes

B

Construction Year: 2002

Building Name: Gymnasium /

Cafeteria

ASCE 41-17 Building Type: S3

In Scope?: No

C

Construction Year: Unknown

Building Name: Classrooms

ASCE 41-17 Building Type: W2

In Scope?: No

3.0 Seismic Evaluation Methodology

The subject structure was evaluated using information gathered from site observations, available historic construction documents, and interviews with District staff. This information was then utilized to perform a structural evaluation as outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineer’s “Seismic Evaluation and

Retrofit of Existing Buildings – ASCE 41-17” (ASCE 41-17). ASCE 41-17 is referenced as the standard for seismic evaluations of existing buildings by the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) which is referenced by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC). Further, ASCE 41-17 is the evaluation tool required by the Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program for grant applications.

ASCE 41-17 provides several levels of evaluation (Tiers 1-3) depending on the level of evaluation and/or retrofit being performed. The Tier 1 evaluation is a quick checklist selected based on the type of construction and the performance objective of the building and is the baseline tool for preliminary seismic evaluations. In the case of this evaluation, a Tier 1 was performed to identify the likely structural deficiencies requiring retrofit to meet the performance objective stated below.

The OSSC classifies buildings into risk categories based on the type of building and occupancy type. The building’s risk category informs the required performance objective post retrofit. Risk categories I and II cover low risk structures. Risk category III includes school buildings that are not required to be used as emergency shelters and are relatively low occupancy. Risk category IV includes emergency service buildings and school buildings that are required to be designed as emergency shelters (high occupancy spaces). Figure 2, below, identifies the performance objective for each risk category.

The primary objective of the adjusting performance objectives relative to risk category is to ensure that the subject building is capable of performing in the necessary manner following a seismic event. In the case of a risk category III building, the intention is to ensure that the building is adequately stable following an earthquake to provide egress for occupants out of the building. Prior to reoccupation, the building would need evaluated and significant structural damage preventing reoccupation may be present. For risk category IV structures, the intent is that the building can be inspected then immediately reoccupied following a seismic event to function in its intended role as an emergency service building or as a high occupancy space capable of acting as an emergency structure.

In accordance with the table below, this section A of this building is categorized as a risk category IV structure and was evaluated to meet the Life Safety structural performance and Hazards Reduced nonstructural performance level for BSE-2E loading and the Immediate Occupancy structural performance and Position Retention nonstructural performance level for BSE-1E loading.

Figure 2

Building Performance Objectives

Source: Table 2-2, ASCE 41-17: American Society of Civil Engineers – Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings

4.0 Seismicity

Seismic design is based on site specific parameters that relate to the location of the building relative to faults and the soil that supports the building. The United States Geologic Survey has developed seismic design data that is utilized to perform the calculations specified in ASCE 41-17. The table below summarizes the factors appropriate for computing the seismic lateral loads for the design earthquake specified in ASCE 41-17.

SITE SPECIFIC SEISMICITY

ASCE 7-16 Site Soil Classification D

FEMA P-154 Seismicity Region (Table 2-2) High

ASCE 41-17 Level of Seismicity (Table 2-4) High

BSE-1E:

Sxs 0.265

Sx1 0.161

Soil Condition Amplification Factors (Fa, Fv) Fa = 1.6 | Fv = 2.4

BSE-2E:

Sxs 0.706

Sx1 0.536

Soil Condition Amplification Factors (Fa, Fv) Fa = 1.395 | Fv = 2.086

Source: SEAOC and OSHPD Seismic Design Maps, https://seismicmaps.org/

5.0 Site Specific Hazards

Site specific hazards were assessed as part of our engineering evaluation. The hazards evaluated in our analysis included liquefaction, slope failure/landslide, surface fault rupture, and tsunami potential. These potential hazards were evaluated using ASCE 41-17 guidelines, as well as information provided by the online Oregon HazVu: Statewide Geohazards Viewer, maintained by the Department of Geology and

Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Tsunami risk was evaluated using the ASCE Tsunami Hazard Tool. Results from the HazVu analysis are included in Appendix D along with a the geotechnical report. Unless noted below, the hazards listed above are not present at the site.

Liquefaction

This project is located within a liquefaction hazard area as identified by the DOGAMI Oregon HazVu. To ensure that an acceptable level of due diligence was performed during the application phase of the project we located an existing geotechnical report available for the nearby Scio Middle School to gather available information with respect to the severity of the hazard. The provided geotechnical report was generated for Scio Middle School. Per the geotechnical report, attached in Appendix D, liquefaction is likely a low risk for the site. Considering this information it is our opinion that mitigation is not required to address the risk and is not included in the retrofit scheme.

FEMA Flood Zone

This project is located within a flood hazard area per FEMA Flood Maps. To ensure that an acceptable level of due diligence was performed during the application phase of the project we hired a local surveyor to verify finish floor elevations. Per this survey data, attached in Appendix D, The building parts are located above the base flood elevation and not a risk of flooding

6.0 Deficiencies and Repairs

The table below summarizes both the structural and nonstructural deficiencies noted in the Tier 1 evaluation and states both the proposed retrofit methodology and the plan key note that corresponds to the scope items in the preliminary plans and the cost estimate. See Appendix B for complete Tier 1 check sheets. Drawings illustrating the proposed retrofit measures are attached in Appendix C.

Tier 1

Deficiency

Description

Deficiency Statement Repair Statement

Plan

Key

Note

IO BASIC CHECKLIST

LOAD PATH The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation.

Provide a complete, well-defined load path by installing new elements and connections as needed to transfer inertial forces from all elements of the building to the foundation.

A. Light steel columns and spread footing for columns

B. Blocking and strapping line

S1

URM: IO CHECKLIST

SHEAR STRESS

CHECK

The shear stress in the unreinforced masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section

4.4.3.3, is greater than 30lb/in.2 for clay units and 70lb/in.2 for concrete units.

Provide new vertical lateral resisting elements.

New CMU shear walls

S2

WALL

ANCHORAGE

Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support are not anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections do not have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.

Install new out-of-plane kickers to resolve hinge at top of CMU wall

S3

TRANSFER TO

SHEAR WALLS

Diaphragms are not connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls, or the connections are not able to develop the shear strength of the walls or diaphragms.

Install new hardware for transfer of seismic forces from diaphragm to shear walls.

S4

CROSS TIES There are not continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords.

Provide new continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords.

S5

STIFFNESS OF

WALL ANCHORS

Anchors of concrete or masonry walls to wood structural elements are not installed taut or are not stiff enough to limit the relative movement between the wall and the diaphragm to no greater than 1/8 in. (3 mm) before engagement of the anchors.

Install new out-of-plane anchorage.

S6

BEAM, GIRDER,

AND TRUSS

SUPPORTS

Beams, girders, and trusses supported by unreinforced masonry walls or pilasters do not have independent secondary columns for support of vertical loads.

Install new secondary support for vertical load carrying framing elements.

S7

NONSTRUCTURAL CHECKLIST

LIGHT

PARTITIONS

SUPPORTED BY

CEILINGS

The tops of gypsum board partitions are laterally supported by an integrated ceiling system.

Independently brace the tops of gypsum board partition.

N1

TOPS The tops of ceiling-high framed or panelized partitions do not have lateral bracing to the structure at a spacing equal to or less than 6 ft.

Independently brace the tops of ceiling-high framed or panelized partitions.

N2

INTEGRATED

CEILINGS

Integrated suspended ceilings with continuous areas greater than 144 ft2 and ceilings of smaller areas that are not surrounded by restraining partitions are not laterally restrained at a spacing less than 12ft with members attached to the structure above. Each restraint location does not have a minimum of four diagonal wires and compression struts, nor diagonal members capable of resisting compression.

Install seismic bracing for integrated suspended ceilings.

N3

EDGE

CLEARANCE

The free edges of integrated suspended ceilings with continuous areas greater than 144ft.2 does not have clearances from the enclosing wall or partition of at least the following: in Moderate

Seismicity, 1/2 in.; in High Seismicity, 3/4 in.

Install free edge clearance for integrated suspended ceilings.

N4

TALL NARROW

CONTENTS

Contents more than 6 ft high with a height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio greater than 3-to-1 are not anchored to the structure or to each other.

Anchor contents to the structure.

N5

FALL-PRONE

CONTENTS

Equipment, stored items, or other contents weighing more than 20lb whose center of mass is more than 4 ft above the adjacent floor level are not braced or otherwise restrained.

Brace equipment to structure. N6

FLEXIBLE

COUPLINGS

Fluid and gas piping does not have flexible couplings.

Install flexible couplings for fluid and gas piping.

N7

FLUID AND GAS

PIPING

Fluid and gas piping is not anchored or braced to the structure to limit spills or leaks.

Anchor and brace fluid and gas piping to the structure.

N8

In addition to the structural and nonstructural deficiencies noted above, the gravity load resisting system was reviewed to identify obvious insufficient gravity components. Insufficient gravity elements can cause failure during seismic events. These gravity deficiencies are based on visual observations of the existing structural elements. No formal structural analysis was performed during this evaluation of the gravity resisting element.

The gravity resisting system was found to be in good general condition based on the visual observations performed. No known gravity deficiencies were observed.

Based upon ZCS’s previous experience and discussions with site personnel the building contains hazardous materials. These materials will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as they are encountered during the project.

7.0 Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate

The attached engineer’s opinion of probable cost has been developed by ZCS. ZCS has a successful record of completing seismic rehabilitation projects within the State of Oregon. The prices provided in the attached cost estimate have been developed using the extensive list of past projects as a baseline for this project. These prices are based on Oregon BOLI wage rates. The cost estimate is broken down into multiple line items associated with each major task (general conditions, foundation, structural steel, MEP, etc) associated with the rehabilitation. Additional line items are included for design associated permit costs, and owner construction management. A complete breakdown of the cost estimate can be found in Appendix E.

Special Notes

• This building is an unreinforced masonry structure. Accordingly, it is acknowledged that a Tier 3 evaluation is required prior to the retrofit design. The consultant costs for the Tier 3 evaluation have been included in the cost estimate as a separate line item.

DIRECT COST

Construction $1,756,300

Engineering $342,000

Construction Management $58,100

Relocation $25,300

Construction Contingency $252,600

TOTALS AND SUMMARY

Total Cost Estimate $2,443,300

Match Funds $0

Total Amount Requested from SRGP $2,443,300

Total Area 20,400

Cost/Square Foot $119.77

8.0 Conclusion and Certification Statement

The findings described in this report have been limited to the lateral force-resisting structural system and general assessment of the gravity force-resisting elements. Based on our visual observations, we find the structure to be in relatively good condition and generally safe for occupancy. No significant damage to the existing structural system was discovered.

Given the current condition of the structure, the current code section on existing buildings does not mandate that upgrades are required unless the building is scheduled for repairs, alterations, additions, or change in occupancy. To clarify, upgrades outlined in this report are strictly at the discretion of the

District.

Please contact our office if you would like to discuss our findings. Please review the attached schematic drawings that can be used to refine a scope and budget.

Certification Statement

ZCS Engineering & Architecture’s professional staff has reviewed the subject building and the deficiencies noted in the Tier 1 evaluation, developed seismic retrofit solutions to rectify the deficiencies, and developed the engineering cost estimate. The project cost estimate was developed by

ZCS based on unit costs from our extensive list of past seismic retrofit projects as a baseline. We certify to the best of our knowledge, based on known and readily identifiable existing conditions, that all the seismic deficiencies present in the building are included in the retrofit scope of work and that all the retrofit’s scope of work elements are included in the cost estimate.

Matthew R. Smith, PE, SE

Appendix A:

Figures

Figure 1: Exterior Elevation

Figure 2: Exterior Elevation

Figure 3: Exterior Elevation

Figure 4: Exterior Elevation

Figure 5: Exterior Elevation

Figure 6: Interior Elevation

Appendix B:

Tier 1 Check Sheets

Appendix C:

Preliminary Seismic Retrofit

Drawings

G0.0

COVER SHEET

PROJECT

LOCATION

CENTENNIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SEISMIC RETROFIT

PRELIMINARY DESIGN

38875 N.W. FIRST AVENUE

SCIO, OR 97374

STRUCTURAL REPAIRS:

S1. PROVIDE A COMPLETE, WELL-DEFINED LOAD PATH BY

INSTALLING NEW ELEMENTS AND CONNECTIONS AS

NEEDED TO TRANSFER INERTIAL FORCES FROM ALL

ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING TO THE FOUNDATION.

A. LIGHT STEEL COLUMNS & SPREAD FOOTINGS

FOR COLUMNS.

B. BLOCKING & STRAPPING LINE.

S2. PROVIDE NEW VERTICAL LATERAL RESISTING

ELEMENTS.

· NEW CMU SHEAR WALLS.

S3. INSTALL NEW OUT-OF-PLANE KICKERS TO RESOLVE

HINGE AT TOP OF CMU WALL.

S4. INSTALL NEW HARDWARE FOR TRANSFER OF

SEISMIC FORCES FROM DIAPHRAGM TO SHEAR

WALLS.

S5. PROVIDE NEW CONTINUOUS CROSS TIES BETWEEN

DIAPHRAGM CHORDS.

S6. INSTALL NEW OUT-OF-PLANE ANCHORAGE.

S7. INSTALL LIGHT STEEL COLUMNS & SPREAD FOOTINGS

FOR COLUMNS.

NON-STRUCTURAL REPAIRS:

N1. INDEPENDENTLY BRACE THE TOPS OF GYPSUM

BOARD PARTITION.

N2. INDEPENDENTLY BRACE THE TOPS OF CEILING-HIGH

FRAMED OR PANELIZED PARTITIONS.

N3. INSTALL SEISMIC BRACING FOR INTEGRATED

SUSPENDED CEILINGS.

N4. INSTALL FREE EDGE CLEARANCE FOR INTEGRATED

SUSPENDED CEILINGS.

N5. ANCHOR CONTENTS TO THE STRUCTURE.

N6. BRACE EQUIPMENT TO STRUCTURE.

N7. INSTALL FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS FOR FLUID AND GAS

PIPING.

N8. ANCHOR AND BRACE FLUID AND GAS PIPING TO THE

STRUCTURE.

REPAIR KEYNOTES

TRUE/PROJECT

NORTH

*SITE PLAN NOT

TO SCALE

BUILDING KEY PLAN

VICINITY MAP

G0.0 COVER SHEET

S1.1 AREA A FOUNDATION PLAN

S1.2 AREA A ROOF FRAMING PLAN

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DEC. 2024

KNT

PWR

P-2961-24

DATE:

SCIO SCHOOL DISTRICT

38875 N.W. FIRST AVENUE

SCIO, OREGON 97374

DESCRIPTION

CENTENNIAL

ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL SEISMIC

RETROFIT

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

AREA B:

GYMNASIUM / CAFETERIA

±17,600 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AREA A:

ORIGINAL CLASSROOM WING

±20,400 S.F.

IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY

URM

AREA C:

CLASSROOMS

UNKNOWN

±1,900 S.F.

NOT IN SCOPE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXPIRES: 06-30-26

AutoCAD SHX Text 70888

AutoCAD SHX Text

OREGON

AREA A FOUNDATION PLAN

3/32"=1'-0"

S1.1

CAMPUS KEY

NTS

S1.1

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF SCOPE

OF WORK

S7 TYP.

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF

SCOPE OF WORK

S2 S2

AREA A

AREA C

AREA B

S1A

S1A

S1.1

AREA A ROOF

FRAMING PLAN

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DEC. 2024

KNT

PWR

P-2961-24

DATE:

SCIO SCHOOL DISTRICT

38875 N.W. FIRST AVENUE

SCIO, OREGON 97374

DESCRIPTION

CENTENNIAL

ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL SEISMIC

RETROFIT

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UBOYS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UBOYS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UBOYS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UGIRLS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UGIRLS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UGIRLS

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UOFFICE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UOFFICE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UOFFICE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UOFFICE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UJAN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UUTIL.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UWAITING

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UNURSE

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%USTOR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%USTOR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%USTOR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%ULIBRARY

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%USTAFF

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UMEN

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UWOMEN

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%USTOR.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UJAN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UJAN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UJAN.

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UUNISEX

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UHALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UUTIL.

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXPIRES: 06-30-26

AutoCAD SHX Text 70888

AREA A ROOF FRAMING PLAN

3/32"=1'-0"

S1.2

CAMPUS KEY

NTS

S1.2

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF SCOPE

OF WORK

(E) SEISMIC JOINT

TO REMAIN

S1B

HATCH INDICATES

AREA OUT OF

SCOPE OF WORKS3, S6

S5 S5

S4

S1B

S3, S6

S5

S4

S4

S1B

S1B

S5

S3, S6 S5

S4

S5

S5 S4

S5

S4 S4

S3, S6

S1A

S1B

S1A

S4

AREA A

AREA C

AREA B

S7 TYP.

S1.2

AREA A ROOF

FRAMING PLAN

PROJECT NO:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

DATE:

O N

E

IN

C H

E Q

U

AL

S

FU

LL

S

C

AL

E

524 Main Street, Suite 2, Oregon City, Oregon 97045 | 503-659-2205

PR

EL

IM

IN

AR

Y

D

ES

IG

N

DEC. 2024

KNT

PWR

P-2961-24

DATE:

SCIO SCHOOL DISTRICT

38875 N.W. FIRST AVENUE

SCIO, OREGON 97374

DESCRIPTION

CENTENNIAL

ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL SEISMIC

RETROFIT

-P

RELIM

IN

ARY-

NOT FOR C

ONSTRUCTIO

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UCLASSROOM

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UUNISEX

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UHALL

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%UUTIL.

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXPIRES: 06-30-26

AutoCAD SHX Text 70888

Appendix D:

Geotechnical Information

���� !"#!$%&!'()*!+,-.*!/0!1���2*!3+'

45&-&67)*!4.89-&67):!22;�<21$�*!=$>>;� >�>�$

?5&) ������������������@�

?)%-98!A.7)!0)B)C)8,)!?.,6D)8& E

FGH�I�J

A6%&.D!KC.L5L-M-&N

+-&)!AM5%% ��I���O�PQ��R

����������H�@S

TNU) ?)%,C-U&-.8 V5M6)

W�X��Y�Z�[�Q \

GI�]

�������Q����������R�����S ��J�@

� �������Q����������R�����S ��@J�

����I��Y�O��Y��������Q����������R�����S ��_JJ

̂� ����I��Y�O��Y��������Q����������R�����S ��J�J

�̀ ��������Q�O��������O������R�����S �����

[̀ ��������Q�O��������O������R�����S ����_

��P� ��a�Y���������P��O������X��Y�R�����S ��_��

��� ���OO��������O����b�R�����S ��_J_

���� ���bI�������Y���X��Y�R�����S ��J�@

��Y Y���������������X��Y�R�����S ���

��P� ��a�Y���������P��O������X��Y�R�����S ��H@�

��� ���OO��������O����b�R�����S ��_c�

���� ���bI�������Y���X��Y�R�����S ��@J�

��Y Y���������������X��Y�R�����S ��c

TNU) ?)%,C-U&-.8 V5M6)

W�X��Y�Z�[�Q \

GI�]

����I��Y�O��Y��������Q����������R�����S ���_�

̂� ����I��Y�O��Y��������Q����������R�����S ��HJ_

-�.��/�0�1�2 3 45�4

�������2����������6�����7 ����8

� �������2����������6�����7 ����9

����5��/�;��/��������2����������6�����7 ��9�8

:� ����5��/�;��/��������2����������6�����7 ���<8

;� ��������2�;��������;������6�����7 ��<��

;1 ��������2�;��������;������6�����7 ���=8

-�.��/�0�1�2 3 45�4

�������2����������6�����7 ���88

� �������2����������6�����7 ���89

����5��/�;��/��������2����������6�����7 ���8�

:� ����5��/�;��/��������2����������6�����7 ���8�

>� ��������2�;��������;������6�����7 ��8

>1 ��������2�;��������;������6�����7 ��?

-�.��/�0�1�2 @0�����

@5

AB50 0���5�����/�����������������/���������/� �8

�C

D0EC

4F

G��2��������;�����������������/�����������B��������B�2��1�/����B�����������

4EHD��H

- ����/����������������/�������BA��������A��������������B�2��I���

2��B�2��I�;����������A���I��@����������2���������/�����������B����2�����������A2/�����B��A��/������2��/�A����;�����I������;������2�������������A�������������J���������

��/�1���;���������;��������A���I���A���B�2��I���/����2���B�2��I�BI��������������������2������/����;�������2���

4EHD���H

- ��/�����������/����������A����;�����

��;������������2����������A�/�KA/�������;��A����������������;�������2�����1�����J�����������/�L���2�/����������;��2/��;�������������������AB����A���;������

����/��/��;��������MA���/��;��A������;�������2��������������������/����2I�����������A2����;�������������/�������1�/�/�BI��������B�������������;�������;���������;���

�������B��������A����22�2��B�2��I���������;�����A���A���������;������A��A���;��������B�����/�����������2I������1�2�BI�������1�������BA�2/������/��B�/������������B2�

;���BA�2/������/�������1�2���/����������������;�������BA�2/���������/�����B�/�BI�2����A/��2�����A/��2�������������������������A2����;��������B�����

N at io na l F lo od H az ar d La ye r F

IR

M et te

1, 1, 2, F ee t

Ü

S

EE

F

IS

R

EP

O R T

FO

R D

ET

A

IL

ED

L

EG

EN

D A N D

IN

D

EX

M A P F O R F

IR

M P A N

EL

L

AY

O U T

S P

EC

IA

L

FL

O O D

H A

ZA

R D A R

EA

S

W ith ou t B as e Fl oo d El ev at io n (B

FE

Zo ne A , V , A

W ith

B

FE

o r D ep th Zo ne A E, A O , A

H , V

E, A R

R eg ul at or y Fl oo dw ay

.2 A nn ua l C ha nc e Fl oo d H az ar d, A re as of a nn ua l c ha nc e flo od w ith a ve ra ge de pt h le ss t ha n on e fo ot o r w ith d ra in ag e ar ea s of le ss t ha n on e sq ua re m ile Zo ne X

Fu tu re C on di tio ns A nn ua l

C ha nc e Fl oo d H az ar d

Zo ne

X

A re a w ith

R ed uc ed

F lo od

R is k du e to

Le ve e.

S ee

N ot es .Z on e X

A re a w ith

F lo od

R is k du e to L ev ee

Zo ne

D

N O S C R

EE

N A re a of M in im al F lo od

H…