HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-385 � 0o .
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4 TO WORK ORDER NUMBER 2
Thist�tn_endment Number 4 to Work Order Number 2 ("amendment") is entered into as of the day
of nJp�( , 2008, ("effective Date") pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for
Professional Services entered into as of April 6, 2004, and amended effective April 7, 2007 (as so
amended, the "Agreement"), by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, (COUNTY), and Post, Buckley, Schuh, & Jernigan, (PBS&J), the CONSULTANT.
1 . The County has plected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth in existing Work
Order Number , Effective Date 1 t 4S p
2 . The County and the Consultant desire to amend this Work Order as set forth on Exhibit 1 attached to
this Amendment and made a part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed by
the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit 1 and within the timeframe more particularly set
forth in Exhibit 1 , all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement.
3 . From and after the Effective Date of this Amendment, the above-referenced Work Order is amended as
set forth in this Amendment. Pursuant to paragraph 1 .4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work
Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to
be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Work Order as of the
date first written above .
CONSULTANT : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `•e
PBS&J OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By : W,
y :
Kim S . ee er PE�
Wesley S . Davis , irmon, ,
Title : Project Manager
BCC Approved Date: 1 9 ,) p °
Date : // '� U dAttest: JK B o , lerk of Court
By :
e uty Clerk
Approved :
By :
J p A . B 'rd, County Administrator
Ap as to orm & Legal $ufficiency :
By :
arian E . FelAssistant Coun ttorney
CAF/bvv/X:\Envuonmentel\INDIAN RNER_CO\IRC_W_WW2004\W002_CUP-Welts\ol Proposals\IA_Proposals\FourthRARAttachment 1 110408.v3.doc
Last Revised 11/4/2008 10:22 AM
1
EXHIBIT 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NUMBER 4
RESPONSE PREPARATION
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On July 8, 2008 , the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) requested additional
information in support of the County' s CUP. SJRWMD provided seven additional questions with regards
to the CUP application. As a follow-up to that letter, the County and PBS&J met with SJRWMD on
August 13 , 2008 to review the necessary responses to mitigate the potential of a fifth RAI. (PBS&J
prepared responses to questions 1 through 5 under the existing budget prior to the meeting with
SJRWMD .)
SJRWMD felt that a more refined model from the County would be in the County ' s best interest.
SJRWMD acknowledged the limited amount of information available in the area. They believed that the
refinements requested would provide good information toward the CUP permit .
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
PBS&J is providing a brief description of what SJRWMD, the County and PBS&J agreed to do with
regards to the RAI, as well as a basic budget for accomplishing those tasks . Please note that the responses
to questions 1 through 5 are essentially complete and not included in this request.
Task 1 - Basic Question 6 and 7 Responses
The basic modeling revisions associated with question 6 and 7 include converting the modeled drain cells
to a three-canal configuration, adjusting the factors as outlined in the request from SJRWMD, removing
the previous permitted withdrawals and using the withdrawals for other permit holders using the
SJRWMD-provide file and adjusting the initial chloride concentration . Slight map revisions to reflect the
SJRWMD desired format is included in this task.
This scope of services includes preparation of a response to request for additional information to be
submitted by Indian River County ,
Task 2- Calibration
Following completion of District requested changes to the model, the revised groundwater model will be
calibrated against Year 2006 Potentiometric Surface Maps . The effort needed to calibrate the model is
uncertain due to the unknown impacts of District mandated changes . Due to these uncertainties, PBS&J
will complete this task on a time and materials basis within a not to exceed budget of $20,000 . PBS&J
will invoice the County only for the actual efforts needed to calibrate the model .
Compensation
The compensation for the work described above is as follows :
Task 1 : Basic Question 6 and 7 Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 16, 000
Task 2 : Calibration . . , . . . . " Ill . , . . . . I . . . . 000 . . . . . . V . P * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .up to $20, 000
The total fee assumed to respond to the third RAI is $36,000 .
XAEmvonmentsl\INDIAN_RIVER_CO\IRC_W_WW2004\WO02_CUP-Wells\01 Proposals\] A Proposels\FourthRAMttachment 1110408.v3.doc
Last Revised 11/4/2008 1022 AM
2
Schedule
PBS&J can complete the work by the response to RAI submittal deadline of February 9, 2009 ,
X:\Envim=e"T% DL4N_RIVER_COURC_W_WW2004\WO02_CUP-Wells\01 Proposals\l A_PropoWs\PourthRAMttachment 1 110408.v3.doe
Last Revised 11/4/2008 10:22 AM
3
PBS&I
V
An employee-owned company
September 16, 2008
Mr. Erik Olson
Indian River County Utilities
1840 25" Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE : Fourth Request for Additional Information (RAI)
Indian River County- Hobart Park and Oslo Water Treatment Plants
Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) Application 10524
Dear Mr. Olson:
We have reviewed the fourth RAI letter dated July 8, 2008 from the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD), which consisted of seven comments requesting additional information in support of the
County ' s CUP renewal application . . As a follow-up to that letter, the County and PBS&J met with the
SJRWMD on August 13 , 2008 to review the necessary responses to RAI No. 4 to minimize the potential of a
fifth RAI. (Note: We prepared responses to RAI No. 4 comments 1 through 5 under our existing budget prior
to the meeting with the SJRWMD.) As the discussion at the meeting segued into RAI No. 4 Comments Nos. 6
and 7 , the County deferred to PBS &J to "work out" the details of the response in the County' s absence .
The subsequent discussions between PBS&J and the SJRWMD in the County' s absence were very
enlightening. The District presented preliminary results from the District-Wide modeling effort which
indicated significant impacts to environmental receptors through out the SJRWMD, including Indian River
County. District staff indicated that the accuracy of their District-wide modeling could not be adequately
evaluated at the local scale and felt that a more refined model from the County would evaluate environmental
impacts at local scale and could be in the County' s best interest. SJRWMD acknowledged the limited amount
of information available in the area and believe that the discussed refinements would provide the information
needed to support the CUP renewal .
Subsequent to the aforementioned PBS&J and SJRWMD discussion on August 13`h, we spoke with the
County in regards to the efforts necessary to answer RAI No. 4 Comments Nos . 6 and 7 . We estimated that
the work needed to respond to the RAI would be approximately $47 ,000 . The County believes that much of
the information requested by SJRWMD in Comments Nos . 6 and 7 of RAI No . 4 is duplicated from RAI No .
3 Comments Nos. 6 and 7 . After further review of RAI No. 3 responses and additional discussions with
SJRWMD, we have determined that it is not a case of duplicate questions; but rather„ as indicated during the
August 13 'hdiscussions between PBS &J and the SJRWMD, further model refinement is required. This is
confirmed via Rich Burklew ' s e-mail of September 15 , 2008, which states :
"Thanks for contacting me this morning to discuss the status of the modeling being done in support
of the Indian River County consumptive use application for the proposed expansion of their
wellfield. As I noted then, this is a very comprehensive modeling effort in an area where there is no
benefit of a District regional model to use as a guide in model design. The County ' s modeling
effort is considerable given the large model size and the numerous variables and assumptions that
are integral to its design and calibration. I think the modeling questions to date reflect that both a
progression and refinement of the model has , and is , occurring . As you know, the degree of
resolution in the model needed to meet permitting criteria is considerable greater than the level used
by the District in our broad, regional, modeling effort supporting the regional water supply
335 East Van Fleet Drive • Bartow, Florida 33830 9 Telephone 863 . 533.7000 • Fax 863. 533. 7888 9 www. pbsj .com
Mr. Erik Olson Page 2
September 17, 2008
assessment. Ensuring that adverse impacts to existing legal users , local wetlands , and localized
ground water quality does not occur cannot be accomplished without the additional resolution that
the County model is attaining.
I encourage you all to contact us if, in responding to the questions, any clarification is needed. "
For clarity, we are providing a brief description of what SJRWMD and PBS&J agreed to do with regards to
RAI No. 4, as well as a basic budget for accomplishing those tasks. Please note that the responses to RAI No.
4 Comments Nos . 1 through 5 are essentially complete and not included in this request.
To complete the basic modeling refinements/revisions associated with question 6 will be $ 16,000. This
includes converting the modeled drain cells to a three-canal configuration using the River Package, adjusting
the other model input criteria (pumpage, leakance, recharge) as outlined in the request from SJRWMD, and
adjusting the initial chloride concentration for the SEAWAT evaluation.
Once this modeling is complete, there is a question of calibration. The model will most likely require
calibration and can range from a minimum amount to $20,000. We would only charge the County for the
actual efforts needed to calibrate the model (i . e . , time and materials), and if it appeared that the District would
require additional calibration that would exceed $20,000, we would contact the County prior to completing
additional work.
The one comment that appears in both RAI No. 3 and RAI No. 4 is the request to have the modeling results
appear in ASTM format. According to Rich Burklew, this is a staff request, not a permitting requirement. If
the data and model are accepted by the District, we can present the model results in the RAI response without
the need for reformatting the original model report to ASTM format. If the County would like to have the
results reformatted, the cost for this work would be $9,000.
The total fee assumed to respond to the fourth RAI is $47,000. The County could reduce this to $38,000 by
not including the reformatting of the report. A further reduction may be realized if the calibration is minimal.
Although some of the modeling data required is dependent on the SJRWMD responsiveness to data requests ,
we believe we can complete this work in time to avoid an extension to the RAI if notice to proceed
is
provided no later than September 30, 2008 . Otherwise, the County will need to seek an extension from
SJRWMD.
Your immediate consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please
call me at 863 -533 -7000.
Sincerely,
PBS&J, Inc.
Kim S . Keefer, PE
Associate
C. Michael Hotchkiss, Michael Alfieri, Michael Micheau , Tom Farkas, Kevin Dorsey