Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-186,-D . AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 TO WORK ORDER NUMBER 2 This Amendment Nmber 3 to Work Order Number 2 ("amendment") is entered into as of the_day of , 2008, ("effective Date") pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreeme t 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 selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth in existing Work Order NumberEffective Date _.5L��i 2. The County and the Consultant desire to amend this Work Order as set forth on Exhibit I 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 I, 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: PBS&J By: Kim S. ke4r, PE Title: Project Manager Date: 2i O� BOARD OF COUNTY COSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By , . Chairman, Sandra, L. Bowden BCC Approved Date: June 10, 20013 Attest: JK Barton, Clerk of Court By: 64 019h, Deputy Clerk 0 to Form & Legal Sufficiency: Marian E. Fell, Attorney Exhibit 1 Scope of Services Indian River County Department of Utility Services Professional Service Support to Address Comments of the Request for Additional Information #3 dated December 13, 2007 for CUP Application No. 10524 Background In our statement of work for Amendment Number 1 to Work Order 2, we included Task 5: Follow -Up to Additional Requests from the Water Management District. This task allowed for the following: PBS&J proposes to provide the County with assistance in addressing up to two additional requests from the Water Management District with regards to the pending CUP. This task assumes up to three weeks per request for accumulation of necessary information, preparation in submittal format and attendance at up to two meetings with the District and two additional meetings with the County. We had budgeted $17,606 for the effort described above. We have reviewed the letter dated December 13, 2007 from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), requesting additional information in support of the County's CUP. SJRWMD provided six additional questions with regards to the CUP application. We spoke with the County on January 9, 2008 with regards to the efforts necessary to answer the six questions and deferred discussion on question 6 (modeling) until after the teleconference scheduled for January 22, 2008 by SJRWMD. Subsequent to that call, we determined that the work needed to respond to the RAI would exceed the allowance made in our statement of work. This scope of work identifies the additional work necessary to complete the response to RAI #3. We have identified the work necessary and an estimated fee. At the end of the scope of work, we identify that portion that would be greater than the $17,606 budgeted and mentioned previously. Question 1: Revision of Well Table to include S7 and the County's monitoring wells, including a map. ($2,489) We agreed that this would be completed by PBS&J, with some input from the County. Question 2: Water Audit Revision and Water Conservation Plan The County has indicated that they will be updating both the audit and the water conservation plan. PBS&J understands that the response to this question will be provided in final format to PBS&J for submittal and no PBS&J efforts are needed. Question 3: Water Disposal and Reuse The County has indicated that they will be responding to this question in its entirety, and will provide said response in final format to PBS&J for submittal and no PBS&J efforts are needed. Question 4: Wellfield Management Plan ($6,740) PBS&J will amend the wellfield management plan to include information derived in the modeling (question 6). This effort will require coordination with County staff and modeling staff to ensure that the modeling and wellfield management plan are consistent and encompass both wellfields. Question 5: Revision of Table in Section 9 to reflect different type users ($1,404) The County resolved the issue with regards to the reject water amount (20% versus 25%) in our teleconference with SJRWMD. The table itself needs to be updated for the various uses. PBS&J will update this table to reflect the information requested. Question 6: Modeling Revisions (up to $25,619) PBS&J will address question 6, parts a. through f. as outlined below: • Evaluate the applicability of utilizing different aquifer parameters in the existing groundwater flow model and provide additional detailed description and justification for selection of the parameter values and model revisions based on SJRWMD input • Obtain the aquifer performance test data and results from the Hercules injection well at the Ocean Spray facility for review and consideration of incorporating these data in the existing groundwater flow model. • Evaluate the use of general head boundary conditions instead of constant head boundary conditions and revise the groundwater flow model as appropriate. • Incorporate additional and/or previously unavailable hydraulic head and water quality calibration targets and develop additional figure(s) and discussion regarding model calibration and associated model agreement. • Develop drawdown contour maps from the results of the aquifer stress simulations to include a 0.1 foot contour interval for the predicted layer 1 drawdown, based on the results of the revised groundwater flow modeling. • Evaluate the applicability of additional layers in the SEAWAT model and revise as necessary, including additional discussion on predicted chloride concentration changes with depth. The revised design will be mutually agreed upon with SJRWMD prior to commencement. • Provide location and value of chloride data used to calibrate the SEAWAT model, including additional discussion of model agreement to target well data. There is the potential that once the initial model revisions are complete, the follow-up work will be minor in terms of meeting the District's requirements. However, the price shown is an "upset" limit, assuming a worst case scenario. Preparation of submittal ($1,660) Compensation The total fee assumed to respond to the third RAI, conservatively estimated, is $37,912. The County has already budgeted $17, 606, resulting in a remaining additional fee of $20,306. We are asking the County to authorize the remaining $17,606 to respond to the Third RAI and to authorize an additional $20,306 for completion of the response. We will bill the County for the efforts performed. There is the potential that the response to question 6 will be less than the budget listed. If the modeling requires less effort, the County will be able to unencumber unspent funds. Schedule We also recommend that the County seek an extension of 30 -days on the response submittal, to provide adequate time to coordinate with SJRWMD on the modeling question. We will complete this submittal predicated on that 30 -day extension.