professional services request for proposals moffat collection system siphon … · 2017-12-08 ·...

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

Moffat Collection System Siphon 1 River Crossing Project Description

The Siphon 1 River Crossing project consists of replacing an existing aerial pipe crossing of the Fraser River due to age and condition concerns. The pipe consists of approximately 380 ft. of 72-inch diameter steel pipe which is primarily exposed on supports with anchor blocks, expansion joints, and appurtenant facilities. Background and History

Siphon 1 is located at the base of the Winter Park ski area in Grand County, Colorado. The facility was originally constructed in the mid 1930’s. The siphon conveys raw water from the Vasquez Canal to the Moffat Tunnel and represents a key artery of the Moffat Collection system. The aerial pipe crosses over the Fraser River.

Project Objectives

The following specific project objectives have been identified:

• Replace the existing pipe. • Prepare design drawings and specifications in accordance with Denver Water Engineering

standards, Capital Projects Construction Standards (CPCS), Design Drafting Standards and Engineering Specification and Formatting Guidelines.

• Adhere to Denver Water Capital Project Procedures Manual (CPPM) criteria, procedures and protocols.

Consultant Scope of Services

Consultant shall prepare drawings and specifications for review and approval by Denver Water. The consultant shall adhere to the Denver Water Capital Project Procedure Manual (CPPM). Drawings and specifications shall be developed in accordance with the Denver Water Capital Project Construction Standards (CPCS). Drafting of the drawings shall be done in accordance with the Denver Water Design Drafting Standards. Contract documents and specification shall be developed in accordance with Denver Water Engineering Specification and Formatting Guidelines. All documents will be finalized and approved by Denver Water. The Consultant Scope of Services shall be for design phase only. Denver Water anticipates handling all bidding and construction phase engineering support activities using in-house resources. Any additional Consultant services needed for bidding or construction phases of the project will be added via a contract amendment at a later time.

Consultant Qualifications

At a minimum, the Consultant team shall include the following experienced team members:

1) Civil pipeline engineer 2) Structural engineer 3) Geotechnical engineer 4) Drainage/Floodplain engineer

Project team members shall have demonstrated experience that is similar in nature to that required for the project. All team members shall be Professional Engineers registered in the State of Colorado. Consultant Proposal shall include a project team organizational chart.

of 23

For proposed project teams consisting of multiple consulting firms, the proposal shall clearly indicate which firm is to serve as the prime consultant and who will serve in the project manager role. All project team members included in the proposal shall have a direct and active role in executing the project.

Owner Responsibility

The Owner will provide to the Consultant available relevant information to aid in the design process. This includes but is not limited to:

• Previous studies including site geotechnical information. • Project objectives. • Provide detailed quality control review of design drawings and specifications through all phases of

the project within agreed upon schedules. • Provide surveys including design surveys and as-built elevations. • Provide as-built detailed drawings of existing facilities. • Finalize design documents and provide final approval for issuance of Final for Bid contract

documents. • Provide all bidding and construction phase engineering services.

of 23

Project Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the development of this Scope of Work:

• The Design Phase will proceed to 30% where major decisions and design criteria will be set. The 30% level will be a major design gate for the project and will meet the requirements of the Owner’s CPPM at a minimum.

• The Owner will provide payment for any required permit or review fees from outside entities. • Public relations efforts will be completed by the Owner. • The project execution shall follow the Owner’s CPPM located online: http://www.denverwater.org. • Drawings shall be provided in electronic media on Windows compatible Hi-Speed USB Flash

Drives and in quality hardcopy media. AutoCAD Drawings shall be in accordance with the Owner’s Design Drafting Standards and shall include, but not be limited to, the Standards located online in the Owner’s CPPM. AutoCAD drawings shall be prepared using AutoCAD Civil3D 2016.

• Attend a meeting with the Owner’s Drafting and Administration groups to discuss the Owner’s Standards.

• Project specifications shall be submitted in the latest CSI format and adhere to the Owner’s Engineering Specification and Formatting Guidelines.

• Construction Contract General Conditions, Contract Agreement, Bid Forms, etc., will be provided by the Owner via the Capital Projects Construction Standards (CPCS) located online: http://www.denverwater.org/.

• The Owner will submit the project to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for a Nationwide permit. • The Owner will compile documents for bid packages and other submittals. • The Owner will provide all necessary bidding and construction phase engineering services using

in-house resources.

Project Schedule

The Owner may elect to follow the proposals with a formal questionnaire and/or interview to assist with the proposal evaluation. Final selection of a Consultant will be based upon scoring of the proposals by the selection committee using the criteria detailed on page 20. The selection committee will utilize information provided in the written proposal, interview as well as formal questionnaire in determining proposal scoring.

The anticipated Project Schedule is summarized as follows:

• December 7, 2017 Request for Proposals Issued to Consultant advertised through www.denverwater.org

• December 14, 2017 Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting • January 5, 2018 Final Written Questions Due • January 12, 2018 Proposals Due • January 23, 2018 Consultant Interviews • January 26, 2018 Consultant Selection Finalized • April 3, 2018 Issue Preliminary Work Plan • April 19, 2018 Pre-Design Work Shop • April 26, 2018 Issue Final Work Plan • May 24, 2018 30% Project Completion • July 17, 2018 60% Project Completion • Sept. 12, 2018 90% Project Completion • Oct. 17, 2018 Final for Bid Project Completion • November 2019 Construction Complete

Proposals shall include a detailed schedule with any deviations from the aforementioned schedule clearly identified.

of 23

Any requests for clarification or additional information regarding the submission of this RFP shall be submitted in writing via e-mail [email protected]. The Pre-Proposal Meeting will be held at Denver Water in the Cheesman Room in the Three Stones Building on Denver Water’s main campus on Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 10:00 AM. Written requests for interpretation, clarification, and/or additional information must be received via e-mail no later than 5:00 pm, local time, Friday, January 5, 2018.

mailto:[email protected]

of 23

Scope of Services

Phase 1 – Project Management and Administration

Project Management and Administration includes the following activities:

• General Project Management • Project Management Plan development • Project Controls and Reporting • Project Workshops • Project Meetings

Task 1.1: General Project Management

Time for this task is allocated to the Consultant Project Manager to oversee and administer the project.

Deliverables:

The following deliverables will be provided as part of Task 1.1:

• Cost loaded schedule/work breakdown structure time allocation.

Task 1.2: Project Management Plan

The Project Management Plan will document the key project information required by the Consultant Project Team members to assist them in executing the project to meet the required objectives: on-time, on-budget, quality, and meeting the Owner’s critical success factors. The key elements of the Project Management Plan are described as follows:

• The Project Charter will establish the project’s goals, objectives, and critical success factors.

• Consultant Project Team members, roles, and responsibilities. This will also include the staffing plan (e.g., management, engineering, QA/QC).

• Scope of Services with work breakdown structure. • Baseline Planned Value (PV) schedule to be used for Earned Value (EV) reporting. • Project schedule in GANTT chart format. Schedule updates will be provided in monthly

progress reports, if changes have been made and agreed upon by the Owner. The project schedule shall be developed in the most current version of Microsoft Project; it shall include meetings, workshops, and key deliverables. Dates for Owner-supplied information will also be provided.

• Project budgets. • Communications plan. • Risk management plan. • QA/QC plan. • Project documentation plan and file structure. • Change management process. • Conflict resolution plan.

Deliverables:

The following deliverables will be provided as part of Task 1.2:

• Project Management Plan (which includes the QA/QC plan). • Progress reports.

of 23

Task 1.3: Project Controls and Reporting

Monthly invoices shall be prepared and submitted to the Owner in an approved format. Invoices shall be broken down by task, Prime Consultant, and Sub consultants and include the following:

• Total contract amount. • Detailed charges for the current invoice period. • Total charges to date. • Earned value analysis and graph. • Previous billings. • Outstanding balance. • Current amount remaining. • Total amount due.

The Consultant shall be responsible for the management of the Consultant and the Sub consultant Project Team’s overall project controls, actively coordinating with the Owner’s Design Project Manager to manage the following:

• Project costs. • Project schedule. • Document control.

Monthly project status reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Owner, along with the monthly invoices. The reports shall include the following:

• A summary of services completed since the previous report. • The current project schedule and budget status. • Project issues and potential change logs. • Milestones and/or deliverables scheduled in the coming month.

This task also includes periodic project review by the Consultant’s management to ensure the project meets the Owner’s critical success factors, is on schedule, and is within budget.

Deliverables:

The following deliverables shall be provided as part of Task 1.3:

• Monthly invoices. • Monthly project status reports. • Earned value charts.

Task 1.4: Project Meetings

Project meetings include the key Project Team stakeholders and, as needed for the current topic, project stakeholders. This task shall not include meetings with outside entities which are specifically indicated in subsequent sections.

• Discuss ongoing issues and conflict resolution. • CAD Standards meeting. • Administrative staff meeting regarding Owner’s Engineering Specification and Formatting

Guidelines. • Owner and Consultant Management review meetings. • Monthly Owner and Consultant Team meetings through the duration of the project design

phase shall be included in the Consultant proposal. • Project meetings are considered separate activities to the Project Workshops indicated in

subsequent sections.

of 23

Deliverables:


• Prepared agendas for each meeting. • An ongoing log of decisions and conflict resolutions. • Meeting minutes.

of 23

Phase 2 – Pre-Design Phase

Task 2.1: Site Drainage/Floodplain Evaluation Evaluate project requirements to determine site drainage requirements as well as Fraser River Floodplain impacts and potential permitting requirements.

• Analyze site drainage issues. Coordinate with the Town of Winter Park and the Winter Park Ski area on drainage issues as required.

• The Fraser River has a designated FEMA floodplain. Evaluate project requirements to determine floodplain permitting requirements and impacts from both the permanent facility as well as temporary construction phase issues.

• Evaluate the existing valve house floor drains as well as the Moffat Tunnel drain lines and provide recommendations for pipe replacement/reconfiguration, pipe routing and outfall locations. At a minimum, the existing drain pipe is to be replaced.

Deliverables:


• Prepare technical memorandum summarizing findings for this task including recommendations.

• Present recommendations at Pre-Design workshop (Task 2.7). • Incorporate Owner selected recommendations into the Project Work Plan (Task 2.8).

Task 2.2: Slope Stability Evaluation

Using previously gathered geotechnical information, evaluate the west and east slopes of the Fraser River drainage way for slope stability issues. Consultant shall indicate in their proposal if they anticipate any additional geotechnical field exploration being required and, if so, include appropriate cost. • Consultant shall propose a methodology for evaluating this issue in their proposal. • Coordinate with the Winter Park Ski Area as well as the Union Pacific Railroad on slope

stability issues. Assume two meetings will be required for the pre-design phase related to this issue.

Deliverables:



• Present recommendations at Pre-Design workshop (Task 2.7). • Incorporate Owner selected recommendations into the Project Work Plan (Task 2.8). • Meeting minutes from outside entity coordination meetings.

Task 2.3: Winter Park Drive Impacts

Evaluate project impacts to Winter Park Drive (which is owned and maintained by the Town of Winter Park) including the following: • Coordinate with the Town of Winter Park and the Winter Park Ski Area as required.

Assume two meetings will be required for the pre-design phase related to this issue. • Provide recommendation for any permanent changes to the Winter Park Drive corridor

(retaining walls, drainage system modifications, guard rail, etc.). • Identify requirements for any temporary impacts to the road that should be planned for

during construction and coordinated in advance with the Town of Winter Park. This may include full road closure, one direction road traffic limitations and limitation on construction work hours.

of 23

Deliverables:



• Present findings at Pre-Design workshop (Task 2.7). • Incorporate Owner selected recommendations into the Project Work Plan (Task 2.8). • Meeting minutes from meetings with the Town of Winter Park.

Task 2.4: Union Pacific Railroad Coordination Coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) as required. Potential UPRR issues that may need to be considered in the project include:

1) Vibration monitoring of railroad facilities. 2) Railroad flagger requirements. 3) Railroad crane spotter requirements. 4) Shared slope stabilization issues. 5) Valve house drain/tunnel drain outfall issues.

Assume that two meetings with the UPRR will be required for the pre-design phase related to this issue.

Deliverables:



• Present findings at Pre-Design workshop (Task 2.7). • Incorporate Owner selected recommendations into the Project Work Plan (Task 2.8).

Task 2.5: Conceptual Level Cost Estimate Prepare conceptual level cost estimate for recommended Project Scope. Alternatives that require an Owner decision shall be presented with the corresponding cost range. The cost estimate shall be itemized in detail so that the Owner can make cost implication decisions related to the Project Scope.

Deliverables:


• Conceptual level cost estimate.

Task 2.6: Anticipated Construction Schedule and Sequencing Identify the anticipated construction schedule and sequencing including outage requirements for the siphon, road closures and related outside entity coordination issues.

Deliverables:


• Construction schedule and sequencing.

Task 2.7: Pre-Design Workshop Organize and present a pre-design workshop. A 2.5 hour workshop is anticipated. At a minimum, the Workshop shall cover the following topics:

of 23

• Present recommendations and potential alternatives from site drainage/floodplain evaluation (Task 2.1).

• Present recommendations and potential alternatives from slope stability evaluation (Task 2.2).

• Present recommendations and potential alternatives from Winter Park Drive impacts Evaluation (Task 2.3).

• Present recommendations and potential alternatives related to UPRR coordination issues (Task 2.4).

• Present conceptual level cost estimate including alternatives and cost range implications (Task 2.5).

• Present anticipated construction schedule and sequencing (Task 2.6).

Deliverables:


• Workshop meeting agenda and supporting presentation material. • Workshop meeting minutes.

Task 2.8: Work Plan Prepare project Work Plan in preliminary and final versions in accordance with CPPM.

• Prepare Preliminary Project Work Plan. • Prepare comment resolution response to all comments received on the Preliminary

Project Work Plan. • Prepare Final Project Work Plan. • Owners Design Project Manager will obtain original signature approval on the Final

Project Work Plan from Denver Water project stakeholders.

Deliverables:


• Preliminary Project Work Plan. • Completed comment response resolution form for all comments received on the

Preliminary Project Work Plan. • Final Project Work Plan.

of 23

Phase 3 – 30% Design

30% Design shall adhere to requirements in the Denver Water CPPM. Denver Water anticipates that the replacement facility will be similar in nature to the existing facility. Owner will provide as-built drawings of the existing facility (not available in AutoCAD format) to the Consultant.

Task 3.1: Drawing Preparation Prepare 30% Design Drawings per the following:

• Drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Denver Water Design Drafting Standards. • Drawings shall utilize CPCS standard details. • Drawings shall be developed in AutoCAD Civil3D 2016. • Meet with the Denver Water design drafting supervisor in advance of the 30% design

submittal to review Denver Water Design Drafting standards.

Deliverables:


• 30% Design Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files.

Task 3.2: Technical Specifications Prepare list of technical specifications applicable to the project per the following:

• Identify CPCS specification sections that are applicable to the project. • Prepare project specific Division 1 specifications. • Identify new project specific technical specifications not covered by CPCS specifications.

Note that any new project specific technical specification must be pre-approved by the Director of Engineering. Submit a written request to the Design Project Manager prior to preparing any non-CPCS specifications.

Deliverables:


• List of applicable CPCS specification sections. • List of proposed project specific specifications. • 30% level draft of project specific Division 1 specifications.

Task 3.3: 30% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Update project cost estimate to incorporate the 30% design documents:

• Update the project cost estimate to incorporate the 30% design documents. • Update the project construction schedule to incorporate the 30% design documents.

Deliverables:


• 30% design cost estimate. • 30% design project schedule.

Task 3.4: 30% Outside Entity Coordination Coordinate 30% design issues with outside entities as required:

• Coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad. • Coordinate with the Winter Park Ski Area. • Town of Winter Park.

of 23

Assume that a total of three coordination meetings with outside entities will be required during the 30% design stage. Note that certain meetings may include multiple entities.

Deliverables:


• Meetings and site visits with outside entities as required with meeting minutes.

Task 3.5: 30% Design Workshop Organize and present a 30% design workshop. A 2.5 hour workshop is anticipated. At a minimum, the Workshop shall cover the following topics:

• Present project scope based on the 30% design. It is critical that all major design decisions be made at the 30% design level. Consultant shall identify any outstanding design issues that require Owner input and shall present these issues at the workshop.

• Present 30% design cost estimate and schedule. • Provide update to key coordination issues with outside entities.

Deliverables:



Task 3.6: 30% Design for Additional Scope Items Include in proposal an hour estimate and corresponding budget for 30% level drawing and specification preparation for the following additional scope items that Denver Water may decide to include in the project scope. Consultant shall not proceed with work on this task without specific authorization from Denver Water.

• Slope stabilization system for both the east and west slopes of the Fraser River drainage. The slope stabilization on the west side could extend to the north approximately 100 ft. to the railroad culvert.

Deliverables: • 30% Design Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files. • Additional technical specification items as required for the additional scope items in

accordance with requirements of task 3.2.

of 23


60% Design shall adhere to requirements in the Denver Water CPPM. Provide written comment resolution response to all comments received on the 30% design submittal a minimum of 2 weeks prior to submitting the 60% design package.


• Drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Denver Water Design Drafting Standards. • Drawings shall utilize CPCS standard details. • Drawings shall be developed in AutoCAD Civil3D 2016.

Deliverables:


• 60% Design drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files. • Written comment resolution response to all comments received on 30% design

documents.

Task 4.2: Technical Specifications Prepare 60% level technical specifications applicable to the project per for the following:

• Modify CPCS specification sections per the Supplemental Technical Specification (STS) process as required.

• Revise project specific Division 1 specifications to the 60% level. • Prepare project specific technical specifications to the 60% level. • At the 60% design level, all technical specifications shall be included in the design

package. • Documents shall be prepared in accordance with Denver Water Engineering

Specification and Formatting Guidelines. • The Denver Water Design Project Manager will prepare the front end documents needed

for the design package.

Deliverables:


• 60% specification package in electronic Word format.

Task 4.3: 60% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Update project cost estimate to incorporate the 60% design documents:

• Update the project cost estimate to incorporate the 60% design documents. • Update the project construction schedule to incorporate the 60% design documents.

Deliverables:




• Coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad. • Coordinate with the Winter Park Ski Area.

of 23

• Coordinate with the Town of Winter Park.

Assume that a total of two coordination meetings with outside entities will be required during the 60% design stage. Note that certain meetings may include multiple entities.

Deliverables:



Task 4.5: 60% Design Workshop Organize and present a 60% design workshop. A 2-hour workshop is anticipated. At a minimum, the Workshop shall cover the following topics:

• Present project scope based on the 60% design. It is anticipated that the project scope is largely unchanged from the 30% design and that the discussion issues are primarily refinement of design concepts.

• Present 60% design cost estimate and schedule. • Provide update to key coordination issues with outside entities.

Deliverables:



Task 4.6: 60% Design for Additional Scope Items Include in proposal an hour estimate and corresponding budget for 60% level drawing and specification preparation for the following additional scope items that Denver Water may decide to include in the project scope. The budget for these items shall be further subdivided by each specific item. Consultant shall not proceed with work on this task without specific authorization from Denver Water.


Deliverables: • 60% Design Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files. • Additional technical specification items to the 60% level as required for the additional

scope items in accordance with requirements of task 4.2.

of 23


90% Design shall adhere to requirements in the Denver Water CPPM. Provide written comment resolution response to all comments received on the 60% design submittal a minimum 2 weeks prior to submitting the 90% design package.


• Drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Denver Water Design Drafting Standards. • Drawings shall utilize CPCS standard details. • Drawings shall be developed in AutoCAD Civil3D 2016. • Prepare color QC drawings in accordance with the CPPM.

Deliverables:


• 90% Design Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files. • Color QC drawings. • Comment resolution response to all comments received on the 60% design submittal.

Task 5.2: Technical Specifications Prepare 90% level technical specifications applicable to the project per the following:

• Revise STS to the 90% design level. • Revise project specific Division 1 specifications to the 90% level. • Prepare project specific technical specifications to the 90% level. • The Denver Water Design Project Manager will prepare the front end documents needed


Deliverables:


• 90% specification package in electronic Word format.

Task 5.3: 90% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Update project cost estimate to incorporate the 90% design documents. The 90% cost estimate shall be prepared by a professional construction cost estimator and include a detailed cost breakdown of labor, material, overhead, profit and related items. Consultant shall indicate in their proposal if this service will be provided using in-house resources or by an outside construction contractor included in their project team. A resume for the lead estimator responsible for this task shall be included in the proposal.

• Update the 90% project cost estimate to incorporate the 90% design documents. • Update the project construction schedule to incorporate the 90% design documents.

Deliverables:



of 23


• Coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad. • Coordinate with the Winter Park Ski Area. • Coordinate with the Town of Winter Park


Deliverables:



Task 5.5: Work Plan 90% Re-Endorsement Revise the Final Project Work Plan for 90% re-endorsement. 90% design level project scope, schedule and cost estimate shall be incorporated into the document.

• Owners Design Project Manager will obtain original signature approval on the Final Project Work Plan from Denver Water project stakeholders.

Deliverables:


• Preliminary Project Work Plan. • Completed comment response resolution form for all comments received on the

Preliminary Project Work Plan. • Final Project Work Plan.


• Coordinate with the Union Pacific Railroad. • Coordinate with the Winter Park Ski Area. • Coordinate with the Town of Winter Park


Deliverables:


Meetings and site visits with outside entities as required with meeting minutes.

Task 5.6: 90% Design for Additional Scope Items Include in proposal a labor hour estimate and corresponding budget for 90% level drawing and specification preparation for the following additional scope items that Denver Water may decide to include in the project scope. The budget for these items shall be further subdivided by each specific item. Consultant shall not proceed with work on this task without specific authorization from Denver Water.


of 23

Deliverables: • 90% Design Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files. • Additional technical specification items to the 90% level as required for the additional

scope items in accordance with requirements of task 5.2.

of 23

Phase 6 – Final for Bid

Final for Bid shall adhere to requirements in the Denver Water CPPM. Provide written comment resolution response to all comments received on the 90% design submittal a minimum of 2 weeks prior to submitting the 90% design package. Additional scope items indicated in previous sections shall be subdivided in the work breakdown structure.

Task 6.1: Drawing Preparation Final for Bid Drawings per the following:

• Drawings shall be prepared in accordance with Denver Water Design Drafting Standards. • Drawings shall utilize CPCS standard details. • Drawings shall be developed in AutoCAD Civil3D 2016.

Deliverables:


• Final for Bid Drawings in electronic PDF format as well as electronic AutoCAD files.

Task 6.2: Technical Specifications Prepare Final for Bid technical specifications applicable to the project per the following:

• Revise STS to the Final for Bid design level. • Revise project specific Division 1 specifications to the Final for Bid level. • Prepare project specific technical specifications to the Final for Bid level. • The Denver Water Design Project Manager will prepare the front end documents needed


Deliverables:


• Final for Bid specification package in electronic Word format.

of 23

Proposal Requirements

The proposal shall outline the Consultant’s Scope of Services, which shall include, at a minimum, the criteria set forth within this RFP and the Consultant’s approach to administer and complete the project. A detailed project approach assists the Owner in understanding the Consultant’s comprehension of the project and the opportunities and constraints that a project of this complexity may contain. At a minimum, the Proposal shall include the following:

• A cover letter. • The project approach, including any unique solutions and clearly identifying assumptions. • Tailored 2 page resumes, including projects similar in nature and complexity to the Siphon 1

River Crossing Project, shall be provided for key personnel shown within the project organization chart. Key personnel proposed for the project shall remain available for the entirety of the project. A change of project personnel will only be permitted in certain circumstances and may be subject to a monetary penalty.

• A manpower labor estimate (work breakdown structure) by labor type/hours for the following major project phases and tasks provided under Scope of Services. Include the corresponding hourly rates (an 11-inch by 17-inch format for the work breakdown structure is acceptable).

o Phase 1: Project Management and Administration

Task 1.1: General Project Management Task 1.2: Project Management Plan Task 1.3: Project Controls and Reporting Task 1.4: Project Meetings

o Phase 2: Pre-Design Phase Task 2.1: Site Drainage/Floodplain Evaluation Task 2.2: Slope Stability Evaluation Task 2.3: Winter Park Drive Impacts Task 2.4: Union Pacific Railroad Coordination Task 2.5: Conceptual Level Cost Estimate Task 2.6: Anticipated Construction Schedule and Sequencing Task 2.7: Pre-Design Workshop Task 2.8: Work Plan

o Phase 3: 30% Design Task 3.1: Drawing Preparation Task 3.2: Technical Specifications Task 3.3: 30% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Task 3.4: 30% Outside Entity Coordination Task 3.5: 30% Design Workshop Task 3.6: 30% Design for Additional Scope Items

o Phase 4: 60% Design Task 4.1: Drawing Preparation Task 4.2: Technical Specifications Task 4.3: 60% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Task 4.4: 60% Outside Entity Coordination Task 4.5: 60% Design Workshop Task 4.6: 60% Design for Additional Scope Items

o Phase 5: 90% Design Task 5.1: Drawing Preparation Task 5.2: Technical Specifications Task 5.3: 90% Cost Estimate and Schedule Update Task 5.4: 90% Outside Entity Coordination Task 5.5: Work Plan 90% Re-Endorsement Task 5.6: 90% Design for Additional Scope Items

of 23

o Phase 6: Final for Bid Task 6.1: Drawing Production Task 6.2: Technical Specifications

• A detailed schedule with any deviations from the schedule included herein clearly identified and tied to the project approach.

• A written statement regarding the Consultant’s eligibility to perform the work without a conflict of interest.

• A written statement regarding the Consultant’s willingness to enter into a contract based on the draft Proposal Agreement in Appendix A. Any requested changes to the contract language shall be stated in this written statement at the time of the proposal.

• The proposal length shall not exceed 25 pages excluding resumes. Excessively long proposals are discouraged and may result in a lower score. Consultants are encouraged to only provide information in the proposal that is directly relevant to the project.

• A MWBE goal of 5% has been set for this Work. More information on the Owner’s MWBE Program can be found online: http://www.denverwater.org/.

of 23

Selection Criteria

The Owner will review the Proposals and make a selection based on best value while considering the following criteria:

Criteria Standard Weighting Factor

Team Qualifications Do the assigned personnel have the skills and experience to provide a detailed and complete study? Do the personnel have firsthand experience in this type of work? Does the firm(s) have the appropriate support capabilities to meet the demands of the project? (Maximum Score of 10)

2.5

Proposed Approach, Project Plan, and Schedule

Does the proposal show an understanding of the project objectives and the results desired from the project? (Maximum Score of 10)

3

Cost and Work Hours

Do the work hours presented accurately reflect the level of effort required to complete the project? How do unit labor and overhead costs compare to other firms? (Maximum Score of 10)

4

MWBE Participation Proposal will receive the maximum score if stated MWBE goal of 5% is achieved. Proposers are encouraged to achieve MWBE participation in exceedance of the 5% goal, but this will not result in a higher score. MWBE participation less than 5% will be scored on a pro-rated basis, a 3% participation will therefor receive a score of 6. (Maximum Score of 10)

0.5

The scale of the criteria is from 1 to 10; 1 is a poor rating, 5 is an average rating, and 10 is an outstanding rating. Criteria will be multiplied by the associated weight to give a weighted criteria score. The weighted criteria scores will be summed for a cumulative score. The maximum possible cumulative score is 100.

Proposal Submittal

Selection of a Consultant will be based on the selection criteria previously described. The Proposal shall address each component of the selection criteria.

Costs associated with Proposal preparation, pre-proposal meeting attendance, interview attendance, etc. shall be borne entirely by the proposing Consultant. Proposal information will become the property of the Owner.

• Proprietary Or Confidential Information: o Proposers acknowledge that Denver Water may be required to disclose any or all of the

documents submitted with a Proposal, pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. § 24-72-201.1, et seq. Under C.R.S. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(IV), Denver Water may deny inspection of any confidential commercial or financial information furnished to Denver Water by an outside party. Therefore, a Proposer must clearly designate any documents submitted with its Proposal that the Proposer deems proprietary or confidential, to aid Denver Water in determining what must be disclosed in response to a request for documents under the Colorado Open Records Act.

o The Proposer’s designation of material to be redacted must be reasonable or it will not be honored. For example, a Proposer may not designate the entire Proposal to be confidential and proprietary.

of 23

It is recommended that firms access and become familiar with a copy of the most recent version of the Owner’s CPCS and CPPM at no cost to the Owner. Consultants shall be responsible for meeting the requirements of DW’s CPPM.

Four hardcopies and one electronic copy (a pdf on a flash drive) of the Consultant’s Proposal shall be submitted by 5 pm, local time, on Friday January 12, 2017 to Jon Fischer, Design Project Manager, Denver Water, 1600 West 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204. Please contact Jon Fischer, Design Project Manager at 303-628-6678 or [email protected] with questions regarding this request. In addition, submit one hardcopy of the Consultant’s Proposal with intellectual or proprietary property redacted.

of 23

Attachment A – Consultant Agreement Attachment B – Geotechnical Investigation

of 22

Insert Name of Consultant and/or Contract No.

Revised by OGC 10/13/16

This form may be used for most contracts. “Consultant” may be changed to “Contractor” throughout.

AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into between the CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, acting by and through its BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS (“Board”), a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado whose address is 1600 W. 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204, and Verify the correct legal name of the Consultant and insert here ("Consultant"), whose address is Insert address of the Consultant. The Board and the Consultant agree as follows:

1. Scope of Work. The Consultant agrees to provide work to the Board in

accordance with Exhibit A, attached and incorporated (the “Work”). The Work specifically includes any and all deliverables provided to the Board under this Agreement. Generally, the Consultant will Insert description of the work the Consultant will perform.

2. Notice to Proceed. DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH IF DENVER WATER

WILL NOT ISSUE A NOTICE TO PROCEED, WHICH NOTIFIES THE CONSULTANT THAT IT MAY BEGIN THE WORK. The Board will issue a Notice to Proceed with the required Work after the effective date of this Agreement and after the Board has received satisfactory certificates of insurance as required in this Agreement, whichever is later.

3. Time of Commencement and Completion of Work. DENVER WATER

MAY ADD MILESTONES FOR THE PROJECT TO THIS PARAGRAPH OR REFERENCE MILESTONES IN AN ATTACHMENT. The Board shall not dictate times of performance of the Work, except that the Consultant shall commence the Work as soon as necessary after receipt of a Notice to Proceed, if required by this Agreement, or else after the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant shall complete the Work no later than Insert date by which Work must be completed. The Consultant and the Board must agree upon any extensions of the completion date in a written amendment.

4. Consultant Responsibility. The Consultant shall be responsible for the

professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion, and coordination of all studies, reports and other Work performed under this Agreement. The Consultant is responsible for providing the materials, equipment, training and tools necessary for performance of the Work. The Consultant represents that all Work performed under this Agreement shall be performed with the usual thoroughness and competence and in accordance with the standards of care of the Consultant’s profession prevailing in Colorado. Without additional compensation, and without limiting the Board’s remedies, the Consultant shall promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions or other deficiencies in the Work not meeting that standard of care, including any breaches of the representations in this Agreement.

Exhibit A Page 1 of 27

of 22



5. Confidentiality of Information. IF THE CONSULTANT NON-DISCLOSURE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL BE ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THIS PARAGRAPH: The Non-Disclosure Terms and Conditions attached as Exhibit ___ are incorporated into this Agreement. IF THE CONSULTANT NON-DISCLOSURE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL NOT BE ATTACHED, USE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THIS PARAGRAPH: The Consultant shall retain in strictest confidence all information furnished by the Board and the results of any reports or studies conducted as a result of this Agreement, along with all supporting work papers and any other substantiating documents. The Consultant shall not disclose such information to others without the prior written consent of the Board, except as required by law.

6. Ownership of Work Product. DELETE THIS SECTION ENTIRELY IF THE

AGREEMENT INVOLVES PHYSICAL WORK (SUCH AS INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OR THE LIKE) AND NO INTELLECTUAL WORK PRODUCT OR DESIGN.

a. All printed material, original works of authorship, electronic documents and

intellectual property produced, invented, reduced to practice, or created as a result of Work performed under this Agreement (the “Creations”) (with the exception of any intellectual property rights contained therein, owned or created by the Consultant prior to the effective date of this Agreement (“Prior Works”)) shall be the sole property of the Board and may not be used, sold, licensed or disposed of in any manner without prior written approval of the Board. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, all Creations shall be deemed works made for hire under the United States copyright laws, and all right, title, and interest in and to such work product shall vest automatically in the Board. Consultant hereby assigns and irrevocably agrees to assign in the future (when any such Creations are first reduced to practice or first fixed in a tangible medium, as applicable) to the Board all right, title and interest in and to any and all such Creations, including, without limitation, all related intellectual property rights (as to copyright, to the extent such Creations are held not to be works made for hire under applicable law). All such Creations shall be turned over to the Board upon completion of the Work. For custom-developed software, the Board shall be provided a copy of the source code.

b. Consultant agrees not to use, and hereby represents that Consultant has

not used, in the course of the performance of the Work any Prior Works, unless such Prior Works are first disclosed in writing to the Board, and the Board consents in writing to the use of the Prior Works, and Consultant grants a nonexclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide license (with rights to sublicense through multiple tiers of sublicensees) to make, have made, modify, create derivative works of, copy, publicly


of 22



display, use, sell and distribute such Prior Works as incorporated in the Work. Consultant further agrees that it shall not use or incorporate any third party works, third party inventions or open source software in the Work without prior disclosure to the Board, without provision of a valid license providing the Board with all rights necessary to use such as used or incorporated in the Work, and without approval from the Board.

c. Consultant represents and warrants that all studies, reports and other

Work performed under this Agreement are original or a license to the same has been obtained for the Board as required in this section, will perform for the purpose intended, contain no infringing intellectual property, and contain no material defects, and, if software, contain no malware or undisclosed means of access. The Consultant may retain one copy of all documents prepared under this Agreement. Any reuse of the Consultant's work product for any use other than as contemplated by this Agreement shall be at the Board's sole risk.

7. Compensation and Invoicing. The Board shall compensate the Consultant

for Work performed under this Agreement as described in this paragraph. The compensation for the Consultant provided by this Agreement is entire and complete. The Consultant has not received and will not receive any other compensation in connection with this Agreement. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or promised to pay any compensation to anyone (except Board-approved subcontractors and the Consultant's officers and employees) in order to obtain this Agreement.

SELECT ONE OF THE THREE CHOICES BELOW FOR TYPE OF PAY. IF THE CONSULTANT HAS PROVIDED A LENGTHY PROPOSAL OR SCOPE OF WORK FOR EXHIBIT A THAT INCORPORATES COMPENSATION TERMS, DENVER WATER MAY INSERT A REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT A HERE AND DELETE THE FOLLOWING THREE CHOICES FOR TYPE OF PAY. HOWEVER, IF THIS AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED TO STATE A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT, PLEASE KEEP THE 1-2 SENTENCES AT THE END OF THIS SECTION THAT START WITH “THE TOTAL COMPENSATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT …” FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT AGREEMENTS THAT MIGHT NOT REQUIRE A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT, SEE THE CONTRACT AND AMENDMENT PREPARATION PROCEDURES ON INFLOW: http://inflow.denverwater.org/r/Documents/Contract%20and%20Amendment%20Preparation%20Procedures.pdf CHOICE 1 – if the Consultant is to be paid based on an hourly rate

a. The Consultant will be paid an hourly rate that includes labor, payroll, all overhead expenses, and profit. Overhead expenses include charges for clerical, administrative, accounting, legal, and computer personnel and may not be billed separately. The hours billed by the Consultant shall not


http://inflow.denverwater.org/r/Documents/Contract%20and%20Amendment%20Preparation%20Procedures.pdf

http://inflow.denverwater.org/r/Documents/Contract%20and%20Amendment%20Preparation%20Procedures.pdf

of 22



exceed hours actually worked on the Work, as shown in the Consultant’s timekeeping records, and shall be limited to the hours actually paid to the employee for the Work. The following chart identifies the particular persons or classes of persons who will perform Work under this Agreement and the hourly rate for each. The Consultant shall not bill the Board for persons or classes of persons not listed below or at hourly rates different from those specified below.

Insert hourly rates for persons who will perform Work under this Agreement and names of those persons if appropriate.

b. The Consultant shall provide invoices each month for Work accomplished

through the last day of the preceding month. The Consultant’s invoices shall include a description of the Work performed by and the hours worked by each person for the billing period. The Consultant must submit documentation supporting the charges in the invoice, which must be consistent with this Agreement, and must include the contract number of this Agreement on each invoice.

CHOICE 2 – if the Consultant is to be paid a lump sum

a. Upon completion of the Work, the Consultant will be paid a lump sum not to exceed $Insert lump sum amount.

b. The Consultant shall provide an invoice upon completion of the Work. The Consultant must submit documentation supporting the charges in the invoice, which must be consistent with this Agreement, and must include the contract number of this Agreement on each invoice.

CHOICE 3 – if the Consultant is to be paid per work product

a. The Consultant will be paid the respective amount listed below upon completion of each work product described.

Insert list of work products and amount to be paid for each

b. The Consultant shall provide an invoice upon completion of each work product. The Consultant must submit documentation supporting the charges in the invoice, which must be consistent with this Agreement, and must include the contract number of this Agreement on each invoice.

SELECT THE FOLLOWING IF THE CONSULTANT WILL NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS; REMOVE THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH


of 22



IF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO STATE A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT:

c. The total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $Insert not-to-exceed amount. There are no reimbursable costs associated with this Agreement.

SELECT THE FOLLOWING SUBPARAGRAPHS IF THE CONSULTANT WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS:

c. The Consultant will be paid for the following out-of-pocket costs, as long as they are approved in advance by the Board: Insert those reimbursable costs that will be paid in addition to the hourly rate. Approved costs should not include more than the following: travel expenses; long distance telephone calls; postage; faxes; express delivery services; printing and reproduction; photocopying; materials specified in the Agreement; and subcontracted work.

The Consultant shall bill for the out-of-pocket costs listed above at actual costs without markup. For any out-of-pocket costs that exceed $200.00, this amount may need to be adjusted based on the size of the contract the Consultant shall provide a copy of the underlying invoice, travel voucher or other document supporting the out-of-pocket cost.

REMOVE THIS PARAGRAPH IF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO STATE A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT:

d. The total compensation under this Agreement, including out-of-pocket costs, shall not exceed $Insert not-to-exceed amount.

8. Payment. Payments shall be based upon the Consultant’s verified

progress in completing the Work. Unless the Consultant has not properly performed the Work, invoices will be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt. The Board has the right to refuse to pay all or a portion of an invoice that is inconsistent with this Agreement; all undisputed portions of the invoice shall be paid. The Board may delay payment until it can verify the accuracy of the invoice, obtain releases or waivers with respect to Work covered in the invoice (and with respect to Colo. Rev. Stat. Article 26 of Title 38 if applicable), or resolve a dispute with the Consultant regarding an invoice. The Board will not issue payments unless the Consultant has current insurance coverage in accordance with this Agreement. Checks shall be made payable to the trade or business of the Consultant.

9. Records and Audits. The Consultant shall at all times maintain a system

of accounting records in accordance with its normal procedures, together with supporting documentation for all Work, purchases, and billings under this Agreement. The Consultant shall retain all such accounting records and documentation for at least two (2) years after final payment. The Board has the right to audit the accounting


of 22



records and documentation of Consultant related to the Work at any time during the period of this Agreement and for two (2) years after final payment. The Consultant shall refund to the Board any charges determined by the Board’s audit to be inconsistent with this Agreement.

10. Changes in Work. The Board has the right to order additions, deletions, or

changes in the Work at any time, so long as such changes are within the general scope of Work covered by this Agreement. Requests for material changes in the Work may be made by the Board orally or in writing; however, oral requests shall be confirmed by a written request within ten (10) business days after the oral request. If the Board directs the Consultant to proceed with a material change, the Consultant shall be paid for the change as agreed to by the parties.

11. Independent Contractor.

a. The Consultant is customarily engaged in an independent trade,

occupation, profession or business related to the Work, and nothing in this Agreement requires the Consultant to work exclusively for the Board during the term of the Agreement.

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to establish the Consultant

as an agent or employee of the Board for any purpose. The Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors shall in no way represent themselves to third parties as agents or employees of the Board in performance of the Work.

c. The Board shall not oversee the Work of the Consultant or instruct the

Consultant on how or when to perform the Work, except that the Board and the Consultant have agreed to a completion date for the Work. The Consultant shall in all respects be an independent contractor of the Board in its performance of the Work.

d. THE CONSULTANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS AS A RESULT OF PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK FOR THE BOARD.

e. THE CONSULTANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS OBLIGATED AND

SOLELY LIABLE TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX ON ANY MONEYS EARNED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME AND WITHHOLDING TAXES, UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES, FICA TAXES AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PAYMENTS AND PREMIUMS APPLICABLE TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY WORK PROVIDED. THE CONSULTANT SHALL INDEMNIFY THE BOARD FOR ANY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM


of 22



NONPAYMENT OF THE CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH.

12. Insurance. PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. THE CONSULTANT WILL NOT BE PAID UNLESS THE FOLLOWING INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. The Consultant shall maintain the following insurance in full force and effect

during the full term of this Agreement. The Consultant shall provide to the Board certificates of insurance (and renewals thereof) demonstrating that the following insurance requirements have been met. (REFER TO http://inflow.denverwater.org/r/Documents/Insurance%20Matrix.pdf IN MAKING THE FOLLOWING SELECTIONS.)

a. Commercial General Liability Insurance: (DENVER WATER MAY DELETE THIS PROVISION IF: THE CONSULTANT DOES NOT ROUTINELY MAINTAIN THIS TYPE OF INSURANCE; AND, THE WORK IS LOW-RISK ACTIVITY SUCH AS COMPUTER MODELING OR DRAFTING; AND, THE WORK IS PERFORMED IN THE CONSULTANT’S OWN WORKPLACE. IF THE AGREEMENT INVOLVES PHYSICAL WORK (SUCH AS INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OR THE LIKE), DO NOT DELETE THIS PROVISION. IF THE WORK CONSISTS OF HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY SUCH AS WORKING IN TREATMENT PLANTS OR DAMS, A HIGHER AMOUNT IS LIKELY APPROPRIATE.) Commercial general liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate. Such insurance shall include the City and County of Denver, acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners, as additional insured and shall be primary and non-contributing with respect to any insurance or self-insurance program of the Board.

b. Automobile Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance as required by Colorado law. The Board does not require a certificate of insurance unless this subparagraph (b) requires insurance that exceeds the statutory requirements. (DENVER WATER MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PROVISION IF CONSULTANT WILL DRIVE FREQUENTLY OR LONG DISTANCES TO PERFORM THE WORK OR IF CONSULTANT’S DRIVING WILL INVOLVE HAZARDOUS OR VALUABLE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT OR IF THERE ARE OTHER HIGH-RISK DRIVING CONCERNS. IF NONE OF THESE APPLY, THEN DENVER WATER MAY DELETE THE FOLLOWING PROVISION.)


http://inflow.denverwater.org/r/Documents/Insurance%20Matrix.pdf

of 22



In addition to the statutory requirements, Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles used in the performance of Work under this Agreement.

c. Professional Liability Insurance: (DENVER WATER MAY DELETE THIS PROVISION IF THE CONSULTANT’S SERVICES DO NOT CONSIST OF ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL, LEGAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL WORK. THE MINIMUM COVERAGE MAY BE INCREASED BASED ON DENVER WATER’S INSURANCE MATRIX. IF ERRORS MADE BY THE CONSULTANT IN PERFORMANCE OF PROFESSIONAL WORK WOULD BE VERY DAMAGING TO DENVER WATER, A HIGHER AMOUNT IS LIKELY APPROPRIATE.) Professional liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per claim covering all licensed professionals performing Work under this Agreement.

d. Workers’ Compensation Insurance: (DENVER WATER SHOULD DELETE THE TWO ALTERNATIVES BELOW THAT DO NOT APPLY.) ALTERNATIVE 1: The Consultant is located in Colorado and maintains workers’ compensation insurance, as required under the laws of the State of Colorado. IF THE CONSULTANT IS A COLORADO SOLE PROPRIETOR WITH EMPLOYEES, SELECT THIS ALTERNATIVE. ALTERNATIVE 2: The Consultant is located in Colorado and does not maintain workers’ compensation insurance because either the Consultant has rejected such coverage by waiver pursuant to C.R.S. § 8-41-202 or the Consultant is a sole proprietor without employees and is not performing construction work under this Agreement. If the Consultant has waived coverage as described above, the Consultant will provide the Board with evidence of its waiver along with the other certificates of insurance. IF THE CONSULTANT IS A SOLE PROPRIETOR WITHOUT EMPLOYEES, SELECT THIS ALTERNATIVE. HOWEVER, IF THE CONSULTANT ALSO IS DOING CONSTRUCTION WORK, DENVER WATER REQUIRES EVIDENCE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE (CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE 1 ABOVE) OR WAIVER (CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE 2). CONSTRUCTION WORK IS DEFINED IN C.R.S. § 8-41-404(5)(b); THE DENVER WATER REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE LEGAL DIVISION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE WORK MEETS THIS DEFINITION.


of 22



ALTERNATIVE 3: The Consultant is located outside of Colorado and does not maintain workers’ compensation insurance effective in Colorado. The Consultant warrants that during the term of this Agreement it will not hire employees in Colorado or transfer employees to Colorado without maintaining workers’ compensation insurance, as required by Colorado law, in full force and effect during the full term of this Agreement.

e. Other Requirements: 1) The Consultant’s insurers shall maintain an A.M. Best rating of A-,

VII or better. 2) All self-insured retentions or deductibles must be declared and

acceptable to the Board. 3) Thirty (30) days’ advance written notice of cancellation shall be

provided to the Board, except for ten (10) days’ advance written notice in the event of cancellation due to non-payment of premium.

f. The Consultant shall provide copies of insurance policies upon request of

the Board and in redacted form if necessary to protect confidential information.

g. The Board reserves the sole discretion to accept alternative types of insurance.

13. Computer and Telecommunications Security. IF THE CONSULTANT

WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DENVER WATER COMPUTERS OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH AND APPENDIX 1. The Consultant acknowledges that he, she, or an employee, subcontractor, or agent of the Consultant may have access to and use of the Board’s computer or telecommunication resources to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees that he, she or any of the Consultant’s employees or agents who use such resources will abide by the Board’s policies and guidelines governing the use of these resources and will comply with the provisions of Appendix 1, entitled "Use of Denver Water Board Computer and Telecommunications Resources,” attached and incorporated.

14. Compliance with Laws. In performing this Agreement, the Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act and federal and state tax laws. The Consultant certifies that it has complied, and during the term of this Agreement will continue to comply, with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.


of 22



The signature of the Consultant on this Agreement: (1) certifies that the

Consultant is not a natural person unlawfully present in the United States; and (2) also certifies the statements below if this is a public contract for services as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-17.5-101, et seq., and the Consultant utilizes subcontractors or employees in the Consultant’s business.

a. The Consultant shall not:

1) Knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement; or

2) Enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the

Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement.

b. The Consultant has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees

who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this Agreement through participation in either the e-verify program or the department program (as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-17.5-101, et seq.). The Consultant may not use either the e-verify program or the department program procedures to undertake preemployment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed.

c. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing

work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant shall:

1) Notify the subcontractor and the Board within three days that the

Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and

2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three

days of receiving the notice required pursuant to sub-subparagraph 1) of this subparagraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.

d. The Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the

Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Department is undertaking pursuant to state law.


of 22



e. The Consultant acknowledges that in the event the Consultant violates any of the provisions of the foregoing subparagraphs a – d, the Board may terminate this Agreement for breach of contract. If this Agreement is so terminated, the Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Board.

15. Safety and Security. The Consultant must comply with applicable safety

and occupational health standards, specifications, reporting, and any other relevant requirements. The Consultant also must check in with the Board’s Security personnel at each location, where applicable; display appropriate identification at all times while on the Board’s premises; and notify the Board’s Security personnel in writing in advance of any anticipated third-party deliveries with the name of the delivery person and the approximate time of arrival.

16. Personnel Screening.

Instructions for Denver Water’s completion of this section: 1. Denver Water should choose the applicable alternative(s) below and

applicable forms at the end of this template if the Consultant will be providing one or more of the services described. For work at critical Denver Water facilities, such as water treatment plants, pump stations, dams, etc., consult with the manager of the facility to determine if personnel screening is required.

2. If any of the requirements below should apply to subcontractors as well, please work with the Legal Division to add appropriate language.

3. If the Consultant is a company, and the individual owner of the company will be doing the work in addition to any employees (Alternative A), Alternative B also may be applicable. Please work with the Legal Division to determine the necessary requirements.

4. DENVER WATER SHOULD DELETE THE ALTERNATIVES THAT DO NOT APPLY, THE FORMS AT THE END OF THIS TEMPLATE THAT DO NOT APPLY, AND THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTIONS.

5. If none of the alternatives below applies to the Consultant’s scope of work, everything in this section should be deleted except the Personnel Screening heading above, which should have “Not Applicable” written next to it. Also delete the forms at the end of this template that are related to this section.

6. For questions about which provisions apply or for additional background screening due to special circumstances, please contact the Manager of Safety & Security.

7. IF THE CONSULTANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ANY REQUIRED PERSONNEL SCREENING MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT.

OPERATING A DENVER WATER VEHICLE


of 22



ALTERNATIVE A: IF ANY EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE CONSULTANT WILL BE OPERATING A DENVER WATER VEHICLE:

At least five (5) working days before assigning an employee or agent to operate a Board vehicle under this Agreement, the Consultant will submit the employee’s or agent’s name to the Board and certify on the Board-provided Certification of Personnel Screening form that the employee or agent has a valid Colorado driver’s license and a satisfactory driving record, defined as having no more than six (6) points on his/her driving record in the three (3) years prior to the assignment. The Board reserves the right to direct the Consultant to assign another employee or agent, meeting the requirements of this paragraph, to perform the Work if the Board determines during the term of the Agreement that the assigned employee or agent no longer has a valid Colorado driver’s license or satisfactory driving record. ALTERNATIVE B: IF THE CONSULTANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL BE OPERATING A DENVER WATER VEHICLE, CHOOSE THIS ALTERNATIVE. THE AGREEMENT MAY NOT BE FULLY EXECUTED UNTIL SAFETY & SECURITY HAS APPROVED THE DRIVER’S LICENSE AND DRIVING RECORD.

As a precondition to entering this Agreement, the Board determined that the Consultant has a valid Colorado driver’s license and satisfactory driving record, defined as having no more than six (6) points on his/her driving record in the three (3) years prior to the assignment. The Board reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if it determines during the term of the Agreement that the Consultant no longer has a valid Colorado driver’s license or satisfactory driving record. WORK INVOLVING SECURITY CONCERNS ALTERNATIVE A: IF ANY EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE CONSULTANT WILL PERFORM WORK UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RAISE SECURITY CONCERNS (SUCH AS ENTERING PRIVATE RESIDENCES ON DENVER WATER’S BEHALF, OR PERFORMING WORK THAT GIVES ACCESS TO CRITICAL FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS OR HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CRITICAL DENVER WATER FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS, OR TO HAVE ACCESS TO ANY CONFIDENTIAL, FINANCIAL, CUSTOMER, OR SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION MAINTAINED BY DENVER WATER, PROPRIETARY COMPUTER PROGRAMS OR SOFTWARE, OR SERVERS):

At least five (5) working days before assigning an employee or agent to perform duties under this Agreement that require the employee or agent to work under circumstances presenting security concerns or to have access to the Board’s sensitive information, proprietary computer programs, software or servers, the Consultant will submit the employee’s or agent’s name to the Board and certify on the Board-provided Certification of Personnel Screening form that no more than one (1) year prior to the assignment it performed a background check on the employee or agent, including a review of criminal history, and determined that the employee or agent does not pose a risk to persons or property. Consultant’s determination should be based on guidance


of 22



provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the use of arrest and conviction history in employment decisions, which requires a weighing of (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct, (2) the time that has passed since the offense, conduct or the employee’s completion of any sentence given as a result of the offense, and (3) the nature of the job held or sought. Background checks must include a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Criminal History Check, and, if the employee or agent has lived outside the State of Colorado or the United States during the last five (5) years, a criminal history check from each state or country of residence. For employees or agents who will have access to the Board’s financial records and/or accounting processes, including purchasing, payables, receivables, and treasury or cash management, the Consultant also will conduct a credit history check on the employee or agent and certify on the Board-provided Certification of Personnel Screening form that the Consultant has determined that the employee or agent does not pose a risk to the Board. The Board reserves the right to direct the Consultant to assign another employee or agent, meeting the requirements of this paragraph, to perform the Work if the Board has reason to believe that during the term of the Agreement the assigned employee or agent engaged in criminal activity or was involved in financial improprieties, to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion. ALTERNATIVE B: IF THE CONSULTANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL PERFORM WORK UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RAISE SECURITY CONCERNS (SUCH AS ENTERING PRIVATE RESIDENCES ON DENVER WATER’S BEHALF, OR PERFORMING WORK THAT GIVES ACCESS TO CRITICAL FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS OR HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO CRITICAL DENVER WATER FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS, OR TO HAVE ACCESS TO ANY CONFIDENTIAL, FINANCIAL, CUSTOMER, OR SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION MAINTAINED BY DENVER WATER, PROPRIETARY COMPUTER PROGRAMS OR SOFTWARE, OR SERVERS), SELECT THIS ALTERNATIVE AND HAVE THE CONSULTANT FILL OUT THE CONSENT TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS FORM AT THE END OF THIS TEMPLATE. AT LEAST 5 DAYS BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS TO BE FULLY EXECUTED, SEND THE SIGNED FORM TO SAFETY & SECURITY TO CONDUCT THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND, IF NECESSARY, TO HUMAN RESOURCES TO CONDUCT THE CREDIT CHECK. THE AGREEMENT MAY NOT BE FULLY EXECUTED UNTIL SAFETY & SECURITY HAS APPROVED THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND CREDIT CHECK.

As a precondition to entering this Agreement, the Consultant gave the Board consent to conduct a background check on the Consultant, including a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Criminal History Check, and, if the Consultant has lived outside the State of Colorado or the United States during the last five (5) years, consent to obtain a criminal history check from each state or country of residence. If the Consultant will have access to the Board’s financial records and/or accounting processes, including purchasing, payables, receivables, and treasury or cash management, the Consultant also consented to a credit history check. The Board has reviewed and approved the results of the background check and, if applicable, the credit history check. The Board reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if it has reason


of 22



to believe that during the term of the Agreement the Consultant engaged in criminal activity or was involved in financial improprieties, to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion. SAFETY-SENSITIVE DUTIES ALTERNATIVE A: IF ANY EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE CONSULTANT WILL PERFORM SAFETY-SENSITIVE DUTIES, I.E., DUTIES THAT IF PERFORMED WITH INATTENTIVENESS, ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, OR DIMINISHED COORDINATION, DEXTERITY, OR COMPOSURE MAY RESULT IN MISTAKES THAT COULD PRESENT A REAL OR IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SUCH AS WORKING AS AN ARMED SECURITY GUARD OR PERFORMING CERTAIN HIGH-RISK OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS:

At least five (5) working days before assigning an employee or agent to perform safety-sensitive Work under this Agreement, the Consultant will submit the employee’s or agent’s name to the Board and certify on the Board-provided Certification of Personnel Screening form that no more than one (1) year prior to the assignment it performed a background check on the employee or agent, including a review of criminal history, and determined that the employee or agent does not pose a risk to persons or property. Consultant’s determination should be based on guidance provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the use of arrest and conviction history in employment decisions, which requires a weighing of (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct, (2) the time that has passed since the offense, conduct or the employee’s completion of any sentence given as a result of the offense, and (3) the nature of the job held or sought. Background checks must include a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Criminal History Check, and, if the employee or agent has lived outside the State of Colorado or the United States during the last five (5) years, a criminal history check from each state or country of residence. The Consultant also must certify on the Board-provided Certification of Personnel Screening form that no more than one (1) month before the assignment of an employee or agent to perform safety-sensitive Work under this Agreement, the employee or agent passed a drug and alcohol screening performed by one of the Board-recommended testing facilities on the Board-provided list titled Occupational Medicine clinics, using a Rapid Screen test (negative result only accepted), or by a DOT-certified laboratory and using the DOT 5 panel drug test. The Board reserves the right to direct the Consultant to assign another employee or agent, meeting the requirements of this paragraph, to perform the Work if the Board has reason to believe that during the term of the Agreement the assigned employee or agent engaged in criminal activity or used drugs or alcohol in a manner that could present a real or imminent threat to public health or safety, to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion.

ALTERNATIVE B: IF THE CONSULTANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WILL PERFORM SAFETY-SENSITIVE DUTIES, I.E., DUTIES THAT IF PERFORMED WITH INATTENTIVENESS, ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, OR DIMINISHED COORDINATION, DEXTERITY, OR COMPOSURE MAY RESULT IN MISTAKES THAT COULD


of 22



PRESENT A REAL OR IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SUCH AS WORKING AS AN ARMED SECURITY GUARD OR PERFORMING CERTAIN HIGH-RISK OPERATIONAL FUNCTIONS, SELECT THIS ALTERNATIVE AND AT LEAST 5 DAYS BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS TO BE FULLY EXECUTED HAVE THE CONSULTANT FILL OUT THE CONSENT TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS FORM AT THE END OF THIS TEMPLATE AND SUBMIT DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING RESULTS TO SAFETY & SECURITY. THE AGREEMENT MAY NOT BE FULLY EXECUTED UNTIL SAFETY & SECURITY HAS APPROVED THE BACKGROUND CHECK AND DRUG SCREENING.

As a precondition to entering this Agreement, the Consultant gave consent for the Board to conduct a background check on the Consultant, including a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Criminal History Check, and, if the Consultant has lived outside the State of Colorado or the United States during the last five (5) years, to submit to a criminal background check from each state or country of residence. The Consultant also provided the results of a drug and alcohol screening performed within one (1) month of submittal by one of the Board-recommended testing facilities on the Board-provided list titled Occupational Medicine clinics, using a Rapid Screen test (negative result only accepted), or by a DOT-certified laboratory and using the DOT 5 panel drug test. The Board has reviewed and approved the results of the background check and drug and alcohol screening. The Board reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if it has reason to believe that during the term of the Agreement the Consultant engaged in criminal activity or used drugs or alcohol in a manner that could present a real or imminent threat to public health or safety, to be determined by the Board in its sole discretion.

17. Liability. The Consultant agrees to provide a defense and pay any

damages and costs for any liability or claim of whatever nature arising in any way out of this Agreement, including but not limited to any claims that the Creations, Prior Works or the Work infringe the intellectual property rights of a third party, to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the Consultant or the Consultant’s officers, subcontractors, agents, or employees.

18. Standards of Conduct – Nondiscrimination and Respectful Workplace.

The Consultant agrees not to discriminate against any Board employee, or potential subcontractor or supplier because of race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, military status, marital status, or disability. The Consultant further agrees not to conduct business in a manner that brings discredit to the Board or creates a hostile or disrespectful work environment for Board employees, Board customers, or other contractors performing work for the Board. The Board reserves the right at its sole discretion to terminate this Agreement if the Consultant is an individual, or to direct the Consultant to assign another employee or agent to perform the Work, if the Board has reason to believe that during the term of the Agreement the Consultant, or the assigned employee or agent engaged in activity prohibited by this section.


of 22



19. Small Business Enterprises; Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises. The Board recognizes the desirability, need and importance to the City and County of Denver of encouraging the development of Small Business Enterprises (“SBEs”) and Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (“MWBEs”). The Consultant agrees to make a good faith effort to involve SBEs and MWBEs in the Work if and when the opportunity arises.

20. Acceptance Not Waiver. The Board’s approval of studies, drawings,

designs, plans, specifications, reports, computer programs and other work or materials does not in any way relieve the Consultant of responsibility for the technical accuracy of the Work. The Board’s approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any Work is not a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

21. Termination or Suspension. The Board reserves the exclusive right to

terminate or suspend all or any portion of the Work by giving fourteen (14) days’ written notice to the Consultant. If any portion of the project shall be terminated or suspended, the Board shall pay the Consultant equitably for all Work properly performed pursuant to this Agreement. If the project is suspended and the Consultant is not given an order to resume work within sixty (60) days from the effective date of the suspension, this Agreement will be considered terminated. Upon termination, the Consultant shall immediately deliver to the Board any documents then in existence that have been prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement and that have been paid for by the Board.

22. Default. Every term and condition of this Agreement is a material element

of this Agreement. In the event either party should fail or refuse to perform according to the material terms of this Agreement, such party may be declared in default by the other party by a written notice.

23. Remedies. In the event a party has been declared in default, such

defaulting party shall be allowed a period of fifteen (15) days within which to correct, or commence correcting, the default. In the event that the default has not been corrected or begun to be corrected, or the defaulting party has ceased to pursue the correction with due diligence, the party declaring default may elect to (a) terminate the Agreement and seek damages; (b) treat the Agreement as continuing and require specific performance; or (c) avail itself of any other remedy at law or equity. In the event the Consultant fails or neglects to perform the Work in accordance with this Agreement, the Board may elect to correct such deficiencies and charge the Consultant for the full cost of the corrections.

24. Force Majeure. The parties shall not be responsible for any failure or

delay in the performance of any obligations under this Agreement caused by acts of God, flood, fire, war or public enemy. Any declared force majeure that remains in effect


of 22



for longer than ninety (90) days entitles either party to unilaterally terminate this Agreement.

25. Assignment and Subcontracts. The Consultant may not assign this

Agreement or any right or liability of this Agreement or enter into any subcontract or amend any subcontract related to this Agreement without prior written consent of the Board. Any subcontract must include language similar to the Records and Audits paragraph of this Agreement, requiring records to be adequate and available for Board audit. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns. This Agreement is intended to benefit only the parties, and neither subcontractors nor suppliers of the Consultant nor any other person or entity is intended by the parties to be a third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.

26. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court

having jurisdiction to be unenforceable to any extent, the rest of that provision and the rest of this Agreement will remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

27. Venue and Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed performable

in the City and County of Denver, notwithstanding that the parties may find it necessary to take some action outside the City and County. The sole venue for any dispute resulting in litigation shall be in the District Court in and for the City and County of Denver. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Colorado.

28. Notice and Contact. The parties shall contact the persons listed below for

all matters related to administration of this Agreement. All notices required or given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective: (a) when delivered personally to the other party; or (b) seven (7) days after posting in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows; or (c) when sent by e-mail. If notice is provided by e-mail, the notifying party must follow up with a hard copy of the notice sent by United States mail; however, the notice will be effective as of the original e-mail date. If to the Consultant: Insert name of the Consultant Insert mailing address of the Consultant Insert e-mail address of the Consultant


of 22



If to the Board: Insert title of person responsible for contract Denver Water Department 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204 Insert e-mail address of person reponsible for contract or such other persons or addresses as the parties may have designated in writing.

29. Charter of the City and County of Denver. This Agreement is made under and conformable to Article X of the Charter of the City and County of Denver, which controls the operation of the Denver Municipal Water System. The Charter provisions are incorporated by this reference and supersede any apparently conflicting provisions otherwise contained in this Agreement.

30. Governmental Immunity Act. The parties understand and agree that the

Board is relying upon, and has not waived, the monetary limitations of $350,000 per person, $990,000 per occurrence, and all other rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as it may be amended from time to time.

31. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement

between the Board and the Consultant and replaces all prior written or oral agreements and understandings. It may be altered, amended, or repealed only by a duly executed written instrument.

32. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective on the date it is

fully signed by the Board. THEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement. This Agreement must

have the signature of an authorized representative of the Consultant. Insert the following attestation for Board signature only ATTESTED: By: Secretary

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, acting by and through its BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS By: Insert “President,” “CEO/Manager” or appropriate Chief title depending on $ amount (See Contracting Procedures in Financial Manual)


of 22



DATE:

APPROVED: By: Insert appropriate Chief title if Board or CEO/Manager signs above

REGISTERED AND COUNTERSIGNED: CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER By: Timothy M. O’Brien, CPA Auditor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Office of General Counsel


of 22



THIS AGREEMENT IS ACCEPTED BY: CONSULTANT: Insert name of the Consultant By execution, signer certifies s/he is authorized to bind the Consultant to the terms of this Agreement. By: DATE: ________________________ TITLE: [for other than individual] For Board records only, Consultant shall check the applicable box(es) below:

Consultant is a Small Business per federal SBA guidelines Consultant is not a Small Business per federal SBA guidelines Consultant is a Minority-owned Business Enterprise (MBE) and/or Women-owned Business Enterprise

(WBE) per (name of certifying entity) Consultant is not an MBE or WBE Consultant elects not to answer this question

If Consultant is an MBE and/or WBE, Consultant must submit evidence of certification from an agency such as the City and County of Denver or the Mountain Plains Minority Supplier Development Council. (If Contractor/Consultant/Company is an individual, the “Affidavit of Lawful Presence in the U.S.” attached to this template and proof of identity are also required.) (If Contractor/Consultant/Company is not an individual (e.g. corporation), you may disregard the Affidavit at the end of this template, and no proof of identity is required.) YOU MUST INCLUDE THE NOTARIZATION BELOW FOR CONTRACTORS WHO ARE PERFORMING THE WORK AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY. FOR ALL OTHER CONTRACTORS, THE NOTARIZATION BELOW MAY BE DELETED. CONSULTANT’S SIGNATURE MUST BE NOTARIZED BELOW: STATE OF ) ) ss. COUNTY OF )

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of , 201__, by INSERT NAME OF THE CONSULTANT.

Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: ____________

(SEAL) ________________________________ Notary Public


of 22



EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK

The Consultant shall perform the following tasks: Insert description of the scope of work, reiterate work requirements from RFP, or

attach the scope of work from the Consultant’s proposal. Optional provision for Denver Water Engineering: The Consultant agrees to

follow all provisions of the Board’s Capital Project Procedures Manual, including but not limited to 30%, 60%, and 90% deliverables, with emphasis on colored drawings at 90% submittal time. The Consultant agrees to adhere to the Board’s drafting and specification formatting standards.

If contract is for design work, insert the following: The Consultant shall use the

Board's furnished standard electronic 22" x 34" drawing border and shall adhere to the Board’s drafting standards.


of 22



IF THE CONSULTANT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO DENVER WATER COMPUTERS, PLEASE DELETE THIS APPENDIX.

APPENDIX 1

USE OF DENVER WATER BOARD

COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESOURCES The Consultant and its employees and agents may have access to and use of the Board’s computer or telecommunications resources to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. As a condition of this access and use, the Consultant agrees to abide by all applicable laws and Board policies, including the Denver Water Policies and Procedures and applicable manuals, and all other policies, procedures, guidelines and standards that relate to the use and security of the Board’s computer and telecommunications resources. The Consultant will not knowingly use or permit the use of the Board’s resources for any purposes other than those necessary to perform the Work required under this Agreement. The Consultant will not use any access mechanism that the Board has not expressly assigned to the Consultant or its employees, and the Consultant will not disclose information concerning access to these resources unless properly authorized to do so by the Board. The Consultant will treat all information maintained on Board computer systems, networks and telecommunications resources as strictly confidential and will not release information to any unauthorized person. The Board reserves the right without notice to limit or restrict the Consultant’s access and to inspect, remove or otherwise alter any data, file or system resource that may undermine or expand the limited scope of Consultant’s authorized use of the Board’s network computing facilities. Should the Consultant fail to abide by the terms of this Appendix 1, the Board may immediately terminate this Agreement.




AFFIDAVIT OF LAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE U.S.

I, __________________________ (print name legibly), swear or affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that (check only one): ___ I am a United States citizen, or ___ I am not a United States citizen, but I am a Permanent Resident of the United States and authorize Denver Water to verify this statement with the Department of Homeland Security using my alien registration number, which is _______________, or ___ I am not a United States citizen, but I am lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal law and authorize Denver Water to verify this statement with the Department of Homeland Security using my alien registration number, which is _______________.

I understand that this sworn statement is required by law because I have applied for a public benefit. I understand that state law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States prior to receipt of this public benefit. I further acknowledge that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal laws of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under Colorado Revised Statute 18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received. ___________________________________ ______________________ Signature Date

Attach Copy of Applicable Identification Form Here




CERTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL SCREENING BY CONSULTANT/CONTRACTOR

To be completed by the Board’s Contract Administrator: Contract No: ________________ Consultant/Contractor: ______________________________ The work under the Agreement involves: (Check one or more and describe the duties in the spaces provided, and check the corresponding numbered box in the Consultant/Contractor section below.) 1. Operating a Board vehicle (driving record and license check required) 2. Performing work involving security concerns. Describe duties: __________________

____________________________________________________________________ (criminal background check required)

3. Accessing Board’s financial records or accounting processes (credit check required) 4. Performing safety-sensitive work. Describe duties: ____________________________

_____________________________________________________________________ (criminal background check and drug and alcohol screening required)

To be completed by the representative of Consultant/Contractor: Name of Employee/Agent: _________________________ Start Date of Work for Board: ____________ I, _________________________, as a representative of the Consultant/Contractor, certify that the above-named employee or agent of the Consultant/Contractor is assigned to complete the work described above and (check the applicable options below): 1. Has a valid Colorado driver’s license and a satisfactory driving record, defined as having no

more than six (6) points on his/her driving record in the three (3) years prior to the assignment. (Applies if work involves operating a Board vehicle.)

2. Has been the subject of a background check no more than one (1) year prior to the assignment, and I have determined that he/she does not pose a risk to persons or property. Background checks must include a Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Criminal History Check, and, if the employee or agent has lived outside the State of Colorado or the United States during the last five (5) years, a criminal history check from each state or country of residence. (Applies if work involves security concerns or safety-sensitive duties.)

3. Has been the subject of a credit history check, and I have determined that he/she does not pose a risk to the Board. (Applies if work involves accessing the Board’s financial records or accounting processes.)

4. No more than one (1) month prior to the assignment under this contract, he/she passed a drug and alcohol screening performed at a certified testing facility using a Rapid Screen test (negative results only will be accepted) or by a federally certified laboratory using a Federal (HHS, FMCSA or DOT) 5-Panel Drug Test. (Applies if work involves safety-sensitive duties.)

Under penalty of perjury, I swear the above statements are true and correct. Signature: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Phone: ______________________________ E-mail: _________________________________ Approval by the Board’s Contract Administrator: Print Name: ___________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________ Date: ___________________




Consent to Perform Background Checks In Compliance with the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act)

Contract No. ___________________

Check all that apply:

Criminal Background

Credit Background Name of Contractor/Consultant:

______________________________

The information requested below is to be used by Denver Water for the purpose of obtaining criminal or credit history background information. Denver Water will not retain this information. Last Name: ______________________ First Name: ________________ Middle Name/Initial: _________ Maiden or other name(s) used in any and all other records of birth or records of residence: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Date of Birth: ______________ Social Security Number: ____________________ Gender: ___________ Current Address: ___________________________________________ Apartment No: ______________ City: _______________________________ County: ___________ State: __________ Zip: ___________ Previous Addresses (during the last five years): Address: __________________________________________________ Apartment No: ______________ City: _______________________________ County: ___________ State: __________ Zip: ___________ Address: __________________________________________________ Apartment No: ______________ City: _______________________________ County: ___________ State: __________ Zip: ___________ Address: __________________________________________________ Apartment No: ______________ City: _______________________________ County: ___________ State: __________ Zip: ___________ Address: __________________________________________________ Apartment No: ______________ City: _______________________________ County: ___________ State: __________ Zip: ___________ Consent to Background Checks: I understand that before I am permitted to perform work under the Contract identified above, Denver Water will conduct criminal and/or credit history background checks on me. I do hereby consent to Denver Water’s use of the information I have provided for the purpose of conducting criminal and/or credit history background checks on me. Denver Water has informed me of the following in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

I have the right to review and challenge any negative information that would adversely impact a decision to authorize me to perform work under the Contract.

Upon my request, Denver Water will provide me with the name, address and telephone number of the reporting agency or agencies used to conduct background checks, and with the nature, substance and source of all background information obtained.

Upon my request, I will be provided a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable opportunity, as determined by Denver Water, to clear up any mistaken information reported about my criminal or credit history.

Signature Date




Occupational Medicine clinics: 1. Concentra – www.concentra.com

Multiple locations throughout the state: http://maps.concentra.com/corporatev3/ListSearch.aspx See list for individual location telephone numbers

2. HealthOne – www.healthoneclinics.com

Occupational Medicine site: http://www.healthoneclinics.com/CustomPage.asp?guidCustomContentID=25FF9FDE-F37D-4712-85A7-679915BE40F3

Initial W/C, Drug Screen, Breath Alcohol

Phone: 303-861-7878 1515 Wazee, Ste D Denver, CO 80202

Multiple locations throughout Denver. Referral form w/addresses for testing available on website.

3. Exempla - www.exempla.org

Occupational Medicine & Physical Therapy Customer Service Line: 303-813-5140 Occupational Medicine site: http://www.exempla.org/body_epn.cfm?id=1352 Multiple locations throughout the state: http://www.exempla.org/documents/EPN/epn_occmedmap.pdf

4. Midtown Occupational Medicine - www.midtownoccupationalhealth.com

Diamond Hill Office Complex Speer & I-25 2420 W. 26th Ave. Building D Suite 200 Denver, CO 80211 (303) 831-9393 Fax: (303) 831-6335 Hours of Operation: Monday - Friday, 7am-6pm

5. Denver Occupational/Aviation Medicine Clinic - http://www.denveroccmed.com/ Denver Occupational and Aviation Medicine (DOAM) 3700 Havana Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80239 303.373.4456 303.373.4501 (F)


http://www.concentra.com/

http://maps.concentra.com/corporatev3/ListSearch.aspx

http://www.healthoneclinics.com/

http://www.healthoneclinics.com/CustomPage.asp?guidCustomContentID=25FF9FDE-F37D-4712-85A7-679915BE40F3

http://www.healthoneclinics.com/CustomPage.asp?guidCustomContentID=25FF9FDE-F37D-4712-85A7-679915BE40F3

http://www.exempla.org/

http://www.exempla.org/body_epn.cfm?id=1352

http://www.exempla.org/documents/EPN/epn_occmedmap.pdf

http://www.midtownoccupationalhealth.com/

http://www.denveroccmed.com/



For fillable form: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

Exhibit B Page 1 of 39

http://www.kumarusa.com/

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................... 1

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 2

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................. 3

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 4

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................ 7

CHASE STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 9

AERIAL SIPHON RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ........................................12

BURIED SIPHON RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS .......................................13

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................16

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ...................................................................................................19

SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK ........................................................................................20

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES ................................................................................................26

BURIED METAL CORROSION .................................................................................................26

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES .........................................................27

LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................28

FIG. 1 – LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

FIG. 2 – LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

FIG. 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES

FIGS. 4 through 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS

FIG. 7 - LABORATORY RESISTIVITY RESULTS

FIG. 8 – WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS


PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical engineering study for Denver

Water’s proposed replacement of Siphon No. 1 of the Vasquez - St. Louis Collection Conduit.

The specific section of the existing siphon addressed in this report is shown on Fig. 1. The

study was performed under our Task Order Agreement No. 14332 with Denver Water dated

September 10, 2014, which includes the scope of work provided in our Proposal No. P-14-662

last revised on October 13, 2014.

A field exploration program consisting of supplemental exploratory borings was conducted to

obtain additional information on subsurface conditions along the siphon alignment. Samples of

the soils obtained during the field exploration program were tested in the laboratory to determine

their classification and engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and

laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations and construction considerations

for the section of the existing siphon addressed in this study.

Kumar and Associates, Inc. (K+A) previously performed a geotechnical engineering study for

Denver Water for the proposed replacement of the overall siphon. The results of that study

were provided under our Project No. 11-1-313 in a report dated August 26, 2011 and revised on

September 12, 2011. That report includes a detailed discussion of the general geologic

conditions along siphon alignment. The Information from that study has been used to

supplement the data from the current exploratory borings and laboratory testing.

This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present

our conclusions and recommendations regarding the feasibility and requirements for replacing

the portion of Siphon No. 1 addressed in this report based on the proposed construction and the

subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical

engineering considerations related to replacement of the subject section of the siphon are

included in the report.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed project will consist of the replacement and possible complete burial of the section

of the existing siphon addressed in this report, which, except for a belowground portion

extending through a concrete chase beneath the base area of the ski resort, is currently above


ground. The overall existing siphon is an approximately 1,900-foot long, 72-inch diameter, steel

pipe which extends from an inlet structure at the Vasquez – St. Louis Canal at the west end of

the alignment to an outlet structure at the Moffat Tunnel valve house at the east end. The

siphon portion included in this study extends from the west end of the chase structure to the

Moffat Tunnel valve house.

Denver Water is currently considering whether to backfill the concrete chase and encasing the

siphon enclosed in that structure with lightweight concrete or other material, or replace the

siphon in kind with upgrades to the chase structure. Denver Water is also considering two

alternatives for replacing the above-ground portion of the siphon crossing the Fraser River by

either burying the siphon beneath the river bottom and the bank slopes on each side of the river,

or constructing an aerial crossing similar to that supporting the existing siphon. Denver Water is

also considering adding a blow-off line that extends from the siphon to a location north of the

siphon along Winter Park Drive, and construction of an enclosure structure for the portion of the

siphon within about 40 feet of the Moffat Tunnel Portal. The location of the blow-off line has not

yet been determined.

If the proposed construction varies significantly from that described above or depicted in this

report, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations provided in this report.

SITE CONDITIONS The specific section of the existing siphon addressed in this report is shown on Fig. 1. The

section of the existing siphon addressed in this report crosses the base area of the Winter Park

Resort and over the Fraser River and Winter Park Drive. Within the base area of the resort

between the toe of the ski slope and the Fraser River, the pipe is buried, with an approximately

255-foot-long segment running through a below-ground concrete chase located along the south

side of the Resort’s “West Portal” Building. Where the alignment crosses the Fraser River and

Winter Park Drive, the buried segment of the siphon daylights and is supported on piers

supported on shallow foundations.

Along and in the immediate vicinity of the chase, the alignment is generally covered with

concrete flatwork and/or asphalt pavement. Winter Park Drive is paved with asphalt. The

ground surface along the remainder of the alignment is aggregate-surfaced or covered by

sparse grasses and isolated trees and brush.


Based on available information, the topography ranges from essentially flat across the base

area of the Resort and along Winter Park Drive to variably sloping ground along the river and

Winter Park Drive. East of the base area of the Resort, the ground surface slopes steeply on

the west and east banks of the Fraser River and to the east of Winter Park Drive, with slopes

generally as steep as 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical) to nearly vertical in places along the toes of

the river banks. Based on our observations, the steeper portions of those slopes, particularly

the slope along the west bank of the river, appear to be sliding downhill due to shallow creep of

the near-surface soils.

The estimated overall elevation changes along alignment are about 30 feet between the base

area at the end of the chase and the river bottom and about 35 feet between the river bottom

and the Moffat Tunnel valve house. East of the river, Winter Park Drive forms an essentially flat

bench located vertically about halfway between the river and the valve house.

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Four supplementary exploratory borings, Borings 14-1 through 14-4, were drilled along the

section of the existing siphon addressed in this report to depths ranging from about 31 to 51 feet

below existing ground surface. The approximate locations of those supplementary exploratory

borings are shown on Fig. 1 along with the approximate locations of the pertinent explorations

from the 2011 siphon replacement study and other relevant explorations previously performed

for Denver Water along the siphon alignment. Subsurface information from previous

explorations drilled by K+A for the Resort was also considered. Graphic logs of the borings are

presented on Fig. 2, and a legend and notes describing the soils encountered are presented on

Fig. 3.

One of the borings, Borings 14-3, was completed as a permanent monitoring well to be used for

groundwater level measurements up to and possibly during the siphon replacement

construction. Well Construction details are provided on Fig. 8. The remaining borings were

backfilled upon completion of drilling. A representative of Kumar logged the borings and

supervised drilling and well construction activities.

Track- and truck-mounted ODEX percussion (downhole hammer) drilling equipment was used

to advance the borings. Where feasible, samples of the soils and bedrock materials were taken


with drive samplers. Generally a 2-inch I.D. California liner sampler was used for the drive

samples, except for occasional sample intervals where a 1-3/8-inch I.D. split spoon standard

penetration test sampler was used. Note that use of the California liner is similar to the

standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D 1586. The samplers were driven into

the various strata with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Depths at which the

drive samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the logs of the

borings on Fig. 2.

Samples obtained from the exploratory borings were visually classified, and selected samples

were tested in our laboratory to determine classification properties, organic matter content, and

chemical characteristics for evaluation of corrosivity, including water soluble sulfates, pH,

chlorides, and electrical resistivity. The results of the laboratory tests are shown to the right of

the corresponding samples on the logs on Fig. 2 and summarized in Table I. The results of

specific tests, including grain size analyses and electrical resistivity, are graphically plotted on

Figs. 4 through 7. The testing was conducted in general accordance with recognized test

procedures, primarily those of the American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM) and the

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT).

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on the field and laboratory data, the subsurface conditions encountered in the

supplemental borings consisted of natural soils overlain by varying thicknesses of recent and/or

older fill and underlain at one boring location by bedrock. Recent fill consisting primarily of silty

to occasionally clayey sand with gravel was encountered to depths ranging from about 2 to 15

feet at the locations of Borings 14-3 and 14-4. These fill materials were also encountered in

Boring 5 drilled for the 2011 study and are believed to be reworked, locally derived natural soils

placed as site grading fill in places at the Resort and at the west end of the siphon alignment,

and as embankment fill for the west side of Winter Park Drive. The recent fill encountered in the

current borings and the previous borings shown on Fig. 1 was generally fine to coarse grained

with isolated cobbles and small boulders, slightly moist to wet, and brown to yellow-brown to

gray-brown.

Older fill consisting of a variable mixture of clayey sand with gravel and clayey gravel with sand

was encountered to estimated depths of about 17 and 25 feet at the locations of Borings 14-1

and 14-2, respectively. These older fill materials are consistent with similar fill materials

previously encountered within the base area of the Resort and are believed to have originated


from construction of the Moffat Tunnel in the mid- to late-1920’s. The older fill encountered in

the borings was generally fine to coarse grained with isolated to occasional cobbles, moist, and

brown to gray-brown to pink-brown to tan-gray, and contained isolated trash, wood debris

organic materials.

Although not encountered in the current or previous borings indicated on Fig. 1, it is our

experience at the Resort that soil materials in the older fill are comprised predominantly of

fragments of metamorphic and igneous rocks ranging in size from silt to boulders in excess of 5

feet in diameter. There is also reported to be some debris in the older fill, which has generally

been referred to as “tunnel muck”. This debris consists predominantly of wood timbers with

some scattered metal debris such as rails, cables and ore cars that have reportedly been

encountered in previous excavations in the area. The amount of debris contained in the older

fill appears to vary significantly, and the formation of voids caused by bridging between the

debris and the earth material is likely to exist in some areas. Drilling for Boring 14-2

encountered relatively loose conditions and did not result in significant cuttings with the upper

25 feet, and it is believed that the existing older fill was in a loose enough condition to allow the

cuttings within that depth to displace the surrounding fill materials.

The compaction history of the existing fills is unknown, and placement is believed to vary widely

from a non-engineered, uncontrolled condition for the older fill and local areas of more recent

end-dumped fill, to engineered recent fill placed under controlled and tested conditions. The

vertical and lateral extent of the existing fill beyond our boring locations is not known, and the

degree of compaction of the existing fill, if any, was not determined. However, most of the fill

encountered in the borings generally appears to have been poorly compacted based on variable

and generally low sampler penetration resistance values. Based on the data from the

exploratory borings, and our experience at the Winter Park Resort, the fills are considered to be

non-engineered and expected to exhibit variable and unpredictable settlement behavior during

excavation and, where applicable, under structural loading.

The natural overburden soils encountered in the borings consisted primarily of relatively coarse

granular stream alluvium consisting of poorly- to well-graded sand with silt and gravel and

poorly- to well-graded gravel with silt and sand. The alluvial sands and gravels were fine to

coarse grained and generally contained isolated to frequent cobbles and isolated boulders, and

were moist to wet below groundwater and brown to occasionally gray. Based on drilling


conditions, Boring 14-3 apparently encountered a 2-foot-diameter boulder at a depth of about 2

feet and a zone of nested cobbles between the depths of about 15 and 20 feet.

The natural coarser poorly- to well-graded granular alluvial soils were overlain in places by

moist to wet zones of natural silty sand, clayey sand with variable gravel content, and lean clay

with sand. The natural clayey sands ranged from brown to orange-brown to gray-brown, and

the natural silty sands and lean clays ranged from gray to dark gray to black. The silty sand and

lean clay soils encountered in the borings contained variable amounts of organic material, such

as roots, and Boring 14-1 encountered an approximately 2-foot-thick zone of apparent fibrous

peat at a depth of about 17 feet below ground surface. Peat and organic deposits were also

encountered beneath the existing fill in several borings previously completed for the Resort

within and around the chase structure.

Based on sampler penetration resistance, the natural lean clays were generally medium stiff

with isolated soft zones, and the natural sands generally ranged from loose to medium dense,

with dense to very dense zones encountered in the natural coarser poorly- to well-graded

granular alluvial soils. The higher blow counts, indicative of dense to very dense conditions,

may be misleading due to the presence of cobbles and boulders within those soils.

Bedrock was apparently encountered in Boring 14-3 at a depth of about 24 feet. Identifiable

samples of the bedrock were not obtained. Based on mapping of nearby exposed bedrock

during the 2011 study, the bedrock encountered in Boring 14-3 likely consists of Proterozoic-

age granitic and gneissic bedrock.

Groundwater was encountered in Borings 14-1, 14-2, and 14-4 during drilling at depths ranging

from about 24 to 30 feet below ground surface, and wet soils were encountered in Boring 14-3

at depths below approximately 4 feet. These groundwater levels are considered unstabilized.

Due to the potential tripping hazard posed by the borings to pedestrians at the Resort, the

borings were backfilled immediately after drilling, such that stabilized groundwater levels could

not be obtained at those locations. However, the stabilized groundwater level in the well in

Boring 14-3 has not been measured yet. Stabilized groundwater levels were measured in 2011

at depths of about 15 feet and 28.5 feet in piezometers installed in previous Borings 4 and S-2.


GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Site conditions that will need to be considered during design and construction include: the

presence of deep non-engineered recent and older fills and underlying natural soft and loose

compressible soils; relatively steep and generally unstable slopes along the River; and existing

structures. As discussed in more detail in the “Site Grading and Earthwork” section of this

report, site subsurface conditions are generally not favorable for temporary open-cut

excavations, particularly between the east end of the chase and the River where deep

excavations in potentially unstable older fills and soft or loose natural soils are anticipated. To

limit the lateral extent of deep excavations and the impact of those excavations on existing

structures, temporary shoring will likely be necessary in places during trenching for a buried

siphon, or for subgrade preparation and construction of shallow foundations supporting piers for

an aerial siphon.

Although the bank slopes of the river are relatively steep and unstable in places, we understand

that the banks of the river will likely not be regraded to flatter slopes in order to maintain existing

hydrologic flow conditions and the limits of the existing paved surfaces, and to avoid

grading/drainage issues around existing structures. If not properly reinforced, long-term

instability of the river bank slopes could impact the stability of cover soil placed over a buried

siphon, adversely impact piers supporting an aerial siphon that are positioned on the slopes,

and adversely impact the stability of armoring placed on the slopes for scour protection for both

the buried and aerial siphon alternatives. Although stabilizing the west bank of the river by

regrading or constructing a reinforced soil slope (RSS) would mitigate those impacts, that

approach does not appear to be feasible given that an RSS for an approximately 30-foot high

slope height would require excavating approximately 20 feet back into the Resort area driveway,

impacting the driveway, existing structures and buried utilities.

A feasible alternative more appropriate to the site conditions would be to construct permanent

tie-back reinforced shoring to stabilize slope conditions between the east end of the chase and

the river to either protect backfill and cover soil for a buried siphon or protect piers supporting an

aerial pipeline from lateral loads resulting from earth pressures exerted by relatively weak

existing older fills on the slope. Permanent shoring could consist of tie-back anchored structural

panels that are buried following placement of backfill over a buried siphon or used to reinforce

the existing west slope uphill of shallow foundations for piers supporting an aerial siphon that

are positioned on or at the bottom of the slope.


Excavation activities, even with relatively stiff shoring, adjacent to the west end of the pedestrian

bridge could result in lateral ground movement sufficient to cause potentially unacceptable

settlement and or lateral movement of the bridge foundation. To limit settlement of the

pedestrian bridge foundation resulting from excavation for a buried siphon, the bridge

foundation should be underpinned by deep foundations extending into the underlying dense

natural granular alluvial soils. Based on the site subsurface conditions, micropiles are

considered a feasible and practical deep foundation alternative for underpinning the bridge

foundation.

Backfilling the chase or portions of the chase, particularly with a relatively heavy material such

as concrete, is expected to result in potentially unacceptable total and differential settlement that

will be difficult to predict with confidence. Given the limited access to the northern side of the

chase structure, underpinning the chase using a deep foundation system such as micropiles is

not considered feasible. Alternatives for reducing potential settlement could include

compaction-pile grouting beneath the chase, backfilling the chase with a very lightweight

geofoam material, insulating and/or otherwise encapsulating the pipe, or removing the chase

structure altogether and burying the pipe. While reducing the weight of improvements within the

chase structure would likely have the least impact on the Resort activities and facilities,

increasing the weight of the chase even moderately could still result in unpredictable and

potentially excessive settlement.

The existing fills, soft and loose natural soils, and organic materials and soils containing organic

materials are unsuitable for supporting shallow foundations or a buried siphon. These materials

will provide poor bearing conditions and are expected to exhibit variable and potentially

significant post-construction compressibility. To provide adequate bearing conditions and

reduce potential settlement, these materials should be completely removed from beneath

shallow foundations and ideally from beneath a buried siphon, and replaced with compacted

structural fill extending to competent natural granular alluvial soils. This may require deep and

potentially costly overexcavation in places, and limited overexcavation in conjunction with in-

place densification of deeper fill and organic soils may be a more feasible alternative. For this

alternative, fill and organic soils below pier foundation elevation or the pipe bedding layer would

be densified where feasible using compaction-pile grouting extending to the underlying natural

granular alluvial soils, resulting in reduced overexcavation depths ranging from up to a few feet


below foundation elevation or the bottom of the pipe bedding layer. Partial overexcavation

coupled with in-place densification is discussed in the “Aerial Siphon Recommendations and

Considerations”, “Buried Siphon Recommendations and Considerations” and “Site Grading and

Earthwork” sections of this report.

Deep existing fills are anticipated at the valve house. To reduce potential post-construction

settlement of the siphon and enclosure structure at the valve house and provide suitable

support to shallow foundations, all existing fill should be removed and replaced with compacted

structural fill. Shallow foundations for the enclosure may be located relatively close to shallow

foundations supporting an above-ground segment of the pipe at the valve house. For properly

placed structural fill as recommended herein, closely-spaced spread footings supporting

relatively light structural loads are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the

performance of adjacent footings.

CHASE STRUCTURE Based on available drawings, we understand the chase is a concrete box structure with an

approximately 2-foot-thick base slab founded at elevations estimated to be between about 9078

and 9079 feet. Based on site finished grade elevations of around 9095 feet along the chase,

the bottom of the base slab is anticipated to be at least 16 to 17 feet below ground surface.

Data from borings drilled near along or near the chase indicate that the bottom of the base slab

may be at or near the maximum depth of older fill at the west end of the chase and likely about

10 feet above the base of the older fill at the east end. Data from the borings also indicate the

presence of up to a few feet of soft or loose natural soils, including zones of organic soils and

peat, beneath the older fill. These soft or loose soils contain variable amounts of organic

material and occasional zones of peat, and are anticipated to be relatively compressible. In

absence of information regarding subgrade preparation beneath the chase, we believe it should

be assumed that non-engineered older fills and potentially compressible natural soils and

organic material exist beneath the chase.

Backfilling the concrete chase and encasing the siphon enclosed in that structure with

lightweight concrete or other moderately dense material will add weight to that structure and

increase the foundation bearing stresses. Based on the dimensions of the chase shown on

available drawings, we have estimated an average base slab bearing pressure of 800 psf for the


chase in its current state and with the siphon running full. Assuming the chase is completely

backfilled with lightweight concrete with an average unit weight of 102 pcf and the siphon is

running full, we have estimated an average base slab bearing pressure of 2000 psf.

An increase in bearing pressure of that magnitude is expected to result in large total and

differential settlements along the chase, depending on actual subgrade conditions. We have

evaluated potential total settlement along the chase for two cases based on the data available,

our experience, and empirical correlations between soil type, consistency or relative density,

and compressibility. For the first case, we assumed that subgrade preparation was minor and

did not include removal of older fill and/or compressible natural soils underlying the chase. For

the second case, we assumed that subgrade preparation included removal of the older fill

and/or natural compressible soils to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the chase and

replacement with compacted granular structural fill.

As previously discussed, the older fills contain variable organic material and may have voids in

places, and the natural soils immediately underlying the older fills are soft or loose and contain

variable organic materials and zones of peat and other organic material. The consolidation

characteristics of these materials are anticipated to vary significantly both laterally and with

depth, and are difficult to predict. To account for that variability in estimating the settlement of

the chase under the assumed load, the older fills and compressible natural soils were assumed

to behave as a normally consolidated clay subject to increased stresses greater than the past

consolidation pressure, which is a relatively conservative approach that does not account for the

presence of zones of less compressible predominantly granular soils within 10 to 25 feet of the

bottom of the chase.

The results of our evaluation are summarized in the following table.

Chase Subgrade Condition

Estimated Settlement (inches)

West End East End

Older fill and/or Compressible Natural Soils 3.3 5.0

5 feet of Granular Structural Fill 2.0 3.7

The results presented above generally indicate significant total and differential settlement for

both subgrade conditions. Alternatives that would mitigate settlement impacts include:


backfilling with polystyrene-block (geofoam) fill; insulating the siphon within the chase instead of

backfilling the chase; installing compaction piles in the existing fill and organic soils beneath the

structure to densify the foundation materials prior to backfilling the chase; or removing the

chase, excavating and replacing the existing fill and organic soils, and replacing the chase with

a buried siphon.

Polystyrene blocks generally have a density of less than 3 pcf and can be formed to fit around

the siphon and supporting structures. Pea gravel can also be used to fill in local voids between

blocks. Because the geometry of the chase structure and requirements for accessing the

siphon for maintenance and repairs are not known, we do not know if this alternative is feasible,

but we believe it is worth evaluating as an alternative that would result in very little weight gain.

The polystyrene will also provide needed insulation around the pipe.

Denver Water has discussed better insulating the siphon with the chase against winter weather

impacts as a possible alternative. This would be beneficial in maintaining access to the siphon

for maintenance and repairs.

Compaction piles, which were used to improve the existing fill and organic soils underlying the

siphon portion immediately east of the chase, could also be used to improve conditions beneath

the chase. Grout access holes would need to be drilled through the chase floor at a close

spacing, and on each side of the siphon. The pipe used for compaction grouting would need to

extend to natural granular alluvial soils, which are estimated to range from about 10 to 25 feet

below the bottom of the chase. Monitoring would be needed to mitigate potential uplift of the

chase, siphon and/or the “West Portal” Building caused by the compaction grouting. There is

also some potential that the threshold for acceptable uplift may be met before the chase

foundation soils have been adequately compaction grouted.

Removal of the chase, and removal and replacement of the underlying existing fill and organic

soils, would be the most positive method for improving the foundation conditions beneath the

chase. However, chase demolition and/or a shored excavation could adversely impact adjacent

existing structures including the “West Portal” Building. Dewatering near the bottom of the

excavation would also likely be needed and could be difficult. The demolition and excavation

could also impact the project schedule and Resort activities.


AERIAL SIPHON RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS We anticipate an aerial crossing will be supported on piers supported on shallow foundations

similar to those supporting the existing aerial portion of the siphon. We anticipate the support

locations will bracket the river and Winter Park Drive, with most of the locations falling on

existing slopes along the river and above and below Winter Park Drive. At the west end of the

aerial crossing, the pipe support may be close enough to the existing chase to bear on existing

compaction piles that were installed to stabilize the buried siphon between the chase and the

river. If feasible, we would also recommend designing the siphon to span between the east end

of the chase and a pier located at the toe of the existing riverbank slope, rather than positioning

a pier on the steep slope that could be impacted by downhill creep. Recommendations for

shallow spread footing foundations are presented in the “Foundation Recommendations”

section of the report.

As previously discussed, the existing older fill materials, soft and loose natural soils, and organic

materials and soils containing organic materials are unsuitable for supporting shallow

foundations and are expected to exhibit variable and potentially significant compressibility.

Ideally, these materials should be completely removed from beneath shallow foundations and

the foundations supported directly on competent natural granular alluvial soils or on structural fill

extending to competent natural granular alluvial soils. That approach may be most practical

where the foundation elevation is relatively close to the top of the natural granular alluvium,

such as in the lower portions of the slopes along the river where excavation may result in

reduced requirements for overexcavation and shoring. In areas where deep overexcavation is

necessary to remove unsuitable materials, such as in the middle to upper portion of the west

riverbank slope, partial overexcavation performed in conjunction with deeper soil densification

should be considered. Soil densification by compaction-pile grouting is discussed in the

“Geotechnical Engineering Considerations” and “Site Grading and Earthwork” sections of this

report.

Piers supported on footings located on or at the toe of the west riverbank slope could be

impacted by post-construction downslope movement and potentially excessive lateral earth

pressures on the piers. As previously discussed, reconstructing that slope along the siphon

alignment adequately enough to eliminate unstable conditions is not considered a practical

approach. A more practical approach to reducing or eliminating lateral earth pressures acting

on the piers would be to make the excavation shoring on the uphill side of the excavation


permanent using tie-back anchored panels as discussed in the “Site Grading and Earthwork”

section of this report.

Footings located near the river bed will require protection from scour. We understand that

Denver Water is considering measures for protecting the pier footings against scour.

BURIED SIPHON RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Geotechnical engineering considerations regarding burying the siphon include: shoring

requirements for excavating to significant depths adjacent to existing structures and on steep

unstable slopes, construction impacts to existing steep unstable slopes, and long-term

stabilization of those slopes; requirements for handling large thrust block forces where the

buried siphon exits the east end of the chase before running down the west riverbank slope; and

requirements for handling hydrostatic uplift forces and river armoring for the portion crossing

beneath the Fraser River. In addition, construction of a buried siphon may need to be

sequenced to maintaining the river channel geometry and minimize construction impacts to the

river.

Similar to an aerial crossing, construction of a buried siphon must address the presence of the

existing older fill materials, soft and loose natural soils, and organic materials and soils

containing organic materials. These materials are expected to exhibit variable and potentially

significant compressibility, which could lead to long-term, potentially unacceptable, post-

construction differential settlement similar to that previously experienced by the existing buried

portion of the siphon immediately east of the chase. To reduce post-construction settlement,

these materials should be completely removed from beneath the pipeline and replaced by

compacted fill extending to natural granular alluvium. That approach may be most practical

where the pipe invert elevation is relatively close to the top of the natural granular alluvium, such

as in the lower portions of the slopes along the river where excavation may result in reduced

requirements for overexcavation and shoring.

In areas where deep overexcavation is necessary to remove unsuitable materials, such as in

the middle to upper portion of the west riverbank slope, shoring to depths in excess of 30 feet

may be required. As discussed in the “Geotechnical Engineering Considerations” and “Site

Grading and Earthwork” sections of this report, shoring deep excavations will likely require the

use of tie-back anchored shoring, which is anticipated to be costly. As an alternative to deep


shoring, partial overexcavation performed in conjunction with densification of the deeper existing

fill and organic soils with compaction piles may be considered, as also discussed in those

sections of the report. This approach may be most effective along the siphon alignment

between the zone of previously constructed compaction piles and a point in the vicinity of the

mid-height of the west riverbank slope. This approach could reduce the overexcavation and

shoring requirements significantly, as well as help stabilize the slope along the alignment.

Long-term instability of slopes along the siphon alignment, particularly the steep west riverbank

slope, may result in post-construction downslope movement of the pipe backfill and the pipe and

lateral displacement of the pipe. Reconstructing slopes along the alignment by removing and

replacing the older fill and other unsuitable soils may be feasible in places, but is not considered

practical for the existing west riverbank slope. As previously discussed, reconstructing that

slope along the siphon alignment adequately enough to eliminate unstable conditions is not

considered a practical approach. A more practical approach to stabilizing the slope along the

alignment would be to make the excavation shoring on the upslope side of the excavation

permanent using tied back panels as discussed in the “Site Grading and Earthwork” section of

this report. The permanent shoring could be used in conjunction with improvement of deeper

soils to help stabilize the slope.

Pipe Protection: The pipe will require protection from traffic loads along Winter Park Drive and

paved areas within the Resort base area, scour within the riverbed and along the river banks,

and buoyancy within the river bed when empty. Where the alignment crosses roadways,

parking areas and other areas that may be subject to vehicle traffic, the pipe should be buried

an adequate depth below the surface to limit pipe deflections caused by traffic loading. The

minimum burial depth required for the pipe will depend on the material and physical properties

of the pipe, the soil/structure interaction between the pipe and the backfill material, and traffic

loading conditions. We recommend that the pipe burial depth be at least 3 feet and satisfy

manufacturer requirements for maximum allowable deflection and minimum burial depth.

Scour during high river flow could wash away pipe cover soil, expose the pipe and pipe backfill,

and possibly reduce resistance to buoyant forces. At the river crossing the pipe should be

adequately buried and scour protection will be needed. We understand that Denver Water is

considering covering or encasing the pipe at the river crossing with concrete to provide scour

and uplift protection. If needed, resistance to buoyant forces in addition to burying and encasing


the pipe could include using tie-down anchors. Tie-down anchor systems would need to derive

support from the relatively dense natural granular soils underlying the siphon.

Pipe Thrust Forces: A buried siphon will have several bends resulting in pipe thrust forces. At

most locations, those thrust forces will be directed into the ground and can be resisted by the

surrounding soil. However, some bend locations will have thrust forces directed toward the

ground surface. At those locations, thrust forces will need to be resisted by structural measures

such as anchors and tie-downs designed and installed by specialty contractors. Tie-down

anchor systems embedded in the relatively dense natural granular soils should be suitable

based on relative ease of installation and comparative cost.

Thrust forces resisted by tie-down anchor systems will result in transient downward

compressive loads. If subgrade preparation for the pipe and thrust block includes complete

replacement and/or improvement of existing fills and unsuitable native soils, properly compacted

structural fill should provide suitable resistance to transient compressive loads. Where

subgrade preparation does not include replacement and/or improvement of existing fills and

unsuitable native soils, installation of deep foundations extending into the underlying natural

granular alluvial soils, or to bedrock, should be considered to resist the transient compressive

loads. As for structural underpinning, micropiles are considered a feasible and practical deep

foundation alternative for supporting tied-down thrust blocks.

Above a depth of 12 feet, thrust blocks used to resist thrust forces directed into the ground at

bends in the pipe should be designed using an allowable bearing pressure based on an

equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf. The allowable bearing pressure should be calculated by

multiplying the equivalent fluid density value by the depth in feet below ground surface

corresponding to the mid-point height of the face of the thrust block. For those thrust blocks

with a mid-point depth of 12 feet or more, a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf

should be used.

We assume that the steel pipe will be sealed with polyurethane or some other plastic coating,

which will affect frictional resistance along the pipe. Resistance to thrust forces resulting from

frictional resistance developed between the pipe and backfill should be evaluated using a

coefficient of friction of 0.40. The coefficient of friction recommended above assumes


mobilization of the ultimate soil strength and a suitable factor of safety should be used for

design.

Pipeline Drainage: The relatively free-draining pipe-zone materials surrounding the siphon pipe

will act as a drain to collect natural seepage from the surrounding soils. Drainage measures

should be implemented to allow the collected water to drain out of the buried trenches,

particularly along portions of the buried trench located on the steep bank slopes along each side

of the Fraser River and east of Winter Park Drive. The drainage measures may include

constructing relatively impermeable clay collars at periodic spacing along the steeply inclined

pipe, and draining water collected uphill of the collars through gravity discharge pipes that

daylight onto the slope surface downslope of each collar.

Pipeline Design Parameters: We recommend that a modulus of soil reaction, E’, of 1,600 psi be

used for the design of pipe-zone material placed on the sides of the pipe, provided the pipe-

zone material is compacted following the requirements presented above. For evaluating the

load on the pipe due to the backfill above the pipe, we recommend using a compacted unit

weight of 125 pcf and a Rankine’s ratio of 0.33 for compacted trench-zone backfill consisting of

existing on-site soils. We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 between backfill

consisting of excavated on-site soils and the soils exposed on the trench walls.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the discussions presented in the preceding sections of this report, we have developed

recommendations for design and construction of shallow spread footing foundations and

general recommendations for design and construction of micro-piles for underpinning existing

structures. With proper subgrade conditions and/or preparation, shallow spread footing

foundations are considered feasible for support of the siphon piers, the outlet enclosure

structure, and other incidental structures.

Shallow Spread Footing Foundations: The design and construction criteria presented below

should be observed for spread footings supporting an aerial pipeline, the enclosure structure at

the siphon outlet, and other incidental structures including soil-supported thrust blocks. The

construction details should be considered when preparing project documents.


1. Spread footings should be underlain by or extend to natural granular soils or compacted

structural fill extending to competent natural granular soils. Areas of existing non-

engineered recent and older fill, excessively loose or soft natural soils, and organic

materials encountered at foundation subgrade or the base of the footing overexcavation

should be removed and replaced with granular structural fill meeting the material and

placement requirements outlined in the “Site Grading and Earthwork” section of this

report. New structural fill beneath the footings should extend down from the edges of

the footings at a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical projection.

2. Spread footings should have a minimum footing width of 18 inches for continuous

footings and a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated pad footings, and a minimum

embedment of 3 feet below lowest adjacent grade.

3. Spread footings designed as recommended herein and supported on natural granular

alluvial soils or granular structural fill extending to natural granular alluvial soils, and

footings supported on the existing compaction piles at the west end of the chase, should

be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable soil

bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads.

4. Based on experience and empirical correlations between soil relative density and

settlement potential, we estimate total settlement for spread footings designed and

constructed as discussed in this section, and supported on natural granular soils or

structural fill extending to natural soils or bedrock will be approximately 1 inch or less.

Differential settlements are estimated to be approximately ½ to ¾ of the total settlement.

5. Spread footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing

elevation for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 48 inches below the exterior

grade is recommended for this area.

6. The lateral resistance of a spread footing placed on undisturbed natural granular soils or

properly compacted granular structural fill material will be a combination of the sliding

resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against

the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of spread footings can be

calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.55. Passive pressure against the sides

of spread footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 450 pcf,


provided the backfill consists of granular soils similar to the on-site granular materials.

These lateral resistance values are ultimate values; the designer should apply

appropriate factors of safety to these values. For footings located on slopes, lateral

resistance due passive earth pressure should be ignored in the downslope direction.

7. Fill placed against the sides of footings to resist lateral loads should consist of a granular

material meeting the material and placement criteria presented in the “Site Grading and

Earthwork” section of this report.

8. Granular foundation soils should be densified with a relatively large smooth vibratory

compactor prior to placement of concrete.

9. Care should be taken when excavating the foundations to avoid disturbing the

supporting materials. Dewatering using deep wells or well-points outside of the

excavation area will likely be required for foundations extending below the ground water

table. We recommend that the ground water level be lowered prior to excavation and

maintained at least three feet below the bottom of the excavation at all times to mitigate

against disturbance of the foundation soils.

10. A representative of the geotechnical engineer or Denver Water should observe all

footing excavations, observe and test compaction, and evaluate the suitability of all

structural fill.

Micropile Foundations: Micropiles extending into the natural granular alluvial soils should be

feasible and practical at the site for underpinning existing structures and resisting transient

compressive loads for tied-down thrust blocks. Micropiles are typically provided by specialty,

design-build contractors utilizing a variety of drilling methods and structural detailing. Capacities

can depend on drilling and grouting methodologies, and are best determined by the specialty

contractor based on local experience and load test data.

On this site, we anticipate 8-inch diameter cased, grouted micropiles reinforced with a single,

high-strength reinforcing bar will be suitable. We recommend casing the portion of the pile

extending through the existing fills and natural soils containing organic materials. The capacity

of the piles should be based solely on the shear resistance developed along the portion of the

pile in the natural granular alluvial soils. For preliminary design, we recommend using an


allowable grout-ground bond stress (side shear) of 8 psi in the natural granular alluvial soils,

based on a minimum bond length of 20 feet. A higher bond stress may be possible based on

the contractor’s installation method and the results of performance testing.

Due to their relatively small diameter, micropiles are not capable of proving adequate resistance

to lateral loads. For micro-pile foundation systems, lateral resistance to horizontal forces should

be provided by battered micro-piles. It is typically assumed that a battered micro-pile can resist

the same axial load as a vertical micro-pile of the same type and size deriving resistance from

the portion of the pile embedded in natural granular overburden soils or bedrock. The vertical

and horizontal components of the load will depend on the batter inclinations. Batters should not

exceed 1 horizontal to 4 vertical.

The length of micropiles may exceed allowable or practical length to diameter (L/D) ratios. The

structural engineer should consider the L/D ratio for an 8-inch-diameter, cased pile in

determining the feasibility of using micropiles.

The micropile contractor should be required to submit the details of their proposed system

including capacity determination, length, diameter, and methodology for installation. We

recommend that the capacity be based on full-scale load tests performed in general accordance

with ASTM D1143 to demonstrate that the design capacity requirements are being satisfied and

to establish project-specific capacity correlations. We recommend that Kumar & Associates be

retained to review micropile submittals, including installation and capacity criteria, and to

observe and document the load tests and the installation of the foundation piles.

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

Based on available subsurface data and site layout information, the site soil profile to a depth of

100 feet is anticipated to generally consist of about 30 feet or more of overburden soils

underlain by gneiss bedrock extending to a depth of at least 100 feet below ground surface.

Overburden consisting of new and existing fill materials and existing natural soils will generally

classify as Site Class D in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). The

underlying bedrock generally classifies as IBC Site Class C and may classify as IBC Site Class

B. Based on the overall thickness of the overburden soils and the presence of thick non-

engineered fills and underlying zones of soft and loose natural soils, and organic materials, we

believe the site meets the design soil profile for IBC Site Class D.


Based on the subsurface profile, site seismicity, and the anticipated groundwater conditions,

liquefaction is not a design consideration.

SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK Temporary Excavations and Shoring Considerations: Based on the pipe diameter and

anticipated cover requirements, including scour protection, trench excavations are anticipated to

extend up to 30 or 40 feet below existing site grades, and possibly deeper in places in order to

achieve design finished grades and construct thrust blocks. Excavations for foundations for an

aerial crossing may also be relatively deep in places to achieve sufficient embedment where

located on slopes, for scour protection, or to remove unacceptable subgrade materials.

Depending on the alignment of the replacement siphon, whether buried or aerial, temporary

excavations will need to consider impacts to foundations supporting existing structures, such as

the pedestrian bridge and the chase, and to Winter Park Drive and other facilities. Partial

overexcavation performed in conjunction with deeper soil densification as discussed in this

section may be a feasible approach for reducing those impacts particularly where deep

overexcavation is necessary to remove unsuitable materials, such as in the middle to upper

portion of the west riverbank slope.

Excavations for the replacement siphon between the chase and the Moffat Tunnel outlet, for

either trenches for a buried pipeline or pier foundations for an aerial crossing, are anticipated to

encounter predominantly granular recent and older fills, soft and loose natural soils, organic

materials and soils containing organic materials, and natural granular alluvial soils. The fills are

considered to be non-engineered and highly variable in composition and compaction, and the

natural granular alluvial soils are expected to generally have relatively low percentages of

material passing the No. 200 sieve. Excavations in the lower portions of the existing slopes

along the river and within the Fraser River channel are expected to extend below groundwater.

Excavations to the depths anticipated are not expected to encounter bedrock.

Excavations should be performed in accordance with all OSHA requirements, and other

applicable local and state requirements. Based on the OSHA excavation guidelines, the

existing recent and older fills and natural soils, including lean clays, encountered in the borings

generally classify as an OSHA Type C soils. In our opinion, open-cut temporary excavations

with unsupported side slopes should be feasible in places. However, excavations in existing


non-engineered fills, particularly the older fills and relatively clean natural granular alluvial soils,

may be unstable even above groundwater unless excavated with side slopes flatter than those

required for OSHA Type C soils. Trench shoring may be required where those material are

encountered to reduce the size of the excavations. Trench shoring may also be required where

excavation activities could adversely impact existing facilities such as the pedestrian bridge,

other resort structures, the chase, and the pipeline outlet structures. Significant dewatering and

the use of trench shoring would also be necessary for a buried crossing at the Fraser River.

For trench segments adjacent to existing structures and other movement sensitive facilities, we

recommend that the trench side slopes be no steeper than 2H:1V. In addition, the trench side

slopes should not extend closer to the face of structure foundations than a horizontal distance

equivalent to the greater of the width of the foundation or 4 feet. The horizontal distance should

be measured from the bottom of the closest face of the foundation.

Flatter excavation side-slope inclinations, trench boxes, or other temporary shoring measures

may be required in local areas where potentially unstable soil conditions may be present,

including areas where ground water is encountered or ground water seepage is expected to

occur that could act to undermine the stability of the excavation side slope. In those areas, and

in areas where construction could impact existing facilities and structures, the geotechnical

engineer should observe the excavated trench slope during trench excavation so that

modifications to the recommended excavation side-slope inclination can be made, if needed.

Where excavation activities are not anticipated to adversely impact existing facilities,

conventional trench shoring systems should be feasible. However, where excavation activities

could adversely impact existing facilities or insufficient space is available to use an open-cut

approach, temporary and possibly permanent shoring systems should be utilized. The generally

poor and highly variable condition of the existing older fill materials is not considered ideal for

temporary shoring using cross bracing or soil nails, or for permanent shoring using soil nails.

However, those shoring support systems may be feasible for portions of the excavations recent

fills and natural granular alluvial soils. Tie back anchors deriving their capacity primarily from

embedment in the natural granular alluvial soils are considered to be more appropriate for

support of temporary and permanent shoring, particularly where limiting lateral deflection and

associated ground settlement is desired, such as adjacent to existing or future structures.


The design earth pressure distribution used for temporary shoring systems will depend on a

number of factors including whether or not tiebacks are used. It is our experience that

temporary shoring systems are typically designed and built by specialty contractors and that the

designers will typically develop their own design criteria based on soil data presented in the

owner’s geotechnical study report. We are available upon request for further consultation on

temporary shoring design criteria. Temporary shoring provided in close proximity to existing

structures or streets should be sufficiently stiff to prevent movement of existing foundations.

Relatively shallow groundwater is likely to be encountered in excavations at the river crossing.

The presence and/or depth to groundwater within the base area of the Resort and east of the

river may vary throughout the year. We anticipate that dewatering can be effectively handled in

those areas using trenches and sumps. A larger dewatering effort should be anticipated for

excavations at the river crossing.

Surface water runoff into the excavations can act to erode and potentially destabilize the

excavation slopes and result in soft ground conditions along the trench bottom, and should not

be allowed. Diversion berms and other measures should be used to prevent surface water

runoff into the excavations from occurring. If significant runoff into the excavations does occur,

further excavation to remove and replace the soft subgrade materials or stabilize the slopes

may be required.

Compaction-Pile Grouting: In areas where deep overexcavation is necessary to remove

unsuitable materials, such as in the middle to upper portion of the west riverbank slope, partial

overexcavation performed in conjunction with deeper soil densification should be considered.

The upper layer of the existing fill would initially be used as a confining layer needed for

installing compaction-pile grout at depths below that layer. Following construction of the

compaction piles, the upper fill layer could then be excavated and replaced with structural fill.

Ideally, densification would extend from just below bearing elevation for pier foundations, or just

below the pipe bedding layer for a buried siphon, to the natural granular alluvial soils. The top

of the densified soil zone may need to range up to several feet below foundation bearing

elevation or the pipe bedding layer in order to provide sufficient confinement for installing the

compaction-pile grout.


Compaction-pile grouting would result in less certain foundation or pipe performance compared

to excavation and replacement, and Denver Water would need to accept the potential for some

post-construction settlement due to inherent unknowns regarding soil densification using

compaction piles. Compaction-pile grouting must also consider the potential environmental

impact of the grouting process adjacent to the Fraser River. Although compaction-pile grouting

uses low-mobility cement grout, the potential for grout to migrate into the river may limit the

eastward extent of soil densification along the alignment.

Construction Monitoring and Instrumentation: Considering the potential impacts of movements

or distress to existing facilities and structures along the alignment, measures to monitor those

facilities and structures during pipeline excavation, construction and backfilling should be

considered. We recommend that a pre-construction survey of existing facilities and structures

that could be impacted by the trench excavation be completed prior to starting excavation work.

Those facilities and structures should include the existing pedestrian bridge at the river crossing,

the chase and outfall structures of the siphon, utilities, flatwork and paved areas, and

miscellaneous minor structures. The condition of existing facilities and structures, including

existing cracks or other distress features should be documented in writing and with videos

and/or photographs as appropriate. Representatives of the Contractor, Denver Water, Winter

Park Resort, the Town of Winter Park, and the geotechnical engineer should perform the

survey. We understand that Denver Water routinely performs this type of survey for their

conduit projects.

Instrumentation monitoring should be considered for facilities and structures identified as most

likely to be affected by the construction to provide information on the type and magnitude of

movement, should it occur. Possible instrumentation including survey points, crack monitors, or

other instrumentation should be discussed and planned for, if needed, during the pre-

construction survey, and implemented shortly thereafter.

We recommend that an action-response plan also be developed prior to construction. The plan

should include contact information for key personnel for the Contractor, Denver Water, Winter

Park Resort, and the geotechnical engineer so that the necessary people can be quickly

contacted if needed. The plan should also include instructions for stopping excavation work in

areas where movements or distress features are observed, and for mitigating those movements

if necessary using temporary measures (e.g., filling in a portion of an open trench to provide


buttressing resistance against future movements) until the cause of the movements or distress

can be more carefully evaluated.

Material Specifications: Unless specifically modified in the preceding sections of this report, the

following recommended material and compaction requirements are presented for compacted

fills on the project site. A geotechnical engineer should evaluate the suitability of all proposed

fill materials for the project prior to placement.

1. Structural Fill Beneath Spread Footing Foundations and Thrust Blocks: Compacted

structural fill placed beneath spread footing foundations and thrust blocks should consist

of granular on-site or imported soils meeting the general requirements of CDOT Class 1

Structure backfill in accordance with Denver Water Capital Projects Construction

Standards (CPCS) Section 31 23 23, Paragraph 2.1.C.

2. Pipe Bedding Material: Bedding material supporting the pipe bottom should consist of a

layer of imported granular soil satisfying the material requirements for granular fill for

pipe bedding presented in Section 31 23 24, Paragraph 2.1, of the CPCS. Alternatively,

a bedding material with a gradation generally specified by Denver Water for similar

pipeline projects may be used. Based on the pipe diameter and AWWA guidelines, we

recommend a minimum uncompacted bedding thickness of 9 inches be considered. The

bedding layer should be of adequate thickness to fully support the pipe when seated on

top of the bedding.

3. Pipe-Zone Backfill: The pipe-zone material placed above the bedding and surrounding

the pipe should consist of granular material similar to that described above for pipe

bedding or a CLSM flow- or flash-fill satisfying the material requirements presented in

Section 31 23 24, Paragraph 2.1, of the CPCS.

4. Pipe Trench Backfill: On-site materials excavated from required excavations may be

used for backfill above the pipe-zone fill provided they do not contain organics or other

unsuitable material and have a maximum size of 6 inches, at least 90% passing the 3-

inch size, at least 40% passing the No 40 sieve, and at least 10% passing the No. 200

sieve. Alternatively, imported backfill satisfying material requirements for “Earthfill” in

CPSC Section 31 23 23, Paragraph 2.1.A should be used, with the exception that we

recommend that the percent passing the No. 200 sieve range from 20% to 50%. The


above minimum percent is intended to help limit surface water infiltration into the pipe

zone, and the upper percent is to provide granular material more resistant to surface-

water erosion.

5. Material Suitability: Unless otherwise defined herein, all fill material should be soil free

of vegetation, brush, sod, trash and debris, and other deleterious substances, and

should not contain rocks or lumps having a diameter of more than 6 inches.

Compaction Requirements: We recommend the following compaction criteria be used on the project: 1. Moisture Content: Fill materials should be compacted at moisture contents within 2

percentage points of the optimum moisture content. Based on conditions encountered in

the exploratory borings, the on-site soils are likely to have highly variable moisture

contents. The contractor should anticipate that some excavated soils might require

moisture conditioning by adding water or allowing time for those materials to dry.

2. Degree of Compaction: Unless otherwise defined herein, compacted fill should be

placed in maximum 8-inch lifts. The following compaction criteria should be followed

during construction:

Percentage of Maximum Standard Proctor Density

Fill Location .................................................................................... (ASTM D-698) Beneath Spread Footing Foundations ........................................................ 100% Against or Beneath Thrust Blocks in Direction of Thrust .............................. 100% Adjacent to Spread Footing Foundations and Thrust Blocks .......................... 95% Beneath Pavements and Settlement-Sensitive Flatwork Areas

Less Than 8 Feet thick ............................................................................ 95% More Than 8 Feet Thick ........................................................................ 100%

Utility Trenches Less Than 15 Feet thick........................................................................... 95% More Than 15 Feet Thick ....................................................................... 100%

Landscape and Other Areas ........................................................................... 90%

Pipe bedding placed to within 2 to 3 inches of the bottom of the piped should be hand-

compacted to a firm non-yielding condition. The top 2 to 3 inches should be

uncompacted to facilitate seating the pipe.

Pipe-zone backfill consisting of granular material should be compacted by jetting and

vibrating to at least 70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and ASTM D 4254) and in


accordance with Section 31 23 24, Paragraph 3.3.C.4 of the CPCS. Special care should

be taken to provide adequate compaction below the haunches of the pipe using a

concrete vibrator, vibratory plates or other light compaction equipment as needed. In

confined areas of the siphon excavation where compaction is difficult, placement of a

CLSM flow- or flash-fill around the pipe accordance with Section 31 23 24, Paragraph

3.3.E of the CPCS should be considered.

3. Subgrade Preparation: Areas receiving new fill should be prepared as recommended in

specific sections of this report to provide a uniform base for fill placement. All other

areas to receive new fill not specifically addressed herein should be scarified to a depth

of at least 8 inches and recompacted to at least 95% of the standard Proctor (ASTM D

698) maximum dry density at moisture contents recommended above.

4. A representative of the geotechnical engineer or Denver Water should observe prepared

fill subgrades and fill placement on a full time basis

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES Based on current and previous laboratory test results, the concentrations of water-soluble

sulfates measured in samples of the on-site fills and natural soils obtained in borings drilled

along the section of the existing siphon addressed in this report ranged from less than 0.01% to

0.03%. These concentrations of water-soluble sulfates represent a Class 0 severity exposure to

sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these materials. The degree of attack is based on a

range of Class 0, Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 severity exposure as presented in ACI 201.

Based on the laboratory test results, special sulfate resistant cement generally would not be

required for concrete exposed to the on-site fills and natural soils.

BURIED METAL CORROSION The potential corrosive environment for metal placed beneath the ground surface at the site was

evaluated based on data collected during our current and previous field exploration and

laboratory testing programs and criteria presented in the Handbook of Steel Drainage and

Highway Construction Products published by the American Iron and Steel Institute. The data

includes soil group classification, pH, chloride content, and electrical resistivity.


The soils encountered predominantly consist of granular fills and natural soils, with occasional

zones of lean clay with sand and organic material. Older fill along the alignment is known to

include muck, debris and organic material. With the exception of organic materials and some

soils containing organic materials, which have very high moisture contents, the soils

encountered along the alignment generally have relatively low moisture contents. Existing silty

to clayey granular fills and natural soils, and natural lean clays, are expected to have poor to fair

drainage characteristics, while poorly- to well-graded granular fills and natural alluvial soils are

expected to have fair to good drainage characteristics.

The acidity of the samples was assessed by conducting pH tests, the results of which indicate

the tested materials ranged from moderately acidic to mildly basic and will not accelerate

corrosion. The chloride concentrations for the tested samples ranged from 0.03% to 0.06%.

The results of electrical resistivity tests performed on the samples indicate minimum laboratory

electrical resistivity values ranging from about 1,542 to 18,122 ohm-cm at moisture contents

between approximately 19 and 60 percent, and resistivity values at in-situ moisture contents

estimated to range from about 1,700 to greater than 30,000 ohm-cm. These soil resistivity

values are classified as ranging from bad to excellent corrosion resistance.

The data obtained in our study indicates the subsurface conditions will range from

nonaggressive to strongly aggressive towards iron and other buried metals based on a scale

published in "Corrosion of Building Materials" by Dictbert Knofel. Corrosion of buried metal is a

complex process and requires an understanding of the combined affects of pH, ion content,

electrical resistivity, soil moisture, and other conditions not evaluated as part of this study. We

recommend a qualified corrosion engineer review the information presented above to design an

appropriate level of corrosion protection for buried metal.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES Kumar & Associates, Inc. should be retained to review the project plans and specifications so

that comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical

engineering recommendations before these contract documents are finalized. We are also

available to assist the design team in preparing specifications for geotechnical aspects of the

project, and performing additional studies if necessary to accommodate possible changes in the

proposed construction after the completion of our study. We recommend that Kumar &


Associates, Inc. be retained to provide observation and testing services during construction to

document that the intent of this report and the requirements of the plans and specifications are

being followed during construction, and to identify possible variations in foundation conditions

from that encountered in this study so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations if needed.

LIMITATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering

practice in this area for exclusive use of the client for design purposes. The conclusions and

recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the

exploratory borings at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, and the proposed type of construction.

This report does not reflect subsurface variations that may occur between the exploratory

borings, and the nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until

site grading and excavations are performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water

conditions appear to be different from those described herein, Kumar & Associates, Inc. should

be advised at once so that a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report can

be made. Kumar & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for liability associated with interpretation

of subsurface data by others.

The scope of services for this project does not include any environmental assessment of the site

or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned

about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken.

JWG/jw Rev. GJM cc: book, file
