Mn/DOT Contract No. 99554
Exhibit A
SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES
For MnDOT Bridge #9100/NDDOT Bridge #54-009.958
Rehabilitation Study
Goal of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of the rehabilitation of the bridge crossing at Oslo over the Red River of the North and explore any alternates that would satisfy NEPA/4f Section 106. The primary need of this study is to address the bridge’s structural deficiencies so that a safe river crossing is provided to the traveling public. The Oslo Bridge is Mn/DOT Bridge 9100/ ND/DOT Bridge #54-009.958 and is a border bridge between Minnesota and North Dakota located on MN TH 1/ ND TH 54. This project is programmed for an anticipated June 2013 construction letting as part of Minnesota State Project No. 4509-05. The task of the consultant is to perform the feasibility study of the bridge rehabilitation and perform a concept evaluation that would lead to a selection of a preferred alternative.
The engineering consultant must demonstrate engineering/architectural experience working with the rehabilitation of historic properties. This study is to be done in collaboration with a Project Historian who will be contracted by MnDOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU). CRU will act as the Co-Project Manager. CRU is being designated as Co-Project Manager so that the Consultant can work directly with the Co-Project Manager without having to go through the Project Manager. This study will assist in ultimately leading to the goal of delivering an approved environmental document for the project.
Background
A Historical Survey of the crossing “Phase I Architecture/History Survey and Phase II Evaluation for Trunk Highway 1/ Trunk Highway 54 Oslo, Marshall County, Minnesota-Walshville Township, Walsh County, North Dakota”, was completed June 2010 and concluded that Bridge 9100 was recommended not eligible for the National Register. The Minnesota Historical Society concurred with this finding but the State Historical Society of North Dakota did not concur. A supplemental Phase II evaluation was completed on April 2011 and concluded: “Bridge 9100/ Bridge 54-009-95.8 was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Engineering at the statewide level of significance within the context of bridges in the state of North Dakota. As a Warren through truss with polygonal top chord, the bridge embodies the distinctive characteristics of type, period and method of construction in mid-twentieth-century North Dakota bridge construction. Additionally, as a through truss bridge of any configuration, it exemplifies a once common bridge type in North Dakota that is becoming increasingly rare.” A property which is located in two states may be found to be eligible from the perspective of one state but not the other, therefore rehabilitation of the bridge must be explored.
The General Bridge Management Plan for historic bridges can be found at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/historicbridges/pdfs/GENERALMANAGEMENTPLAN/GENERALMNHISTORICBRIDGEMGTPLAN.pdf
Task 1-Project Management
The Consultant will conduct the administration of the project, which will include communication with the State of Minnesota, hereafter referred to as “the State”. Also included will be invoicing, supplemental agreements, cost and schedule updates, billing preparation, and other non-technical work. A project timeline will be developed by the consultant that will be presented at the kickoff meeting.
The Consultant will meet with MnDOT Bridge Office’s Project Manager and Co-Project Manager - along with the appropriate Stakeholders to discuss strategies and details at key times during the project’s life. Meeting scheduling and notes will be the responsibility of the Consultant.
The State will provide Project and Co-Project Managers to provide direction to the Consultant’s activities. It will be the responsibility of the State’s Project Manager to receive the work produced by the Consultant, review the work for accuracy and compliance with standards, collaborate with both Minnesota and North Dakota State’s Cultural Resources Units and Bridge Offices. Upon approval, recommendation will be made for payment of that work.
No changes in the Consultant project management personnel will be made without a written notice being provided to the State. The State will notify the Consultant if there is any change in the assigned Project or Co-Project Manager for the State.
Progress reports will be submitted monthly to the State describing the tasks and/or deliverables completed during that month, the hours spent by task during that month, the cumulative hours spent to date, and a comparison of hours spent to budgeted hours.
Task 2-Assessment of the Feasibility of Rehabilitation
The Consultant will meet with MnDOT District 2, North Dakota DOT personnel, MnDOT Bridge Office Project Manager, MnDOT CRU Co-Project Manager, the Project’s Bridge Historian, and others as needed in a kickoff meeting to discuss general scope and timetable. The Consultant will present a proposed project timeline (with identified deliverables) for the group to discuss and refine as needed. Duration of State reviews of the Consultant’s deliverables will also be established as part of the project timeline discussion.
The Consultant will review all available information and data relating to the project. The Consultant will review the Purpose and Need (P&N) statement, any research done for the development of the P&N, CRAVE Workshop material and other project material associated with Bridge 9100, including fracture critical inspection reports, routine inspection reports, hydraulic analyses, Bridge Construction files, Historical Surveys, etc.
The Consultant will investigate the site in Oslo, identifying constructability issues associated with the bridge. The field review will document the constructability issues with photographs and a limited number of measurements. A meeting with representatives from each state DOT (as appropriate and desired): District Project Manager, Bridge Office, Project Historian and Cultural Resources Unit will be held following completion of the data review and the field inspection.
The Consultant will facilitate and lead a half-day workshop with MnDOT Bridge Office staff, NDDOT representative, Project Historian, MnDOT District 2 personnel, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Cultural Resources Units of both states and others to develop up to four rehabilitation alternatives that satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The alternatives should satisfy and meet the engineering needs of the bridge and incorporate rehabilitation measures that avoid adverse effects on either the Oslo Bridge or the Soo Line Swing Bridge located 200 feet upstream of the Oslo Bridge. The Consultant will supply all presentation materials required for the workshop (i.e. sketches, boards, etc.).
The study will be developed following the outline below:
Oslo Bridge Rehabilitation Study Outline
· 1. Project purpose and need (with verification that FHWA has approved)
· 2. Historical background of bridge
· 3. Description of the bridge’s historic character-defining features
· 4. Structural and functional considerations
(including, but not limited to, the following: verification of bridge rating and load posting; adequacy and expected life of the bridge bearings, substructures, and foundations; history of bridge substructure movement, raising dike )
· 5. Rehabilitation Alternatives
· Discussion of each rehabilitation alternative investigated, including
o Overall description of the alternative
(including, but not limited to, timeline for rehabilitation, maintenance and inspection considerations, and sufficiency ratings after rehabilitation)
o Life expectancy of the alternative
o Cost of the alternative
(including rehabilitation and maintenance costs)
o How the alternative affects the character-defining features of the bridge, and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
o How the alternative affects other historic properties
o How well the alternative meets Purpose and Need statement for project
§ Primary need: to provide a structurally sound, safe crossing of Minnesota Trunk Highwy 1 (TH1) over the Red River of the North, near Oslo, Minnesota.
§ Secondary need: Maintain traffic (to avoid substantial economic and social impacts resulting from bridge closure for an extended period). (including, but not limited to, staging considerations)
§ Secondary need: Address bridge structural deficiencies to provide a safe river crossing structure for permit weight loads (heavy commercial traffic is c. 14% of the AADT, and this route is used as a farm to market route).
§ Additional Consideration: Address vertical and horizontal deficiencies in the bridge structure (to accommodate large agricultural equipment).
§ Additional Consideration: Address Section 106 (protection of historic properties) requirements.
§ Additional Consideration: Provide structural redundancy.
At the conclusion of the analysis of the rehabilitation alternates, the Consultant will work with MnDOT’s State Bridge Office, NDDOT representative, Project Historian, MnDOT District 2 personnel, FHWA, and the Cultural Resources Units of both states to discuss the feasibility of the rehabilitation alternatives.
If none of the rehabilitation alternatives are deemed feasible and prudent, then the State reserves the right to amend this Contract for the Consultant to explore other rehabilitation alternatives that satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The above outline will be used for the proposed alternatives.
Task 3-Draft Report
Consultant will meet with State Bridge Office, MnDOT District 2 personnel, NDDOT representative and
the Cultural Resources Units of both states to discuss the draft report. The purpose of the meeting is to assess the feasibility and prudence of the alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative. Consultant will incorporate comments and revisions and finalize the report.
Task 4-Public Outreach Meeting
The Consultant will provide graphic materials at any public meeting held as a result of this study. A representative may also be needed to explain the project to the public.
Task 5-Final Report
The format of the report will follow this outline:
Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Study Outline
· 1. Project purpose and need (with verification that FHWA has approved)
· 2. Historical background of bridge
· 3. Description of the bridge’s character-defining features
· 4. Condition analysis of the bridge
· 5. Discussion of each rehabilitation alternative investigated including
o Overall description of the alternative
o Life expectancy of the alternative
o Cost of the alternative
o How the alternative affects the character-defining features of the bridge, and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
o How the alternative affects other historic properties
o How well the alternative meets Purpose and Need, with specific attention to primary need, secondary needs, and additional consideration
5.0 Deliverables
5.1 State’s Deliverables
· Existing bridge plans
· Structure Inventory Reports
· Fracture Critical Reports
· Load Rating Analysis
· Maintenance Records
· Purpose and Need statement along with research done to develop the statement
· CRAVE Study material
· Historic eligibility information
5.2 Consultant’s Deliverables
· Timeline for deliverables
· Monthly progress reports
· Monthly communications log, significant e-mails and other correspondence
· Graphics for meetings
· Meeting minutes
· Load Rating Models
· Draft Report
· Cost Estimate
· Final Report
Each report must be signed and certified by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota and a qualified historian.
THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- 2 -