Hume Road Repair
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1585-DR-CA; Los Angeles County
Cross-reference: Pre-Disaster Conditions; Eligible work
Summary: As a result of heavy rainfall during the February 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared PW 832 in October 2005 for $329,714 to fund stabilization of a failed slope and associated restoration of pavement and appurtenances along a section of Hume Road at mile marker (MM) 0.94. The scope of work in the PW calls for a 152-foot long soldier pile wall with pile spacing 8 feet on-centers; use of pre-cast reinforced concrete panels; placement and compaction of backfill and reconstruction of the asphalt pavement and shoulder. The Applicant is requesting that FEMA revise the scope of work and increase funding to $972,029 to allow for a wall length of 180 feet with soldier piles spaced 6 feet on-centers and the use of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall. The Applicant is also requesting additional work items, such as asphalt pavement, guard rail, etc., associated with the increased wall length.
Issues: 1) Should the scope of work be revised to allow for a 180-foot long soldier pile wall?
2) Should the total project cost be increased to $972,029 to reflect construction of a 180-foot long soldier pile wall with appurtenances?
Findings: 1) No, the Applicant did not provide justification for the increased wall length.
2) No. However, the Applicant did justify the approval for cast-in-place reinforced concreter soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-center; therefore, the total project cost estimate is increased from $329,714 to $448,467 to reflect the changes in construction methods.
Rationale: Stafford Act, Section 406(e); 44 CFR §206.223(a)
As a result of heavy rainfall during the February 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 832 for Los Angeles County (Applicant) in October 2005 for $329,714. The scope of work included the stabilization of a failed slope and associated restoration of pavement and appurtenances along a section of Hume Road at mile marker (MM) 0.94, located in the Santa Monica Mountains area of Los Angeles County. The Applicant is appealing the PWs scope of work and funding amount.
The PW describes a slope failure with a length of 150 feet that removed four feet of shoulder. Cracks extending four to seven feet into the roadway were observed over a total length of 146 feet. The PWs scope of work includes a 152-foot long soldier pile wall with pile spacing 8 feet on-centers and pre-cast reinforced concrete panels; placement and compaction of backfill to restore the integral ground supporting the pavement and reconstruction of the asphalt pavement and shoulder. The PW does not specifically state the height of the wall. However, based on a review of the data used to compute quantities for the cost estimate, the wall height is 15 feet and the depth of soldier pile embedment was assumed to be 20 feet.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the California Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) on May 3, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on June 29, 2006. The Applicant requested that FEMA revise the scope of work and project cost based on the recommendations of its geotechnical consultant, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). MACTECs geotechnical report dated September 21, 2005, identified 180 feet of tensional pavement cracks and recommended construction of a soldier pile wall. The Applicant provided excerpted pages from the MACTEC report (cover, transmittal letter, summary, and figure showing a plan view of the affected road section). Additionally, the appeal included a line item estimate for the repair costs prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW), which is identified as Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014721 Hume Road @ MM 0.94 Retaining Wall Estimate, dated May 2, 2005.
The Applicant requested that FEMA revise PW 832 to increase the total length of the soldier pile wall to 180 feet, with spacing between piles of 6 feet on-centers, and allow for the use of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall rather than the pre-cast reinforced concrete panels identified in the PW scope of work. The Applicant requested an additional 30 feet of asphalt pavement repair and cable railing, along with 180 feet of guard rail plus terminal systems. In addition, the Applicant requested that an 18-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) be removed and reconstructed as it conflicts (p. 3 of its first appeal) with the alignment of the wall. The Applicant requested that FEMA allow for the costs of materials and labor associated with the revised scope of work, as well as engineering design and construction management proportionate to the increased amount, which results in a total project cost of $1,102,204.
The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal because the Applicant did not submit sufficient documentation to support the requested change in the scope of work. The Acting Regional Director noted that the Applicant should request an Improved Project if the Applicant elects to deviate from the scope of work defined in PW 832 and proceed with the scope of work as described in the appeal. However, the Acting Regional Director stated that changing the construction method of the retaining wall from pre-cast to cast-in-place because of engineering and construction considerations did not constitute a change in the scope of work.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted its second appeal to OES on December 19, 2006. OES forwarded it to FEMA on February 15, 2007. The Applicant reiterated its position regarding the need for a change to the scope of work to comply with the recommendations of its geotechnical consultant, MACTEC. In addition to copies of the PW and first appeal response, the Applicant provided a copy of MACTECs geotechnical report dated September 21, 2005, as documentation to support its position, specifically citing the recommendation in the MACTEC report (p. 13) that the spacing between soldier piles not exceed 6 feet on-centers. The Applicant requested that FEMA revise the scope of work in PW 832 to reflect the proposed work and allow for the associated costs of $972,029.
DISCUSSION:
The MACTEC report (p. 2) states that, The CM 0.94 slope failure is expressed as a zone of tensional pavement cracks in Hume Road. The cracking, which is the focus of this study, extends for a distance of approximately 180 feet along Hume Road from the swale near CM (culvert marker) 0.94 to the uphill bend in the road. The report goes on to state (p. 2) that, The location and orientation of the cracking strongly suggest that the Hume Road slope failure is associated with a shallow slope failure of the road fill and surficial colluvium materials along the shoulder of the road and adjacent brush-covered slope .No lateral margins or features indicative of a slope failure toe were observed for the failed mass along the road or on the hillside downhill from Hume Road.
The presumption is made, though never stated, that all of the cracks observed over this distance are a direct result of the slope failure. However, the lateral extent of the failure mass could not be established in the field. The report provides recommendations for the design of a soldier pile wall (pp. 12-18), however, it does not specify an alignment for a solder pile wall. The entire basis for the length of soldier pile wall proposed by the Applicant is the length of the zone of pavement cracks observed in Hume Road by the representatives of MACTEC, and the contention that this distance supercedes the distance observed during the FEMA site visit.
The Applicant has not provided evidence in the form of engineering analyses, plans, or design calculations that justify the need to construct a soldier pile wall with a length of 180 feet and the additional work associated with the increased length. The Acting Regional Director stated in the first appeal that changing the construction method of the soldier pile wall from pre-cast concrete to cast-in-place concrete did not constitute a change in scope of work. Therefore, apart from the length of wall and the work associated with the 18-inch diameter CMP referred to in the first appeal (p. 3), the scope of work proposed by the Applicant is essentially the same as the scope of work defined in the PW. The scope of work in the PW calls for a soldier pile wall with pile spacing of 8 feet on-centers. The Applicant requests pile spacing of 6 feet on-centers or less.
The Applicant submitted documentation to support placing the piles 6 feet on-centers. Changing the pile spacing from 8 feet to 6 feet on-centers will result in a 4-foot increase in the wall length. The revised cost estimate for a 156-foot cast-in-place reinforced concrete soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-centers is shown in the attached spreadsheets. The cost items (3, 4, and 5) for the soldier piles increased to 27 piles instead of 20. The cost item (6) for RC lagging panels is removed and replaced with cost items (new 6, 18, 19, and 20) for structural concrete, steel reinforcing bars, support metal, and timber lagging. Since these changes increase the construction cost, the costs for mobilization, project management, and engineering design services will increase as they are computed as percentages of the construction cost. This increases the estimate for PW 832 from $329,714 to $488,467.
Ccrthe line items in the Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014721 Hume Road @ MM 0.94 Retaining Wall Estimate, prepared by LADPW, dated May 2, 2006, which was included with the first appeal. However, the quantities in the LADPW estimate were reduced by 13 percent (156 feet divided by 180 feet, which is the ratio of the wall lengths) to account for a shorter length of wall. Specifically, information used for the revised cost estimate was taken from line items 13 (Structure Concrete Retaining Wall), 18 (Bar Reinforcing Steel), and 19 (Miscellaneous Metal Retaining Wall). There were no quantities or unit costs for the timber lagging in the LADPW estimate for the Hume Road repair, which is an integral component of the Applicants cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall. Therefore, unit costs for the timber lagging and the structural concrete for the cast-in-place wall were taken from the LADPW Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014714 Piuma Road East of MM 2.81 Retaining Wall Estimate, dated August 24, 2005, which is part of the backup documentation for PW 809.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicants request to construct a cast-in-place reinforced concrete soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-centers is approved. However, the request to construct a 180-foot wall instead of a 152-foot wall is denied. The revised cost estimate for the project is increased from $329,714 to $448,467.
FEMA-1585-DR-CA Revised Cost Estimate
PW #832 Hume Road at MM 0.94
Item Narrative Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Const. Cost
1 Sawcut asphalt (146 LF + 14 LF = 160 LF) 160 LF $4.00 $640.00
2 Excavation damaged aspahlt, base & unclassified material 352 CY $60.00 $21,120.00
3 Drill twenty-seven (27) - 3-foot diameter holes (20 feet deep) 540 LF $150.00 $81,000.00
4 Supply & install twenty-seven 35 feet long steel piles W21x147 945 LF $120.00 $113,400.00
5 Construct concrete mix for embedded portion of soldier piles 141 CY $250.00 $35,250.00
6 Structure concrete (retaining wall) 78 CY $750.00 $58,500.00
7 Construct 24 inch wide drain of rock wrapped in geofabric 167 CY $60.00 $10,020.00
8 Construct fill in lifts, certified 90% min. relative compaction 250 CY $70.00 $17,500.00
9 Construct AC pavement 4 inch thick with 6 inch CMB base 117 CY $18.12 $2,120.04
10 Construct AC berm @ edge of pavement - Std. Plans S-412-0 150 LF $40.00 $6,000.00
11 Install cable railing per FEMA approved DR 1203 cost 150 LF $15.00 $2,250.00
12 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
18 Bar reinforcing steel 9,309 LB $2.50 $23,272.50
19 Miscellaneous metal (retaining wall) 141 LB $5.00 $705.00
20 Timber lagging 3 MBF $3,500.00 $10,500.00
$387,277.54
21 Mobilization (7% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $27,109.00 $27,109.00
22 Project Management (3% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $11,618.00 $11,618.00
23 Eng'g Design Services Fee - Curve B (5.8% of Const. Cost) 1 LS $22,462.00 $22,462.00
Total Cost $448,466.54
FEMA-1585-DR-CA
PW #832 Hume Road at MM 0.94
Item Narrative Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Const. Cost
1 Sawcut asphalt (146 LF + 14 LF = 160 LF) 160 LF $4.00 $640.00
2 Excavation damaged aspahlt, base & unclassified material 352 CY $60.00 $21,120.00
3 Drill 20 - 3-foot diameter holes 700 LF $150.00 $105,000.00
4 Supply & install twenty 35 feet long steel piles W21x147 700 LF $120.00 $84,000.00
5 Construct concrete mix for embedded portion of soldier piles 104 CY $250.00 $26,000.00
6 Supply concrete lagging panels (10" x 18" x 8' = 190 panels) 190 EA $300.00 $57,000.00
7 Construct 24 inch wide drain of rock wrapped in geofabric 167 CY $60.00 $10,020.00
8 Construct fill in lifts, certified 90% min. relative compaction 250 CY $70.00 $17,500.00
9 Construct AC pavement 4 inch thick with 6 inch CMB base 117 CY $18.12 $2,120.04
10 Construct AC berm @ edge of pavement - Std. Plans S-412-0 150 LF $40.00 $6,000.00
11 Install cable railing per FEMA approved DR 1203 cost 150 LF $15.00 $2,250.00
12 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$336,650.04
13 Mobilization (7% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $23,565.50 $23,565.50
14 Project Management (3% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $10,099.50 $10,099.50
15 Eng'g Design Services Fee - Curve B (6% of Const. Cost) 1 LS $20,199.00 $20,199.00
Correct Total Cost $390,514.04
PW Total (percentage amounts in error apparently based on a total amount of $331,650) $389,714.04
Correction during PW review - refer to Excel comment
3 Drill 20 - 3-foot diameter holes 300 LF $150.00 $45,000.00
Total Cost as PW was written $329,714.04
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1585-DR |
| Applicant | Los Angeles County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-99037-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 832 |
| Date Signed | 2008-01-22T05:00:00 |
2) Should the total project cost be increased to $972,029 to reflect construction of a 180-foot long soldier pile wall with appurtenances?
2) No. However, the Applicant did justify the approval for cast-in-place reinforced concreter soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-center; therefore, the total project cost estimate is increased from $329,714 to $448,467 to reflect the changes in construction methods.
Appeal Letter
January 22, 2008
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal Los Angeles County, PA ID 037-99037-00
Hume Road Repair, FEMA-1585-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 832
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This is in response to your letter to Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated February 15, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Los Angeles County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the scope of work and cost estimate for PW 832 to repair a section of Hume Road. The Applicant requests an increase in funding from $329,714 to $972,029.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification to support its request for a 180-foot soldier pile wall. Therefore, I am denying this portion of the appeal. I have determined, however, that the substitution of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall in lieu of pre-cast concrete panels, as well as the reduced pile spacing, is consistent with the basic scope of work defined in the PW. Accordingly, I am granting this portion of the appeal. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Paul Jacks
Governors Authorized Representative
Governors Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal Los Angeles County, PA ID 037-99037-00
Hume Road Repair, FEMA-1585-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 832
Dear Mr. Jacks:
This is in response to your letter to Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dated February 15, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Los Angeles County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the scope of work and cost estimate for PW 832 to repair a section of Hume Road. The Applicant requests an increase in funding from $329,714 to $972,029.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification to support its request for a 180-foot soldier pile wall. Therefore, I am denying this portion of the appeal. I have determined, however, that the substitution of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall in lieu of pre-cast concrete panels, as well as the reduced pile spacing, is consistent with the basic scope of work defined in the PW. Accordingly, I am granting this portion of the appeal. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Administrator to take appropriate action to implement this determination.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Ward
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
Background:As a result of heavy rainfall during the February 2005 Winter Storms, FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 832 for Los Angeles County (Applicant) in October 2005 for $329,714. The scope of work included the stabilization of a failed slope and associated restoration of pavement and appurtenances along a section of Hume Road at mile marker (MM) 0.94, located in the Santa Monica Mountains area of Los Angeles County. The Applicant is appealing the PWs scope of work and funding amount.
The PW describes a slope failure with a length of 150 feet that removed four feet of shoulder. Cracks extending four to seven feet into the roadway were observed over a total length of 146 feet. The PWs scope of work includes a 152-foot long soldier pile wall with pile spacing 8 feet on-centers and pre-cast reinforced concrete panels; placement and compaction of backfill to restore the integral ground supporting the pavement and reconstruction of the asphalt pavement and shoulder. The PW does not specifically state the height of the wall. However, based on a review of the data used to compute quantities for the cost estimate, the wall height is 15 feet and the depth of soldier pile embedment was assumed to be 20 feet.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted its first appeal to the California Governors Office of Emergency Services (OES) on May 3, 2006. OES forwarded the appeal to FEMA on June 29, 2006. The Applicant requested that FEMA revise the scope of work and project cost based on the recommendations of its geotechnical consultant, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). MACTECs geotechnical report dated September 21, 2005, identified 180 feet of tensional pavement cracks and recommended construction of a soldier pile wall. The Applicant provided excerpted pages from the MACTEC report (cover, transmittal letter, summary, and figure showing a plan view of the affected road section). Additionally, the appeal included a line item estimate for the repair costs prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW), which is identified as Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014721 Hume Road @ MM 0.94 Retaining Wall Estimate, dated May 2, 2005.
The Applicant requested that FEMA revise PW 832 to increase the total length of the soldier pile wall to 180 feet, with spacing between piles of 6 feet on-centers, and allow for the use of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall rather than the pre-cast reinforced concrete panels identified in the PW scope of work. The Applicant requested an additional 30 feet of asphalt pavement repair and cable railing, along with 180 feet of guard rail plus terminal systems. In addition, the Applicant requested that an 18-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) be removed and reconstructed as it conflicts (p. 3 of its first appeal) with the alignment of the wall. The Applicant requested that FEMA allow for the costs of materials and labor associated with the revised scope of work, as well as engineering design and construction management proportionate to the increased amount, which results in a total project cost of $1,102,204.
The Acting Regional Director denied the appeal because the Applicant did not submit sufficient documentation to support the requested change in the scope of work. The Acting Regional Director noted that the Applicant should request an Improved Project if the Applicant elects to deviate from the scope of work defined in PW 832 and proceed with the scope of work as described in the appeal. However, the Acting Regional Director stated that changing the construction method of the retaining wall from pre-cast to cast-in-place because of engineering and construction considerations did not constitute a change in the scope of work.
Second Appeal
The Applicant submitted its second appeal to OES on December 19, 2006. OES forwarded it to FEMA on February 15, 2007. The Applicant reiterated its position regarding the need for a change to the scope of work to comply with the recommendations of its geotechnical consultant, MACTEC. In addition to copies of the PW and first appeal response, the Applicant provided a copy of MACTECs geotechnical report dated September 21, 2005, as documentation to support its position, specifically citing the recommendation in the MACTEC report (p. 13) that the spacing between soldier piles not exceed 6 feet on-centers. The Applicant requested that FEMA revise the scope of work in PW 832 to reflect the proposed work and allow for the associated costs of $972,029.
DISCUSSION:
The MACTEC report (p. 2) states that, The CM 0.94 slope failure is expressed as a zone of tensional pavement cracks in Hume Road. The cracking, which is the focus of this study, extends for a distance of approximately 180 feet along Hume Road from the swale near CM (culvert marker) 0.94 to the uphill bend in the road. The report goes on to state (p. 2) that, The location and orientation of the cracking strongly suggest that the Hume Road slope failure is associated with a shallow slope failure of the road fill and surficial colluvium materials along the shoulder of the road and adjacent brush-covered slope .No lateral margins or features indicative of a slope failure toe were observed for the failed mass along the road or on the hillside downhill from Hume Road.
The presumption is made, though never stated, that all of the cracks observed over this distance are a direct result of the slope failure. However, the lateral extent of the failure mass could not be established in the field. The report provides recommendations for the design of a soldier pile wall (pp. 12-18), however, it does not specify an alignment for a solder pile wall. The entire basis for the length of soldier pile wall proposed by the Applicant is the length of the zone of pavement cracks observed in Hume Road by the representatives of MACTEC, and the contention that this distance supercedes the distance observed during the FEMA site visit.
The Applicant has not provided evidence in the form of engineering analyses, plans, or design calculations that justify the need to construct a soldier pile wall with a length of 180 feet and the additional work associated with the increased length. The Acting Regional Director stated in the first appeal that changing the construction method of the soldier pile wall from pre-cast concrete to cast-in-place concrete did not constitute a change in scope of work. Therefore, apart from the length of wall and the work associated with the 18-inch diameter CMP referred to in the first appeal (p. 3), the scope of work proposed by the Applicant is essentially the same as the scope of work defined in the PW. The scope of work in the PW calls for a soldier pile wall with pile spacing of 8 feet on-centers. The Applicant requests pile spacing of 6 feet on-centers or less.
The Applicant submitted documentation to support placing the piles 6 feet on-centers. Changing the pile spacing from 8 feet to 6 feet on-centers will result in a 4-foot increase in the wall length. The revised cost estimate for a 156-foot cast-in-place reinforced concrete soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-centers is shown in the attached spreadsheets. The cost items (3, 4, and 5) for the soldier piles increased to 27 piles instead of 20. The cost item (6) for RC lagging panels is removed and replaced with cost items (new 6, 18, 19, and 20) for structural concrete, steel reinforcing bars, support metal, and timber lagging. Since these changes increase the construction cost, the costs for mobilization, project management, and engineering design services will increase as they are computed as percentages of the construction cost. This increases the estimate for PW 832 from $329,714 to $488,467.
Ccrthe line items in the Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014721 Hume Road @ MM 0.94 Retaining Wall Estimate, prepared by LADPW, dated May 2, 2006, which was included with the first appeal. However, the quantities in the LADPW estimate were reduced by 13 percent (156 feet divided by 180 feet, which is the ratio of the wall lengths) to account for a shorter length of wall. Specifically, information used for the revised cost estimate was taken from line items 13 (Structure Concrete Retaining Wall), 18 (Bar Reinforcing Steel), and 19 (Miscellaneous Metal Retaining Wall). There were no quantities or unit costs for the timber lagging in the LADPW estimate for the Hume Road repair, which is an integral component of the Applicants cast-in-place reinforced concrete wall. Therefore, unit costs for the timber lagging and the structural concrete for the cast-in-place wall were taken from the LADPW Total Contract Estimate for Project RDC0014714 Piuma Road East of MM 2.81 Retaining Wall Estimate, dated August 24, 2005, which is part of the backup documentation for PW 809.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicants request to construct a cast-in-place reinforced concrete soldier pile wall with piles 6 feet on-centers is approved. However, the request to construct a 180-foot wall instead of a 152-foot wall is denied. The revised cost estimate for the project is increased from $329,714 to $448,467.
FEMA-1585-DR-CA Revised Cost Estimate
PW #832 Hume Road at MM 0.94
Item Narrative Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Const. Cost
1 Sawcut asphalt (146 LF + 14 LF = 160 LF) 160 LF $4.00 $640.00
2 Excavation damaged aspahlt, base & unclassified material 352 CY $60.00 $21,120.00
3 Drill twenty-seven (27) - 3-foot diameter holes (20 feet deep) 540 LF $150.00 $81,000.00
4 Supply & install twenty-seven 35 feet long steel piles W21x147 945 LF $120.00 $113,400.00
5 Construct concrete mix for embedded portion of soldier piles 141 CY $250.00 $35,250.00
6 Structure concrete (retaining wall) 78 CY $750.00 $58,500.00
7 Construct 24 inch wide drain of rock wrapped in geofabric 167 CY $60.00 $10,020.00
8 Construct fill in lifts, certified 90% min. relative compaction 250 CY $70.00 $17,500.00
9 Construct AC pavement 4 inch thick with 6 inch CMB base 117 CY $18.12 $2,120.04
10 Construct AC berm @ edge of pavement - Std. Plans S-412-0 150 LF $40.00 $6,000.00
11 Install cable railing per FEMA approved DR 1203 cost 150 LF $15.00 $2,250.00
12 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
18 Bar reinforcing steel 9,309 LB $2.50 $23,272.50
19 Miscellaneous metal (retaining wall) 141 LB $5.00 $705.00
20 Timber lagging 3 MBF $3,500.00 $10,500.00
$387,277.54
21 Mobilization (7% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $27,109.00 $27,109.00
22 Project Management (3% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $11,618.00 $11,618.00
23 Eng'g Design Services Fee - Curve B (5.8% of Const. Cost) 1 LS $22,462.00 $22,462.00
Total Cost $448,466.54
FEMA-1585-DR-CA
PW #832 Hume Road at MM 0.94
Item Narrative Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Const. Cost
1 Sawcut asphalt (146 LF + 14 LF = 160 LF) 160 LF $4.00 $640.00
2 Excavation damaged aspahlt, base & unclassified material 352 CY $60.00 $21,120.00
3 Drill 20 - 3-foot diameter holes 700 LF $150.00 $105,000.00
4 Supply & install twenty 35 feet long steel piles W21x147 700 LF $120.00 $84,000.00
5 Construct concrete mix for embedded portion of soldier piles 104 CY $250.00 $26,000.00
6 Supply concrete lagging panels (10" x 18" x 8' = 190 panels) 190 EA $300.00 $57,000.00
7 Construct 24 inch wide drain of rock wrapped in geofabric 167 CY $60.00 $10,020.00
8 Construct fill in lifts, certified 90% min. relative compaction 250 CY $70.00 $17,500.00
9 Construct AC pavement 4 inch thick with 6 inch CMB base 117 CY $18.12 $2,120.04
10 Construct AC berm @ edge of pavement - Std. Plans S-412-0 150 LF $40.00 $6,000.00
11 Install cable railing per FEMA approved DR 1203 cost 150 LF $15.00 $2,250.00
12 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00
$336,650.04
13 Mobilization (7% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $23,565.50 $23,565.50
14 Project Management (3% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $10,099.50 $10,099.50
15 Eng'g Design Services Fee - Curve B (6% of Const. Cost) 1 LS $20,199.00 $20,199.00
Correct Total Cost $390,514.04
PW Total (percentage amounts in error apparently based on a total amount of $331,650) $389,714.04
Correction during PW review - refer to Excel comment
3 Drill 20 - 3-foot diameter holes 300 LF $150.00 $45,000.00
Total Cost as PW was written $329,714.04
Last updated