HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-05 City Council (36)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AGENDA DATE: August 5, 1996 CMR:362:96
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Pedestrian/bike Bridge and Bike Path Project (CIP
19310): Rejection of Bids ,_
REQUEST
The design work for the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project has
been fully completed and bids for the project were received on June 4, 1996. The purpose
of this report is to request that Council reject all of the bids received (because the bids are
substantially higher than the Engineer’s Estimate and the available project funds) and
endorse a proposed strategy for proceeding with the project in a two stage approach.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions
Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project:
with respect to the
1.Reject all of the bids received for construction;
o
Approve the following two-stage approach: Stage 1 - delete the proposed new
bridge, bid the project again in the winter, mad construct the path portion of the
project next spring; and Stage 2 - pursue funding for, and implementation of, the
proposed new bridge portion of the project; mad
Confirm the Council’s intent that the use of the existing railroad bridge is an interim
measure and that it is the intent of the City to pursue alternative funding sources for
the construction of the proposed new bridge.
CMR:362:96 Page 1 of 11
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 12: Promote bicycle
usage, and would provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master
Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master Plan,
Council approved a CIP to construct a new bike path and pedestrian/bike bridge on the
west side of the CalTrain railroad tracks from Churchill Avenue to the Palo
Alto/University Avenue CalTrain Station. Design of the project was completed and bids
were received on Jmae 4, 1996. Four bids were received with the low base bid of
$808,150, which is $280,467 over the Engineer’s Estimate of $527,683.
Based on conversations with the contractors and the engineering design consultant, it was
found that the bids were higher than expected due in part to the constraints of the work
site, the complex nature of the project (requiring a high percentage of subcontractors),
bridge design issues related to the appearance of the structure, and the proximity of the
new bridge to the existing railroad bridge. In addition, the timing of the bidding at the
start of a very busy construction season may have had an effect.
Due to the excessive difference in the low bid and Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the
resulting budget shortfall, staff recommends rejecting all of the bids. Staff further
recommends that the project be bid again in the winter to take advantage of a potentially
more competitive bidding environment. Staffproposes to restructure the project into two
stages. Stage 1 would delete the proposed new bridge but hMude other major components
of the proposed project. The existing railroad bridge would temporarily serve, for an
interim period of time, as a substitute for the new bridge. Stage 2 would include pursuing
additional funding for the new bridge, with construction to follow at such time that
funding was secured.
Staff considered three alternatives to rescope the project. The first alternative involves
awarding the current project, which would require a $327,468 General Fund Budget
Amendment Ordinance. The second alternative involves canceling the project, which
would result in the continuation of an existing important need that would go unresolved
and continue to surface in the future. The third alternative involves bidding the project
and combining it with the Allna Street Bicycle Bridge mad Path Project. The scopes of
work of the two projects m’e different enough to cause more administrative costs, and the
combined project would still require substantial additional funding.
CMR:362:96 Page 2 of 11
Power Engineering, the low bidder for this project, has offered a design/build proposal to
complete the entire project for a lump sum of $662,000, with the proviso that a steel truss
bridge be substituted for the proposed concrete girder bridge. This would require a
General Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $181,833. However, the
Attorney’s Office has determined that this proposal is legally non-responsive. Because
the proposal is legally non-responsive and a steel truss bridge would be visually
incongruous with the character of the surroundings, staff does not recommend this option.
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional funds are required or requested for tiffs current recommended Council
action. There is, however, the outstanding intent of the City to pursue the eventual
construction of a new bridge. While outside funding sources will be pursued, it may be
necessary to consider some additional City funding if, for example, funding grants require
some local match and/or funding grant(s) are not quite sufficient to cover the total cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Negative Declaration (94-EIA-16) was approved by Council on August 1, 1994.
Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’s recommendation
(i.e., to delete the bridge) will not increase the potential environmental impact of the
project. Therefore, no change to the Negative Declaration will be required.
Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
Department Head Review:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plmming
and Community Environment
City Manager Approval:
FLEMING
City Manager
CMR:362:96 Page 3 of 11
Manager’s
City of Palo Alto
Summary Report
SUBJECT:Embarcadero Pedestrian/bike Bridge And Bike Path Project (CIP
19310): Rejection of Bids
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staffrecommends that Council take the following actions with respect to the Embarcadero
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Project:
1.Reject all bids received for construction; and
Approve the following two-stage approach: Stage 1 - delete the proposed new
bridge, bid the project again in the winter, and construct the path portion of the
project next spring; and Stage 2 - pursue funding for, and implementation of, the
proposed new bridge portion of the project; and
o Confirm that it is the City’s understanding that the use of the existing railroad
bridge is an interim measure and that it is the intent of the City to pursue alternative
funding sources for the construction of the proposed new bridge.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto has developed a project to construct a bike path along the west side of the
CalTrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to a point just north of Encina Avenue, as
proposed in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master Plan.
A feasibility study, completed in February 1993, concluded that (1) a bike path through
this area was feasible, but would be complex because it would involve the interests of
several entities including Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Stanford University,
Palo Alto Unified School District, Sprint, Wiltel, and MCI; and (2) it would be more
costly than originally anticipated.
Since that time, the work has proceeded through the various stages of de’sign, and the
necessary agreements have been negotiated with all of the affected entities. The scope
of the project has evolved and changed, as a result of review and comments by the
Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Unified
CMR:362:96 Page 4 of 11
School District, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel. The
progress that has transpired with the submittal, review, and approval of the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation’s proposed new facilities has also altered the scope of the project.
The design of the project was fully completed in spring 1996, with the intent to construct
the project during the summer and fall period of this year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 12: Promote bicycle
usage, and would provide an important missing link in the Palo Alto Bikeways Master
Plan.
DISCUSSION
Bidding Process
An advance letter indicating that bid documents would be available beginning April 30,
1996 was mailed to 14 contractors (Attaclmaent 1) on April 25, 1996. A similar Fact
Sheet was faxed to 39 contractors (Attachlnent 2) on May 8, 1996. Plans and
specifications were mailed to 16 general circulation exchanges on April 29, 1996. The
project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury, Palo Alto Weekly and Berkeley Post (a
newspaper for Disadvantaged Businesses Enterprises) on May 1, May 3, and May 19,
respectively. A pre-bid meeting was held on May 13, 1996 to discuss the project with
prospective bidders. Plans and specifications were picked up or mailed to 21 contractors
prior to bid opening on Jtme 4, 1996. An additional letter was sent on May 24, 1996 to
each of the 21 contractors holding plans and specifications, reminding them that bids were
due on June 4. The biddh~g period was five weeks, wlfich was an adequate period of time
for this size and type of project.
The bids were opened on June 4, 1996. Bids were received from four contractors, as
listed on the attached bid summary sheet (Attaclnnent 3). The low base bid of $808,150
is $280,467, or 53 percent, over the Engineer’s estimate of $527,683. The four bids
received ranged from a lfigh of $848,888 to a low of $808,150.
The engineering design consultant (HMH, Inc.) was asked to explain the difference
between the construction bids and the Engineer’s Estimate. In addition, staff contacted
two of the contractors after the bid opening, to learn more about the reasons for the
substantial variation between the Engineer’s Estimate and the bid prices. The following
reasons appear to have contributed to the high bids:
CMR:362:96 Page 5 of 11
The constrained site, which makes access, storage and work areas very restricted,
affects the unit costs for such major items as excavation, asphalt path, fencing, and
lighting, as well as the precast girders for the bridge.
The complex nature of the project, which involves a relatively large dollar
percentage of specialty work (e.g. precast girders, lighting, and fencing) that is
normally done by subcontractors, results in a disproportionately lower percentage
of the work remaining for the lead contractor.
Bridge design issues related to the appearance of the structure (e.g. colored
concrete, railings, light fixtures and test panels) appear to have resulted in
substantially higher unit costs for several bridge related items.
The need to construct the new pedestrian/bike bridge immediately adjacent to the
existing bridge appears to have been a factor in higher unit costs for some items.
The design consultant indicates that these factors were taken into account while preparing
the Engineer’s Estimate, but, obviously, the contractors’ perspectives regarding the
complexity of tiffs job were somewhat different than the consultant’s perspective, as
reflected in the substantial difference between the Engineer’s Estimate and all four of the
bids received for tiffs project.
The design consultant has also indicated that the bidding climate in winter months is
generally more favorable, and the bids could be lower by as much as $100,000.
Conversations with contractors who bid on tiffs project do not confirm tlffs prospect. Staff
is .proceeding on the assumption that little or no savings will be realized by bidding the job
in the winter period; and, if in fact there are such savings, they will be viewed as an
unanticipated benefit.
Public Works Department staff also looked into the general bidding environment,
examining similar local area projects that were bid this spring. For example, a bicycle
bridge project for the City of Campbell received bids that were 45 percent above the
Engineer’s Estimate, while roadway bridges at the Marsh Road/Route 101 interchange
and the Willow Road/Route 101 interchange were 25 percent and 60 percent above the
Engineer’s Estimate, respectively. The bids received on these projects, as well as for Palo
Alto’s Alma Street Bike Bridge Project and the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike project,
may have been high partly due to the fact that they were all bid around the start of the
peak construction season, and that there is currently more demand for this type of
construction than in past years, due to the improving econo~ny.
CMR:362:96 Page 6 of 11
Due to the large difference in the low bid and the Engineer’s Estimate, as well as the
resulting budget shortfall, staff recommends rejecting all of the bids. Staff further
recommends that the project be bid again in the winter to take advantage of a potentially
more competitive bidding environment. Prior to bidding again, staffwill revise the project
scope to try and reduce costs to fit within the existing budget. Following is a more
detailed discussion of the measures that are required to modify the project scope.
Proposed Modified Two-Stage Approach
In order to reduce the scope of work to fit the currently available funds, consideration was
given to several possible measures, individually and collectively. Such possible measures
include: (1) deletion of the path lighting throughout the project, (2) substitution of chain
link fencing for the proposed steel fencing (between path and railroad tracks), (3) deletion
of a complete segment of the path, (4) replacement of the proposed precast prestressed
concrete girder bridge with a lower-cost prefabricated steel truss bridge, and (5) deletion
of several smaller items that, after analysis, did not contribute much toward significant
cost reduction. None of these measures alone, or in conjunction with others, was
sufficient to reduce the cost of the project to match existing available funds.
Upon further evaluation m~d consideration, it became evident that the only item of
sufficient cost consequence to make a substantial difference is the deletion of the
pedestrian/bike bridge from the project. While this is clearly not a preferred solution, it
is a workable interim approach.
Therefore, staffproposes to restructure this project into two stages as follows:
I
Stage 1:would include the construction of the pedestrian/bike path, essentially as
proposed (e.g. lighting, steel fencing, etc.), with the existing railroad bridge
serving, for an interim period of time, as a substitute for the proposed new
bridge. The construction of the path portion would proceed early next year,
mad staff believes it will then fit within the existing available funding.
The original feasibility study had suggested that the existing railroad bridge could indeed
be used. Staffhas had discussions with staff representatives from the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (CalTrain), and they were receptive to the possible use of the existing
structure, if it is an interiln lneasure, with the clear tmderstanding that it is the intent of the
City to pursue alternative funding sources for the eventual construction of the proposed
new bridge. If this approach is followed, modifications to the fencing and some
modifications to the existing CalTrain platform area will need to be incorporated into the
CMR:362:96 Page 7 of 11
design plans and specifications. The impact that such modifications (fencing and
platform) will have on the total cost of the project is still under review.
Stage 2: would include pursuing funding sources for sufficient funds to build the
proposed bridge structure. The construction of the new bridge would
proceed when sufficient funding has been secured.
While there are currently no ftmding source opportunities for this bridge project, historical
precedent strongly suggests that there will be new and renewed funding programs at the
federal, state and local levels. At such time that such opportunities materialize, tlfis
project would likely be highly competitive since the design is complete, the cost is
established, and the environmental review is approved. Securing funding for the bridge
may occur within a one to two year time frame, but could take as long as five years or
more.
Additional Changes in the Scope of Work for Stage 1
The deletion of the proposed new bridge from Stage 1 will substantially reduce the project
costs. In addition, staff would expect some reduction in mobilization costs as well.
(Mobilization costs are co~ts associated with a contractor setting up on a job site, such as
setting up an office, phone lines, etc. The mnount of these costs depend on the size of the
project). Staff is also hopeful that there might be some reduction in overall costs by
bidding the project again in the winter months, as well as some reduction due to the
simplification of the project by deletion of the bridge. The total net effect of such
reductions is not yet fully determined.
Offsetting such reductions will be the additional costs associated with modifications to the
fencing for flae existhag raikoad bridge mad modifications to the existing CalTrain platform
area which will need to be incorporated into the project. The impact that such
modifications (fencing mad platform) will have on the total cost of the project is still under
review.
As a back-up strategy, staff expects to include two further potential cost reduction
measures into the rebidding process. One measure is to identify the landscaping and
irrigation as a revocable item that could be deleted from the project. The second measure
is to include a provision for the possibility of the City purchasing and providing the light
standards to the contractor. While the cost of the light standards would still be charged
to the project budget, there is some indication that the City might be able to purchase them
at a substantial savings. Such deletion/change would be made only if the actual bid costs
still exceed the budget and/or substantial savfllgs would result; mad in any event, only with
the concurrence of Council at the time of the award of contract.
CMR:362:96 Page 8 of 11
An additional back-up strategy would be to consider the possibility of requesting
additional State TDA funds for this project, when the City submits its annual request in
January 1997. While it is reasonably likely that some additional funding could be secured,
the City has already indicated its intent to apply for TDA funds in January 1997 for the
construction phase of the renovation of the Wilkie Way Pedestrian/Bike Bridge. A
decision regarding which project(s) to include in the January 1997 application can best
be made then, based upon available hfformation.
ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives, for Council consideration, are as follows:
Alternative 1; Award the current contract
The first alternative is to award the contract to the low bidder. The total cost of the
contract could be reduced by $43,845 by deleting Item No. 9, which provides for
the replacement of a section ofexisting chain link fence with access control fence,
and was bid as a revocable item. The Council would need to approve funding from
the General Fund via a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $327,468, in order to
cover the budget shortfall. Construction of the project would begin within 30 days
and completed by May, 1997. Under this alternative, staffwould need to return
to the Council on August 12, 1996 with a Budget Amendment Ordinance approval
request and a contract award to the low bidder, Power Engineering. The contractor
has agreed to extend his bid until that date.
Alternative 2: Cancel the project
A second alternative is to cancel the project completely. Approval of this
alternative would result in the continuation of an existing finportant need that will
go tmresolved..It would also forego $ 459,510 of State and Federal funds that have
already been approved for this project and are as yet unspent. These State and
Federal funds cannot be used for any other project in Palo Alto.
Alternative 3; Rebid the project and combine with the Ahna Bridge C1P
This alternative is to rebid the project, combining it with the Alma Street Bicycle
Bridge and Path Project. While the scopes of the projects may seem similar, they
do have siga~ificant differences. The grant funding and subsequent reporting
requirements for each project are significantly different and would add more
administrative costs to the projects than might be realized by savings in
constn~ction costs. In addition, the Alma Street Bicycle Bridge and Path Project
is smaller in scope than the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/t3ike Bridge and Bike
Path Project, and could conceivably attract smaller contractors than those who
CMR:362:96 Page 9 of 11
would be unable to bid on a combined Alma/Embarcadero bid package. Under this
alternative, the total cost of the combined project would still require significant
additional funding.
Another option is a Design/Build Proposal from Power Engineering Contractors. In a
letter to the City (July 9, 1996), Power Engineering Contractors, who was the low bidder
on this project, proposed to bt~d basically the same bikeway facility, utilizing a steel truss
bridge on a pile foundation in lieu of the current planned prestressed concrete girder
bridge. Power Engineering indicates they would do the entire project (design/build)
through completion, with the alternate bridge design, for $662,000 ($618,000 if
landscaping and irrigation are deleted). This would require Cotmcil approval of additional
funding in the amount of $181,833, as compared to the $327,468 referenced in Alternative
1. Staff does not recommend this option for two reasons. First, the Attorney’s Office has
determined that this proposal is legally non-responsive. Second, the design of the new
proposed concrete girder bridge is the result of a design review process that recognized,
and was sensitive to, the prominent location of the new bridge on Embarcadero Road, as
well as its proximity to the existing railroad bridge. While a steel truss bridge would serve
the same fimction for the pedestrian/bicycle path, the visual appearance would be
incongruent with the character of the surroundings and inappropriate for the prominent
visual gateway presently along Embarcadero Road.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total funds currently available for this project are $716,770, of which $183,503 is for
design and inspection and .$533,267 is for construction, contingencies and testing.
Project funding is from a variety of funding sources including: State TDA funds
($195,510), State TSM funds ($46,000), Federal CMAQ funds ($320,000), Holiday Inn
mitigation fees ($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260). No
additional funds are required or requested for this current recommended Council action.
There is, however, the outstanding intent of the City to pursue the eventual construction
of a new bridge. While outside funding sources will be pursued, it may be necessary to
consider some additional City funding, if, for exmnple, funding grants require some local
match and/or funding grant(s) are not quite sufficient to cover the total cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A Negative Declaration (94-EIA-16) was approved by Council on August 1, 1994.
Changes to the scope of work resulting from Council approval of staff’s recommendation
(i.e., to delete the bridge) will not increase the potential enviromnental impact of the
project. Therefore, no change to the Negative Declaration will be required.
CMR:362:96 Page 10 of 11
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If Council approves the staffrecommendation, the following steps will be taken:
1.Revise the design plans and specifications to delete the new bridge and incorporate
modifications associated with the use of the existing bridge.
2.Bid the revised project in January 1997.
3.Return to Council for award of a construction contract.
4.Start construction in March 1997.
5.Complete construction in November 1997.
ATTACHMENTS
1.April 25, 1996 notice that project would be going to bid
’2.May 6, 1996 notice that bid documents were available
3.Bid Summary Sheet
CO:Joint Powers Board (Tom Davids)
Caltrans (Robert Wu)
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Cormnittee
Stanford University (Julia Fremon, Leonie Batkin)
Palo Alto Unified School District (Rosemarie Bednar)
Sprint (Douglas Freeman)
MCI (Ken Bailey)
World Com (JeffRinartz)
HMH, Inc. (Steve Sherman)
Anderson Pacific
Power Engineering
RGW
RM Harris
CMR:362:96 Page 11 of 11
Transportalion Division
April.25, 1996
Cityo- Palo Alto
D_epartment ofPlanning and
ComnlunityEnvironment ATTACHMENT 1
.,Subject: Bid Documents-Construction of Embarcadero Road Bike/Pedestrian
Bridge and a Bike Path Project
Dear Sir or Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to share with you that the bid documents for the
above- mentioned project will be available beginning April 30.
The project includes construction of a precast, prestressed, concrete, box girder
bridge, and an asphalt, concrete bike path, including fencing, path lighting,
signing, striping, landscaping and other related items. The cost of construction
ranges between $400,000 and $600,000.
Project Plans and Specifications may be obtained from the Transportation
Division office, located on the sixth floor of City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, for a fee of $50.00 per set (checks or money orders only made payable
to the City of Palo Alto).
A pre-bid conference for this project is scheduled for May 13 from 1:00 p.m. to
3:00 p.m., in the Council COnference Room, on the first floor of City Hall. While
the pre-bid conference is not mandatory, we do urge you to attend the conference.
In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call me at 415/329-2575.
Sincerely,
ASHOK AGGARWAL,’P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
2_~ Hamilton Avenue
P.O.Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2520
415.329.2299 Fax
ATTACHMENT 2
May6, 1996
Subject:Bid Documents-Construction. of Embarcadero Road
Bike/Pedestrian Bridge and a Bike Path Project
The purpose of this communication is to share with you that
the bid documents for the above mentioned project are now
available.
The project includes construction of a precast, prestressed
concrete, box girder bridge, asphalt concrete bike path,
including fencing, path lighting, signing, striping,
landscaping and other related items. The cost of
construction ranges between $400,000 and $600,000.
Project Plans and Specifications may be obtained from the
Transportation Division, located on the 6th floor of City
Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, for a fee of $50.00
per set (checks or money orders only made payable to the
City of Palo Alto).
A pre-bid conference for this project is scheduled for
May 13 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the Council Conference
Room, on the first floor of City Hall. While the pre-bid
conference is not mandatory, we urge you to attend the
conference.
The bid opening is at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 4. Time
for completion is 240 calendar days. Project is partly
funded by federal funds and the City has established a 18
percent disadvgntaged businesses participation (Caltrans
certified) goal for this project.
In the mean time if you have any questions, please call me
at (415)-329-2575.
Sincerely,
ASHOK AGGARWAL, P.E.
City Traffic Engineer
Item
I
2
3
4
Bid Summary Sheet
Embarcadero Road Bike Path Extension Project
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38
~9
40
41
42
LF
LB
CY
LF
EA
LB
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
Engineer’s Estimate
Unit Co~t
3.0
4,000.0
6,(~3.0
9,0
2.0
5.0
300.0
500.0
50.0
300.0
5,000.0
8,0
60.0
60.0
3,000.0
100.0
25.0
30.0
23.0
60.0
380.0
30,000.0
30.0
0.5
2~0.0
15.0
500.0
125.0
3.5
35.0
30 0
8.0
15.0
20.0
3,000.0
5000
150.0
100.~
40.00
100.0
ToLal !
7,65o
1,160
3,250
4,500
500
59~50
5,200 i
3380!
2,460
3,~
3001
17,750i
11300
100~
10,680:
26,98~:
8~0
9,350
75O
5OO
125
25,550
46,900
1,200
400~
8,5501
9.40~
6,000
750i
2OO
800:
600
200
Anderson Pacific
Unit Ceg
1.00
5,000.00
~.~
2.~
4.~
750.~
500.00
52.00
400.00
5,000.00
40.00
~,00
45.00
1,0~.0~
100.00
40.00
65.00
500.00
130.00
I,I00.00
40,0~,00
8,756.98
10.00
1.00
600.00
60,00
~500.00
400.00
4,00
55.00
65.00
26.00
26.00
28 00
1,700.00
I,~0.~
2~.~
2~.~
2~0.~
I~.~
2,550.0
5,000.0
2,000.0
1,160.0
2,600.0
11,250.0
500 0
61,620.0
800.0
5,000.0
26,000.0
3,780.0
1,845.0
1,000.0
300.0
~,400.0
25,350.0
Z000.0
23,140.0
78,100.0
80,000.0
17,514.0
280.0
18,700.0
1,800.0
720:
2,500.O
400.0
29,200.0
73,700.0
2,600.0
i’3oo.o
14,82.o.o
13,16o.o
3,400.0
3,000.0
1,00o.o
400.0
400 o
600.0
200.0
power Engineering
Unit Co~t
6D~0.00
3,600.00
40.00
1.00
500.00
500.00
37.00
40000
10,000.00
50..00
100.00
200.00
1,000.00
700.00
50.00
85.00
600.00
35.00
1,000.00
48,000.00
50.00
0.75
500.00
10~.0~
1,000.00
500.00
5.00
35.00
100.00
65.00
30.OO
36.OO
2,500.00
400~
400 00
300.00
ToN
7,650,0
6,~00.0
3,60~.0
4,000.0
580,0
1,300.0
7,500.0
500,0
43,845.0
800.0
I0,000.0
32,50O.0
6,300.0
8,200.0
1,000.0
2,100.0
35,500.0
33,150.0
2,400.0
6,230.0
71,000.0
96,0~ 0
18,000.0
1,400,0
14,025.0
1,500.0
1,200.0
1,000.0
500.0
36,500.0
46,900.0 [
4,000.0
3,250.0
17,100.0
16,920 o
5,000.0
2,700.0
2,o~ 0
800.0
600.0
1,200 0
200.0
RGW
Unit ~ I
7.00
10,000.00
25,000.00
16.50
2.00
52.00
1,000.00
30.OO
100.00
"100.00
5,000.00
60.00
30.00
47.00
300.O(
85,00
1,600.00
40,000.00
50.00
1.00
1,0@3.00
1,500.00
1,000:00
5.00
55.00
22.00
22.00
24.00
1,400.00
875.00
220.00
360.00
165.00
65.00
85.00
2,550
I
100
650
15
1,185
2
t
650
63
41
3
710
390
4
178
71
2
2
28
18,700
3
1
1,340
40
50
570
470
2
3
5
2
2
6
2
3,000
1
1
300
3
2
05
400
7,600.0
6.5:
7,700.0
75.0
300.0
1,600.0
60,000.0
12,0~.0
30,000.0
1,500
40
7,600
1,95o
7,700
225
~oo
1,6oo
5o,00o
12,00o
30,000
47,913
0.35
00.00
50,00O.OO
6.00
2,400.00
10000
150.00
2,00~.00
120,0~2 00
I0,000,00
I 0,~ 0~
80,000
1,050.0
60.0
50,000.0
1300.0
2,400.0
300.0
300.0
2,000.0
120,000.0
IO,000.0
I0,0~.0
1.00
200.00
15,000.00
1200
22,000.00
40000
1,000.00
106,000.00
I00.00
20,O00.00
3,000.0
200.0
15,000 0
3,600.0
22,000.0
800.0
1,000.0
106,000.0
1000
20,000.0
80,000.0
0.40
55.00
15,000.00
29.00
13,600.00
300.00
2,500.00
5,000.00
89,800.0~
20,000.00
10,~.~
~,718.~
ToNal
17,850 0
I 0,000.o
25,000.0
1,650 0
1,160 0
2,600.0
7,500.0
61,620.0
2,000.0
5,000.0
19,500.0
6,300.0
4,100.0
5,0@3.0
180,0
I/~330.0
1.200.0
15,!30.0:
80,000.0
16,000.0
1,400.0
18,700.0
3,0~.0
360.0
1,500.0
1,0~).0
36,500.0
61,640 0
1,100.0
12,540.0
11,2g0.0
2,800.0
2,625.0
1,100.0
720.0
330.0
390.0
170.0
1,200.0
55.0
15,000.0
8,700.0
13,600.0
900.0
5,000.0
5,0@3.0
89,800.0
20,0~.0
10,~.0
84,718.0
RM Harris
Unit Co~I To~l
4.00 10,200.0
5,000.00 5,000.0
8,000.00 8,000 0
30.00 3,000.0
5.OO 2,900.0
4.00 2,600.0
700.00 10,500.0
2,000.00 %000.0
50.00 59,250.0
. 1,000.00 2,000.~
5,~0.00 5,000.C
65.00 42,250,C
150.00 9,450.0
100.00 4,100.0
8,OOO.00 8,OOO.0
500.00 1,500.0
40.00 28,400.0
50.00 19,500.0
500.00 2,000.0
200.00 35,600.0
500.00
32,000.00 64,000.0
10,000.0
30.00 840.0
030 13,090A
3,000,0~9,000A
300.00 3,600£
5,000.00
600.00
5.00 36,500.(
44.00 58,960.I
60 00 2,4001
30.00 1,500.(
25.OO 14,250A
30 00
900.00
300.00 1,500:
200.00 400 ~
1 00 00 200.’
0.40 1,200 ~
50.00 50.’
30,0~ 00
32,000.00 32,000.
1,000.00 3,000.
_2,00o.o~4,o~o.
100,000.00 100,000.
20,000.00 [20,0~.
ATTACHMENT 3