· 2011-09-28 · Respondent Name: _______________________ C I T Y O F TROY . REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL . FOR . TROY MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT FACILITY . ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING SERVICES

Respondent Name: _______________________

C I T Y O F TROY

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR

TROY MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT FACILITY ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING SERVICES

Bid Number: RFP ENG COT 10-44 Issue Date: September 28, 2011 MANDATORY Pre-Proposal Meeting: October 13, 2011 at 2:00 PM Local Time

City of Troy 500 West Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084

Pre-proposal Question Deadline: October 26, 2011 at 2:00 PM Local Time Proposal Deadline: November 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM Local Time

City of Troy City Clerk’s Office 500 West Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084

Purchasing Contact: Susan Leirstein, Troy Purchasing Director

Phone: (248) 524-3338 Fax: (248) 619-7608 Email: [email protected]

DESCRIPTION: Proposals are being solicited for the purpose of contracting for architectural and engineering design services for a Multi-modal Transit Facility located in Troy, Michigan. This solicitation, along with all attachments and Addenda may be downloaded from the Michigan Intergovernmental Trade Network (MITN) website at www.mitn.info. VENDOR CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS TO DOCUMENTS INCLUDING SPECIFICATIONS MAY RESULT IN A RFP BEING CONSIDERED NON-RESPONSIVE.

The only authorized vendor changes to a RFP document will be in the areas provided for a firm’s response, including the “Exceptions and Alternatives” section of the RFP. If a change or alteration to the documents is undetected and the firm is awarded a contract, the original terms, conditions, and specifications in the Authorized Version of the RFP document will be applicable during the term of the contract. The City of Troy shall accept NO CHANGES to the document made by the Vendor unless those changes are set out in the “Exceptions and Alternatives” provision of the Authorized Version of the document. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to acquire knowledge of any changes, modifications or additions to the Authorized Version of the document.

The provisions in the RFP, including any changes, modifications or additions to the Authorized Version, shall bind any firm who submits a RFP document and later claims it had no knowledge of any changes,

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.mitn.info/�

CITY OF TROY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – ENG COT 10-44 Page 2 of 72

September 2011

modifications or additions made by the City of Troy to the Authorized Version of the document. The Authorized Version of the RFP document shall be that document appearing on the MITN System with any amendments and updates. The City of Troy Purchasing Department officially distributes RFP documents from the Purchasing Department or through the Michigan Intergovernmental Trade Network website (MITN). Copies of RFP documents obtained from any other source are not considered official copies. Only those firms who obtain RFP documents from either the Purchasing Department or the MITN system are guaranteed access to receive addendum information, if such information is issued. If you obtained this document from a source other than the sources indicated, it is recommended that you register on the MITN site, www.mitn.info, and obtain an official copy. Proposals must be time stamped by the Troy City Clerk’s Office by the exact date and time indicated above. Late proposals will not be accepted.

The resulting contract with the vendor, from this RFP, will also require MDOT approval. In order to secure this approval, additional submissions may be necessary.



September 2011

CITY OF TROY ADVERTISEMENT FOR

ARCHITECT & ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

TROY MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT FACILITY Sealed proposals for Architect & Engineering Services for the Multi-modal Transit Facility project will be received by the City of Troy at the Clerk’s Office, 500 West Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan 48084, until 10:00 AM, Local Time, on November 2, 2011 at which time the proposals will be publicly opened and recorded. Mark submittals: RFP – ENG COT 10-44 A&E Services – Transit Center

on the lower left hand corner.

There will be a mandatory pre-proposal meeting on October 13, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (Local Time). All proposers are required to attend to be eligible to submit a proposal response.

The meeting will be held at Troy City Hall, Lower Level Conference Room, 500 West Big Beaver, Troy, MI 48084.

Requests for Proposal Forms, Specifications, and Purchasing related questions shall be directed to the Purchasing Department, Telephone No. (248) 524-3338. All forms are posted on Michigan Intergovernmental Trade Network (MITN) website at www.MITN.info. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: The City of Troy intends to finance this program by utilizing Federal funds. Proposals submitted by Contractors who have been disbarred by any Federal Agency will be rejected. Attention is called to the fact that not less than the minimum salaries and wages as set forth in the Contract Documents (see Wage Determinations included herein) must be paid on this project, and that the Contractor must ensure that employees and applicants for employment are not discriminated against because of their race, color religion, sex or national origin. REVOLVING FUND REQUIREMENTS: This project will be financed with assistance from the Michigan Department of Transportation using federal funds from the Federal Rail Administration authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) The following requirements are applicable to this project: Wage Rates (ARRA Section 1606) and Buy American (ARRA Section 1605). The work consists generally of performing a full range of architectural and engineering design services for a LEED certified Multi-modal Transit Facility located in Troy, Michigan. The City of Troy reserves the right to accept or reject any one or all proposals in whole or part, to waive any irregularities in the proposals and to make such award which best suits the needs of the City. The resulting contract with the vendor, from this RFP, will also require MDOT approval. In order to secure this approval, additional submissions may be necessary.



September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 4

RFP INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND INFORMATION & OBJECTIVES .................................................... 8

SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................. 12

QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 21

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 22

SPECIFIC CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 26

REQUIRED FORMS ............................................................................................................................ 42

PROPOSAL FORM ......................................................................................................................... 43

MINIMUM / PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS FORM ...................................................................... 45

EXCEPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO RFP SCOPE/SPECIFICATIONS .................................... 47

COST PROPOSAL FORM (Sealed in a separate envelope) ......................................................... 48

SUBCONSULTANT FORM .............................................................................................................. 49

BUSINESS INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................... 52

EXHIBIT A – Ownership of Drawings, Specifications & Other Documents ........................................... 55

EXHIBIT B – Invoice Format ................................................................................................................ 56

EXHIBIT C – Reimbursable Expenses ................................................................................................. 57

EXHIBIT D – Certificate of Insurance or letter from Carrier (Sample Certificate Attached)..…………… 58 EXHIBIT E - Indemnification Clause …………………………………………………………………………. 59 EXHIBIT F - REVOLVING FUND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND

REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 .......................................................................................................... 60

ATTACHMENT A – Attached Separately ............................................................................................ 69

ATTACHMENT B – MDOT Cost Information ...................................................................................... 70


September 2011

RFP INSTRUCTIONS

NOTE: The use of “City” in this document shall be defined as the City of Troy

.

1) PRE-PROPOSAL INFORMATION AND QUESTIONS: Each proposal that is received by the deadline will be evaluated on its merit and completeness of all requested information. In preparing proposals, Respondents are advised to rely only upon the contents of this RFP and accompanying documents and any written clarifications or addenda issued by the City of Troy Purchasing Department. If a Respondent finds a discrepancy, error, or omission in the RFP package, or requires any written addendum thereto, the Respondent is requested to notify the Purchasing contact noted on the cover of this RFP, so that written clarification may be sent to all prospective Respondents. THE CITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ORAL INSTRUCTIONS. All questions must be submitted in writing to the Purchasing contact before the Pre-Proposal Question Deadline indicated on the front of this document. No contact regarding this document with other City employees is permitteda) All questions must be submitted in writing to the Purchasing contact before the Pre-Bid

Question Deadline indicated on the front of this document.

. All answers will be issued in the form of an addendum.

b)

2) PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING: A pre-proposal meeting concerning this RFP will be held. The date, time and location is indicated on the cover of this RFP. Staff will be available at this meeting to answer questions and provide clarification about this RFP.

No communication is permitted between Bidders and other City Departments or Divisions prior to the award of the bid unless sanctioned by the Troy Purchasing Department.

Attendance at the meeting is mandatory.

3) RFP MODIFICATIONS/ADDENDA: Clarifications, modifications, or amendments may be made to this RFP at the discretion of the City. Any and all Addenda issued by the City will be posted as noted on the Cover Page of this document. It is the responsibility of the Respondent to obtain the available Addenda and acknowledge Addenda on the Proposal Form of this RFP. Failure to acknowledge Addenda shall result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive and rejected without any further evaluation. If any changes are made to this RFP document by any party other than the City, the original RFP document and associated Addenda in the City’s files shall take precedence.

Questions submitted in a written format are encouraged and will be accepted at the meeting.

4) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: To be considered, the indicated number of copies of the proposal must be prepared in the manner and detail specified in this RFP. a) Proposals must be submitted to the City of Troy, City Clerk’s Office, 500 West Big Beaver, Troy,

MI 48084, by the date and time indicated on the cover page. The City Clerk’s time stamp will determine the official receipt time. It is each Respondent’s responsibility to ensure that its proposal is time stamped by the City Clerk’s Office by the deadline. This responsibility rests entirely with the Respondent, regardless of delays resulting from postal handling or for any other reasons. Proposals will be accepted at any time during the normal course of business only, said hours being 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM local time, Monday through Friday, legal holidays excepted.

b) Responses received after the deadline will not be accepted and will be returned to the Respondent unopened.

c) The opening and reading of a proposal does not constitute the City’s acceptance of the Respondent as a responsive and responsible Respondent.


September 2011

d) Proposals must be enclosed in a sealed envelope, box or package, and clearly marked on the outside with the following: RFP – ENG COT 10-44 A&E Services – Transit Center

e) Submission of a proposal establishes a conclusive presumption that the Respondent is thoroughly familiar with the Request for Proposal (RFP) and specifications and terms, and that the Respondent understands and agrees to abide by each and all of the stipulations and requirements contained therein.

, the Deadline and Respondent’s name, address, phone, fax and contact name.

f) All prices and notations must be typed or printed in ink. No erasures are permitted. Mistakes may be crossed out and corrections must be initialed in ink by the person(s) signing the proposal.

g) Proposals sent by telegraph, facsimile, or other electronic means will not be considered. h) All costs incurred in the preparation and presentation of the proposal is the Respondent’s sole

responsibility; no pre-proposal costs will be reimbursed to any Respondent. All documentation submitted with the proposal will become the property of the City.

5) WITHDRAWAL: Proposals may only be withdrawn by written notice prior to the date and time set for the opening of proposals. No Proposal may be withdrawn after the deadline for submission.

6) REJECTION: The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or to accept or reject any proposal in part, and to waive any minor informality or irregularity in proposals received if it is determined by the Purchasing Department that the best interest of the City will be served by doing so. If all Proposals are rejected by the City, notice will be posted on the City’s websites as noted on the Cover Page of this document. No Proposal will be considered from any person, firm or corporation in arrears or in default to the City on any contract, debt, or other obligation, or if the Respondent is debarred by the City from consideration for a contract award, or if Respondent has committed a violation of the City’s Charter and/or Code of Ordinances which resulted in a termination of a contract or other material sanction within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this document.

7) PROCUREMENT POLICY: Procurement for the City will be handled in a manner providing fair opportunity to all businesses. This will be accomplished without abrogation or sacrifice of quality and as determined to be in the best interest of the City. The Purchasing Agent has the vested authority to execute a contract, subject to Mayoral and/or Council approval where required.

8) PROPOSAL SIGNATURES: Proposals must be signed by an authorized official of the Respondent. Each signature represents binding commitment upon the Respondent to provide the goods and/or services offered to the City if the Respondent is determined to be the most responsive and responsible Respondent.

9) CONTRACT AWARD: The City reserves the right to award by item, group of items, or total proposal to the most qualified firm using a Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) process. The Respondent to whom the award is made will be notified at the earliest possible date. Tentative acceptance of the proposal, intent to recommend award of a contract and actual award of the contract will be provided by written notice sent to the Respondent at the address designated in the proposal. All proposals must be firm for at least 180 days from the due date of the proposal. After a final award of the Agreement by the City and MDOT, the Contractor must execute and perform said Agreement. The date on which the Agreement is signed by the City marks the beginning of the Agreement.

10) NO RFP RESPONSE: For those Businesses who receive this RFP but who do not submit a response, it would help the City if you would return a notice of why you have chosen not to respond.

11) FOIA REQUIREMENTS: Proposals are subject to public disclosure after the deadline for submission in accordance with state law.


September 2011

12) INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: A successful bidder furnishing labor on City/public premises does agree to have his workers covered by Worker’s Compensation, General Liability and Automobile Liability and to furnish a certificate of insurance showing coverage to Mr. Stephen Cooperrider, Risk Manager, within five (5) business days of a verbal/electronic request. The “Company Representative” does warrant that by singing the bid document, the “additional insured endorsement” will be included in the Insurance Coverage supplied to the City as part of the specified requirements.


September 2011

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, & OBJECTIVES 1) INTRODUCTION: Through this RFP, the City is soliciting for architecture design and engineering

(civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, rail engineering and other related) services required for the development of the final design, specifications, drawings, plans and bid documents for the construction to full operational completion of a Multi-modal Transit Facility for the City.

The City of Troy has developed the Troy Multi-modal Transit Facility. The Transit Center will strengthen the existing transit options in the area through a centralized facility that will allow users to access intercity rail service, regional bus routes and other modes such as air and taxi services. The Transit Center is included as a hub in the Detroit Regional Mass Transit plan (DRMT). The facility will serve as a catalyst for coordinated regional mass transit in Southeastern Michigan.

2) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Birmingham currently has an Amtrak station performing regular rail passenger services which will be relocated as part of this project.

a) GENERAL:

The HSIPR involves upgrading approximately 300 miles of track connecting Chicago, IL and Detroit/Pontiac, MI; two of the largest cities in the Midwest, and also provides a link between neighboring states. Altogether, the system serves communities in Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, connecting them to the Chicago Hub with six round trips per day.

The City wishes to proceed with the development of a Multi-modal Transit Facility (MMTF) that will serve current Amtrak services as well as foster a future high-speed rail train and a possible commuter-rail train as part of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program (HSIPR). In the Midwest, this program entails a total approximate funding of $244,000,000 (for the entire corridor from Pontiac to Detroit to Chicago). For portions of this project in Michigan, funds were awarded to the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); it is through MDOT that funds will be distributed to the City.

With grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), trip times for those traveling between Detroit and Chicago will be reduced, and railroad congestion will be relieved by addressing a series of major chokepoints. The long-term vision for this corridor includes doubling the number of daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago and increasing speeds to 110mph.

In Michigan, an existing Facility will be renovated in Battle Creek, MI, and new Facilities will be constructed in Dearborn and Troy. A preliminary design for the Facility in Troy has already been developed.

It is imperative the MMTF be fully constructed within two (2) years from the time the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), MDOT, and the City execute the grant and contract agreements (anticipated October 1, 2011). The actual award date of the contract resulting from this RFP is dependent on FRA and MDOT grant and funding agreements. Total project expenditures shall not exceed the anticipated funding of $8,485,212 million. The City expects to allocate this funding among the following tasks:

1. Architectural and Engineering Services

2. Construction Management

3. Construction (including utility relocations and rail improvements)

Through the final design phase, the awarded Contractor (A & E firm) will need to regularly review projected construction costs to ensure project funding is not exceeded;


September 2011

in light of this, it may be necessary to make design adjustments to the MMTF through this period.

b) EVOLUTION:

In 2000, the City of Troy identified potential locations for a Multi-modal Transit Facility. The City of Troy applied for and received funding from the Michigan Department of Transportation in 2006 to evaluate several alternatives for a Multi-modal Transit Facility. The purpose of this study was to identify a Preferred Alternative within the proposed study area and to complete preliminary engineering on the Preferred Alternative. Several alternatives were considered during the course of this study based on input from the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, as well as agency and public comment, and other stakeholder input. These included the No Action alternative, use of the existing station, and four build alternatives located along the Canadian National (CN) Rail line that bisects Troy and Birmingham. The alternative solutions were compared based on criteria formed from public and agency input and professional experience.

The announcement of funding in January 2010 for the new Troy Multi-modal Facility through President Obama’s High Speed Rail Initiative has accelerated the City’s ability to now construct the envisioned facility. During the course of the last decade various studies and design efforts have been completed to advance the project. Information that is pertinent to the final design of the proposed project has been included with this RFP as Attachment A and should be considered for informational purposes only. It shall be the responsibility of the respondent to validate any data that is critical to their submission. The successful respondent will also be responsible to validate any data that is critical to the final design submission. Attachment A documents include the following: a. Detailed Site Survey b. Environmental Assessment c. FONSI d. Preliminary Site Design e. Preliminary Station and Multi-modal Design (40%) f. Statement of Work (to MDOT and FRA) g. Project Management Plan (to MDOT and FRA) The station, bridge, platform and site work including Multi-modal accommodations for bus, shuttle, taxi and limousine service have all been addressed regarding layout, relationships, function, programming, architectural form, and technical requirements of CN Railway and Amtrak to a preliminary design (or 40%) level. The placement of the station is based on many considerations including existing rail lines; underground utilities; and functional relationships the station will have to its new site elements in Troy and future site elements in Birmingham. It is also envisioned that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) will emerge around the new Multi-modal facility as it is established, growing toward and connecting the retail district in Troy with downtown Birmingham.

c) CITY OF TROY: The City manages large capital improvement projects regularly in the course of our ongoing infrastructure and economic development efforts. This project will be considered a major capital project and will fall to the Departments within the City that typically oversee these efforts. Overall project management responsibility will be centered in the City of Troy Engineering Department. The Engineering Department manages the City’s Capital Improvement Program and various other federal and state grants plus development projects. Engineering will also provide the internal coordination of other departments/organizations that will be involved in the project including:


September 2011

• The City Engineer will coordinate infrastructure improvements for the project with the design and construction teams. This would include underground utilities (water, sewer and storm water management), plus access, roads and pedestrian/greenway connections. The City Engineer is also the City’s liaison to MDOT.

• The Troy Purchasing Department will coordinate all competitive solicitations related to the design, construction and management of this project.

• The City Building Department(s) coordinates inspections and permits for commercial buildings and will provide those services for the Multi-modal Transit Facility.

• The City will work closely with the project architects, engineers, construction manager and contractor along with MDOT, CN Railway, Amtrak and the project partners to ensure the project stays on track. This will be accomplished via regular project progress monitoring meetings (weekly/bi-weekly) and appropriate adjustments to keep the project on schedule and budget.

d) LEGISLATION:

The passage of PRIIA on October 16, 2008 marked the most sweeping Congressional action on intercity passenger rail since the creation of Amtrak and the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project during the 1970s. In addition to reauthorizing Amtrak, PRIIA built on a small pilot State Grant Program funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 by establishing three new competitive grant programs for high-speed and intercity passenger rail capital improvements.

The foundation for the HSIPR Program is contained in two pieces of legislation: the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA or Recovery Act).

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the Recovery Act into law, which included $8 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail. This funding represented the first appropriations under the three new grant programs established in PRIIA.

In addition to the $8 billion provided in the Recovery Act, the HSIPR Program also included approximately $92 million in FY 2009 and remaining FY 2008 funds appropriated under the existing State Grant Program (formally titled, Capital Assistance to States – Intercity Passenger Rail Service).

The MMTF facility must meet all U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Michigan Department of Transportation and City of Troy requirements.

3) OBJECTIVES: The City’s goal for the project is to develop a Multi-modal transportation facility to serve a variety of transportation modes and to act as transportation hub for the region. In addition, the City would like the facility to serve as a demonstration project for sustainability. As a Multi-modal facility, the facility should provide a smooth transfer area between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes, (i.e. bus, rail, air, automobile, bicycle, vans, walking, etc.). As a demonstration project for sustainability, the Troy Multi-modal Transit Facility will utilize energy efficient geothermal heating and cooling systems, LED lighting, grey water recycling, a green roof, use of natural day lighting, recyclable building materials and will provide multiple electric vehicle charging stations. LEED certification will be sought through the U.S. Green Building Council for the facility. The proposed multi-modal facility fits with the Southeast Michigan Council of Government’s (SEMCOG) transit improvement goals for southeast Michigan. A new transportation facility in Troy aims to meet the following goals:


September 2011

• Provide a new rail passenger facility to serve existing Amtrak service to Troy/Birmingham and the proposed high speed Midwest Regional Rail system and future commuter rail service between Pontiac – Detroit - Ann Arbor

• Comply with the goals of SEMCOG’s Framework for Action for the improvement of transit in

Southeast Michigan

• Recognize that 1) a new rail passenger facility would serve as a gateway to Troy/Birmingham and to Southeast Michigan, and 2) Troy/Birmingham is a center for civic, cultural and recreational activities, home of numerous national and international corporate headquarters, educational and health institutions and other large employers

• Provide regional mobility 24 hours a day, seven days a week

• Contribute to the economic health of Southeast Michigan by increasing regional marketability, increasing mobility for workers and customers, maximizing efficient land use, improving the region’s air and water quality, and helping revitalize mature urban areas.

The target completion time of the MMTF is twenty-four months from start date (award of funding from the FRA to MDOT). Design of this Facility is expected to be fast-tracked upon receipt of the funding grant.

The preliminary design and environmental processing phase of this project has already been completed by the City through a contract for preliminary design with Wendell Duchscherer and then further refined under a separate contract with Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. in collaboration with Carlisle/Wortman Associates and J. Eppink Partners . These preliminary design plans are included as part of this RFP as “Attachment A.”

There are 3 phases remaining for this project all of which are detailed in the Scope of Work. They include:

The MMTF is at 40% final design and this would be the starting point for architecture, design and engineering services.

1) Final Design Phase

2) Bidding Phase

3) Construction Phase

THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: The City is concurrently hiring a Construction Manager (CM). The CM’s responsibilities will be many, but will essentially entail the overall management of all aspects related to the construction of this facility until completion. The successful A&E firm will be reporting to the CM during the construction phase of this project and will be reporting to the City in prior phases. The CM will also be available to assist the A&E firm during the competitive bidding process. The A&E Firm shall not be the same firm as the CM and the CM shall not be the same firm as the A&E firm.


September 2011

SCOPE OF WORK 1) SCOPE OF WORK: Starting with the 40% Final Design already developed, the successful

Respondent (A&E Firm) will be responsible for all remaining Design Services (Architecture Design; Civil Engineering; Structural Design; Mechanical Design; Electrical, Lighting & Communications Design; Fire Alarm, Life Safety and Security Systems Design); the development of all plans, drawings, specifications and bid documents required for the City to conduct a construction bidding process to secure the most responsive and responsible general contractor in order to secure the operational completion of the MMTF and all related actions within the time and funding parameters. It is also necessary for the successful Respondent to provide oversight throughout the entire MMTF construction and operational startup phases. Included in the Scope of Work is the final design of the station and all necessary systems; platforms and site work (approaches, roads, parking areas, drop-offs; Multi-modal vehicle drop-offs; canopies; utilities (surface, overhead & underground), etc. Development of the walk, road, rail and pedestrian linkages/landscaping associated with the new rail station are part of the project and are included in the Scope of Work.

a) Project Management

b)

: All services undertaken pursuant to this Agreement shall be managed by the Troy Engineering Department.

i. The City desires to engage an A&E Firm to perform services and other related work, said work to be hereinafter referred to as the “Services” for the comprehensive professional engineering, architectural and consulting services required in connection with the design for the construction of a MMTF.

Project Description:

ii. The Services may include, but are not limited to, planning, environmental, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering design; architectural design; utilities and infrastructure design; storm water and drainage system design; surveying; preparation of plans, specifications and engineer’s reports; cost estimating and scheduling; technical studies; zoning and permitting; bidding and award; preparation of construction project manuals; construction administration and resident engineering inspection; quality acceptance testing; project record-keeping, project reporting and close-out services; and all other related services.

c)

i. The A&E Firm shall accomplish the design services required in this proposal so as to permit the award of a contract(s) for construction of the Projects, or a portion(s) of the Projects defined by the City, at a price that does not exceed the prices listed on the Cost Proposal Form of this RFP. When bids or proposals for the construction contract(s) are received that exceed the estimated budget, the A&E Firm shall perform such redesign or modifications and other services as are necessary to permit contract award within the project budget as set forth in the paragraph below (ii). These modifications and other services shall be performed at no increase in the price set forth in the executed contract between the City and the A&E firm. If the City reasonably determines that unfavorable bids or proposals are the result of conditions beyond A&E Firm’s reasonable control, those factors will be taken into consideration in determining the final contract budget.

Design to Cost:

ii. The A&E Firm will promptly advise the City if it finds that the project being designed will exceed or is likely to exceed the project budget and it is unable to design a usable facility within these limitations. Upon receipt of such information, the City will review the A&E Firm’s revised estimate of construction cost. The City may, if it determines that the estimated project budget set forth in this Agreement is so low that award of a construction


September 2011

contract not in excess of such estimate is improbable, authorize a change in scope or materials as required to reduce the estimated construction cost to an amount within the estimated construction budget, or the City may adjust the estimated construction contract budget.

d)

i. The A&E Firm shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of all design disciplines, construction documents, specifications and other services furnished by the A&E Firm’s state-licensed engineer or architect under this Agreement. The A&E Firm shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors, omissions, or deficiencies in its designs, construction documents, specifications and other services. All construction documents shall be sealed by a Professional Engineer.

Responsibility of the A&E Firm:

ii. Neither the City’s review, approval or acceptance of, nor payment for, any of the Services required under this Agreement shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement, and the A&E Firm shall be and remain liable to the City in accordance with applicable law for all damages to the City caused by A&E Firm’s negligent performance of any of the Services furnished under this Agreement.

iii. The A&E Firm will be responsible to verify all existing conditions within the project site including but not limited to: underground utilities, existing buildings or structures, pavement condition, hazardous materials, storm water drainage, and soil conditions. A&E Firm’s verification must include horizontal and vertical locations of the existing conditions. A&E Firm must submit field inspection reports to the City as a precondition of application for payment of Services related to field inspection tasks. A&E Firm shall advise the City in writing no later than five (5) calendar days from first discovery of differing field conditions if conditions differ from those shown on records provided by the City.

iv. The A&E Firm shall work in conjunction with other project members including but not limited to: the City of Troy, the Construction Manager (CM), CN Railway, Amtrak, sub consultants, specialty A&E Firms, if any, hired by the City as part of the project under this Agreement, the state and local governmental agencies, and the FRA. The A&E Firm acknowledges the City is relying on the A&E Firm’s special skill and expertise in projects of the type herein. The A&E Firm represents to the City that the A&E Firm’s services will be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with the standard of care and the orderly progress of the Project. The A&E Firm’s Services must be provided consistent with the professional standard of care and in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local laws, codes, regulations, and ordinances. Furthermore, the A&E Firm must provide documents that are complete, correct, and within the Project budget(s) and schedule(s) set forth herein. To the extent caused by A&E Firm’s errors, omissions or negligent acts, the A&E Firm shall be responsible for 100% of resulting costs, if any. And, if it is determined that a cost saving could have been achieved if the omitted item was competitively bid, then the A&E Firm will be responsible for the incremental cost. The A&E Firm shall pay the City an Administrative Service Fee equal to a five percent (5%) of the cost of each construction change that is required on projects that the A&E Firm engineered. This Administrative Service Fee will assist in defraying the City administrative personnel cost associated with processing construction change orders that are required due to inaccurate or incomplete consulting or documents. The Administrative Service Fee does not apply to construction changes that are a result of a City change in scope.


September 2011

v.

vi. Complete calculations and computer modeling to determine the specific requirements of the MMTF.

Any and all changes to the design, schedule, budget, bidding, construction, testing, or any other item related to this project are contingent upon written pre-approval by the Troy City Engineer or his designee.

vii. Establish project requirements; develop alternatives, schedules, phasing strategies; complete necessary research, evaluations, analyses, and reports.

viii. Meet with the FRA, MDOT, CN Railway, Amtrak and utility companies, and other agencies on matters affecting the project. The A&E firm will coordinate all actions, as is necessary, with all entities and agencies, to keep final design end date on target.

ix. Provide data and reports necessary to justify the entire final configuration versus alternatives.

x. Develop and prepare cost estimates to ensure the project costs will be within the established construction budget.

xi. Coordinate tasks such as permitting, safety-phase planning and local traffic operation procedures.

xii. Assemble acceptance testing methodology and detailed acceptance testing results for both performance requirements of the MMTF.

xiii. Provide other related design and environmental services and tasks as required.

e) Final Design Phase:

i. Review preliminary design and engineering data, coordinate field investigations of existing conditions for all utilities, meet with City staff, and complete all geotechnical engineering studies.

In this phase, it is anticipated that the A&E Firm shall use the City of Troy preliminary designs and the competitive bidding for the design work should assume completion of the station as shown in Attachment A while incorporating enhancements desirable in “ii” below :

ii. Conduct, at a minimum, a one day (8 hours) design workshop, open to the public, with members of the Troy Planning Commission, City Staff and public participation to discuss and incorporate further design enhancements into the plans for improved aesthetics and functionality of the project. In general, the enhancements will address:

1. Building façade articulation to create a greater visual interest;

2. A more identifiable building entrance;

3. Enhancing the sense of arrival by focusing on a major point of interest;

4. Establishing visual interest with human-scale elements at the building;

5. Creating transitional features between the building the bridge structure and platform; and

6. Offering additional, cost effective, sustainable design features.

Members of City Planning bodies shall clearly articulate specific design modifications to facilitate the foregoing enhancements. Suggested modifications shall be evaluated and


September 2011

any alternate modifications developed by the A&E firm that meet the goals of the design enhancements shall be presented to City staff. These enhancements shall be developed so that the construction cost does not exceed the approved funding amount.

iii. Conduct design review conferences to obtain City design comments and resolve design matters.

iv. Prepare detailed drawings and specifications for all work associated with the MMTF in compliance with current FRA Advisory Circulars, CN Railway, Amtrak, MDOT and related design standards, as well as incorporating other applicable codes, rules, regulations, and laws as required.

v. Prepare detailed cost estimates at each aspect of detailed design.

vi. Prepare construction safety phasing plans for the City.

vii. Prepare all permit applications and provide necessary fees, attachments and exhibits for the City to submit to local, State, and Federal permitting agencies.

viii. Oversee preparation of an Engineer Design Report and Construction Management Manuals as required.

ix. Prepare all interval (monthly, quarterly, etc.) project reporting required by the City, MDOT and FRA to comply with local, state, and federal specifications (e.g. ARRA, HDIPR, etc.) and to comply with agency and grant requirements. A&E firm is responsible for preparation of all reporting documents required by ARRA and other governing agencies.

x. Complete other final design phase efforts and tasks as required.

xi. Notes:

1. The design drawings shall be prepared at a scale of no less than 30 feet to the inch for complex urban projects.

xii. Provide re-design services pending value engineering analysis performed by the City.

f) Other Final Design Considerations:

i. The size of the station as proposed is currently shown as approximately 2,400 square feet (excluding the platforms). Programming was based on ridership projections for the Detroit to Chicago High Speed Rail system and all of the associated elements (waiting room, ticket sales, restrooms, elevators, stairs, bridge, baggage room, circulation, mechanical, etc.), plus other areas included in the preliminary design phase. After project award, the successful team will be asked to revisit the station programming to confirm a final size for the project that can be built within the available grant dollars. This may mean downsizing the square footage of the station accordingly and the A/E fee will be adjusted to reflect such changes.

The City has determined that the MMTF should be a LEED certified facility, and LEED considerations will need to be taken into account in the final design of the station and site which will have some impact on the materials and appearance of the facility.

ii. The elements that will be part of the final design for the project include, but are not limited to:

1. Station – The station or rail terminal is the primary structure associated with this project and is located in Troy. It will accommodate all rail site-related


September 2011

activities, plus provide linkages to all groundside Multi-modal facilities. The station will have indirect rail access to the platform in Birmingham via a bridge over the tracks. Within the building, all Amtrak requirements must be met, plus the City envisions the facility serving a welcome and orientation function for various surrounding amenities. It may also have some commercial concessions like coffee/food service. The City expects the station/project to achieve LEED certification and to be a visible expression of sustainable design with interpretive elements highlighting the innovations to the visitor.

2. Platform Improvements

3.

– The proposed platform area is located in Birmingham (within CN right-of-way). A bridge over CN Railway will connect the platform to the transit center and walkways will connect to parking areas in Troy. CN Railway shall have “sign-off” responsibility for final design of rail and platform improvements.

Multi-modal Facilities

4.

– Access drives, islands and canopies to accommodate various groundside transportation modes are part of this project. This includes a bus multi-modal facility and drop-off stands for shuttles, taxis and limousines. Additionally, pedestrians and bicycles will access this site and must be accommodated.

Site Work

g)

– The project site is approximately 2.4 acres and all other aspects of the project will fall under the site work category including but not limited to the bridge, underground utilities, roads, curbing, access drives/approaches, sidewalks, drop-off areas, parking lots and bus stop areas, electric car charging stations, storm water management facilities, landscaping, lighting, signs, and outdoor furnishings such as bike racks, benches, planters, etc. The City anticipates the site being a significant contributor to LEED certification along with the station, to visibly express innovative elements and interpretive markers introducing visitors to the Troy Green sustainability initiative.

Competitive Bidding Phase:

i. Prepare the bid document including scope of work, specifications, minimum qualifications, City terms and conditions, instructions, and other boilerplate language found in the City’s Bid template and/or AIA documents.

In this phase, the A&E Firm shall:

ii. Oversee all elements of the bidding process including but not limited to:

1. Bid issuance & advertising.

2. Prepare required addenda to address all contractor questions.

3. Evaluate bid unit rates and extended costs for all bid items.

4. Evaluate all Construction bid submittals for responsiveness and completeness.

5. Evaluate voluntary alternates and exceptions to the technical specifications.

6. Prepare recommendations for the award of the construction contracts.

7. Incorporate all addenda into drawings issued for construction.

8. Assist in other bidding phase efforts and tasks as required.


September 2011

9. Construction bid document to include provision that builder shall be available to provide maintenance and repair services for a 10-year period on an as-needed basis upon opening of the facility to the public.

10. Conduct pre-bid meetings.

iii. A&E Firm shall be required to defer to the City Engineer (or designee) for any and all direction and approvals for any work during the competitive bidding phase. The City Engineer shall have the final authority in any matter pertaining to work done in the Competitive Bidding Phase. Except as otherwise directed by the City Engineer, the A&E firm shall serve as the sole point of contact between bidders and the City, acting as an agent on behalf of the City.

iv. The City Engineer shall be supplied with (electronic) copies of all solicitation documents (initial bid documents, addenda, bids received, tabulations, plans, emails and correspondence, etc.).

v. Construction documents shall have all appropriate terms and conditions in regard to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and Davis Bacon Act requirements. Managing and ensuring compliance (including the responsibility of submitting reporting requirements) with the ARRA and the Davis Bacon Act shall be the responsibility of the A&E firm throughout the construction administration phase; however, the City and its Construction Manager (CM) must first be briefed on, copied on, and specifically approve all reports prior to submitting to the higher levels of government.

h) Construction Administration Phase:

i. Provide consulting services and recommendations to the City and its CM during all phases of construction.

It is anticipated that the City will hire an independent Construction Manager (CM) to manage all aspects of this project; however; the City shall require the successful A&E Firm to provide some administration services during the construction phase of this project. The CM shall serve as the agent for the City and the sole point of authority during the Construction Administration Phase. In this phase, the A&E Firm shall:

ii. Attend and assist the City and its CM at construction meetings and conferences as required.

iii. Administer the City’s Form of Agreement and all terms and conditions of the Services Agreement.

iv. Provide assistance to the CM for (but not limited to):

1. Review and analysis of laboratory test reports for materials and equipment as required.

2. Inspect work in progress, document quantities of work completed, and maintain field investigation reports including relevant information associated with the work.

3. Provide periodic progress reports (at agreed upon intervals) to the CM, the City, MDOT and the FRA as requested.

4. Review shop drawings submitted by the Construction Contractor to ensure compliance with the design drawings and specifications.


September 2011

5. Review requests for information submittals, and any other documents related to construction and design by the CM and Construction Contractor to ensure compliance with the design intent as required.

6. Quality acceptance testing requirements.

v. Review bulletins prepared by the CM and/or Contractor and assist the City in the process of negotiating costs for City directed changes.

vi. Review Contractor change order requests and consult with the City and the CM on applicability to the project(s) based on the construction contract terms and conditions.

vii. Observe construction, document field progress, inspect differing site conditions, and observe change order work.

viii. Observe and document subcontractor’s participation in the construction.

ix. Review draft pay applications and approve quantities for payment.

x. Make inspections at substantial completion and prepare punch lists.

xi. Review operation and maintenance manuals, and witness start-up of electrical and mechanical systems.

xii. Prepare final design reports detailing any and all changes from final design inclusive of cost differences.

xiii. Prepare final drawings to illustrate as-built conditions.

xiv. Perform warranty inspections immediately prior to expiration of all applicable warranties.

xv. Prepare Engineering Report(s) at agreed upon intervals.

xvi. Aid the CM in ongoing post construction services. The CM shall perform ongoing analysis of the performance of the constructed facility for a period of no less than 12 months upon completion of its construction. The analysis must be in the form of a quarterly report and shall include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the performance of the facility and all of its systems versus the design criteria to ensure the facility properly performs to meet the minimum design criteria.

xvii. Provide corrective action report if the facility does not perform as required ensuring compliance with the project requirements.

xviii. Other construction administration phase efforts and tasks as required.

xix. Furnish (free of charge) for the City two (2) copies of all documents, drawings, and any other finished products associated with the final design, in hard copy and electronic file types as applicable to the type of document/drawing (i.e. PDF, Word, Excel, Microstation, etc.).


September 2011

i)

i. Furnish for the use of the A&E Firm, the City’s design standards and such other general design parameters and coordination information as may be available.

City Responsibilities:

ii. Review submittals by the A&E Firm and provide direction in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of Services.

iii. Furnish to the A&E Firm available information that identifies the type and location on the site of underground utilities. The City does not guarantee the accuracy of this information, if available. It will be the A&E Firm’s responsibility to field-verify all underground utilities, where applicable.

iv. Direct the flow of City information to the A&E Firm.

v. Pay the A&E firm for work completed according to an agreed-upon schedule.

vi. Review progress of design activities and preparation of bid documents.

vii. Implement and maintain cost control procedures.

viii. Process A&E Firm invoicing.

ix. Provide Authorization Documents (Notice to Proceed, Purchase Order, Encumbrance Order, etc.).

x. Review and approve Invitation to Bid (ITB) solicitations, help conduct the mandatory pre-proposal meetings, and aid in the award of construction contracts.

j)

i. The A&E Firm will be required to submit in English all documents in hard copy and electronic format as requested by the City (such as Word, Excel, MicroStation, PDF and TIFF).

Required Document Format and Software:

ii. The A&E Firm will provide a web-based computerized project management system acceptable to the City. This system must allow for the management of all business processes used by the City for the planning, design and construction of capital projects. The system must assign the City as system administrator, utilize a named user assignment, and track all data entry and modifications for audit purposes. Identify in your proposal submittal which project management system your firm will be using for this project.


September 2011

k) Anticipated Milestone Schedule:

i. Negotiate Contract November 2011

It is anticipated that A&E Firm will develop up to three (3) bid packages for the construction of the MMTF and all related site work to meet grant requirements. The preliminary schedule for planning, engineering and related services for this project is as follows:

ii. Issue Notice to Proceed to Successful Respondent (A&E Firm) November 2011

iii. Phase I –Site Work

1. Final Plans May 2012

2. Bid Construction June 2012

3. Start Construction July 2012

4. Substantial Completion September 2013

iv. Phase II – Building, Bridge & Platform

1. Final Plans June 2012

2. Bid Construction July 2012

3. Start Construction August 2012

4. Substantial Completion August 2013

v. Site Landscaping & Restoration Completion September 2013

vi. Project Final Completion September 2013

vii. Professional Services closeout (compliance verification) January 2014

Note:

the award of the A/E contract, for the services covered under this RFP, is contingent upon approval of FRA and MDOT grant and funding agreements being approved and in place prior to execution of the A/E agreement.

The resulting contract with the vendor, from this RFP, will also require MDOT approval. In order to secure this approval, additional submissions may be necessary.


September 2011

QUALIFICATIONS

1) MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Respondents (specifically, the A&E firm that will be contractually bound under the contract with the City) will be deemed non-responsive and rejected without any further evaluation if they do not meet the following qualifications.

a) Respondent must have, either as an employee or a sub-consultant or partner, that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Michigan

b) Respondent must have, either as an employee or as a sub-consultant or partner, that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least

that will be responsible for managing all services resulting from this RFP.

one (1) Professional Architect licensed in the State of Michigan

c) Respondent must have, either as an employee or as sub-consultant or partner, any

that will be responsible for managing all services resulting from this RFP.

Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) specification writer

that has at least eight (8) years of experience in the development of technical specifications.

d) Respondent must have, either as an employee or a sub-consultant or partner, any Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP that has

at least eight (8) years experience in the design and engineering of steel structural systems.

e) Respondent must have, either as an employee or a sub-consultant or partner, any Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, including at least one (1) LEED-certified architect or engineer.

2) PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: The Respondent may be shortlisted and/or evaluated higher if they meet the following qualifications: a) Have on staff, either as an employee or sub-contract or partner, of the Respondent and/or any

Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Architect licensed in the United States that has at least eight (8) years of experience in the engineering of a Railway Facility.

b) Respondent has, either as an employee or sub-contract or partner,

Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Architect/Engineer licensed in the United States, which has at least eight (8) years of experience in the design and engineering of railway rail lines.


September 2011

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1) EVALUATION AND BROOKS ACT: For Federally-funded, design-related service contracts, the procurement of engineering services for construction projects is done through a qualification-based process based on the Brooks Act. The intent of the Brooks Act is to develop a wide pool of potential service providers to select from. This Act requires that contracts be advertised and companies ranked based on published criteria for competence and qualifications. The cost (price) cannot be a criterion during the evaluation phase of the selection process; however, the cost (price) can be used in the negotiation and final selection process. Once the top firms have been rated, negotiations begin with the top rated firm. If the type of professional services required cannot be agreed upon at fair and reasonable prices, the agency can proceed to negotiate with the next highest firm. All firms will be required to meet minimum established criteria in order to be evaluated under technical factors. Proposals will be evaluated independently by a Selection Team that consists of City representatives. The following technical factors will be considered in making the selection: a) Experience and Qualifications (organization and staffing, experience, competence and

reputation of firm and proposed individual(s), assigned). b) Capacity to Perform Full Scope of Services Required Within the Timeframe Required by the

City.

60 Points

40 Points

Upon completion and ranking of the technical factors, proposals may be shortlisted to the top-scoring firms for interviews. After interviews, if held, the cost proposal of the highest ranked firm will be opened and further price negotiations shall take place with the highest ranked firm. Should the City and the highest ranked firm not come to agreement on pricing, negotiations will cease, and the City will proceed with opening the next highest ranked firm’s pricing and conduct price negotiations with this firm. This process will continue as is necessary until final selection is made. Pricing structure must meet and be acceptable to MDOT requirements

for duration of engagement (Reference Attachment B, exhibits B-A and B-B).

Each proposal submitted in response to this RFP shall focus on these criteria. In addition, the Selection Team also may consider the past performance of the Respondent on other contracts with the City or other entities and the City may conduct interviews. The City reserves the right to make such additional investigations as it deems necessary and may require the submission of additional information. The City reserves the right to adjust scoring based on the results of investigations, interviews, etc.

2) GENERAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:

a) NUMBER OF COPIES: One original, plus nine (9) copies (ten (10) total copies)

b) PROPOSAL FORMAT: Each proposal should be prepared simply and economically. Responses shall be in the same order as the requirements are listed below to ensure the Selection Team is able to easily locate the information that is requested in this solicitation.

of the entire proposal must be submitted. The original must be marked as an original and signed. Each copy must be identical to the original. Proposal submissions must include this proposal packet, fully completed and all relevant charts, diagrams, and other materials.

c) PROPOSAL CONTENT: The Respondent must include the following items, or the proposal will be deemed non-responsive and rejected without any further evaluation. i) All general forms contained in this RFP, fully completed*

(1) Proposal Form :

* Businesses that have done work for the City of Troy are not exempt from submitting required documents.


September 2011

(2) Exceptions and Alternatives to RFP Scope/Specifications Form (3) Cost proposal form (in a separate sealed envelope

(4) Minimum / Preferred Qualifications Form

marked “COST PROPOSAL”, including all supplemental cost information). Pricing will not be available for inspection or review by any other party (except the City and MDOT) in any fashion.

(5) Sub Consultant Form (6) Business Information Questionnaire

ii) A complete response to each of the Submittal Requirements in the next section, which are specific to the evaluation criteria.

iii) DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTATION: The A&E Firm hereby agrees, for the term of the Agreement, to document adequate good faith efforts made to achieve DBE participation. A “Good Faith Efforts” template can be found on the State of Michigan MDOT website: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/ (click on the “Doing Business” link, then the “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” link) to see State of Michigan requirements, definitions, and other information. Documentation of efforts must be submitted with your proposal.

iv) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Submit a complete response to each of the following items which are specific to the evaluation criteria:

a) Experience and Qualifications: 60 points

i) Please describe how your firm and/or each employee who will be assigned to the City account meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications as specified. Include in this submittal the following information:

total for this section

a.

30 Points

Credentials:

b.

Individual’s resume, including (but not limited to) their name, education, certifications, licenses, professional memberships/ affiliations, past employment (with date(s) of service; if not employed during any period, state “not employed” for that period), awards, recognitions, honors, current employer, date(s) of service with current employer, and physical work location;

Project Experience: For the individuals that will be assigned to the City’s account, provide a detailed description of three (3) completed projects that are most

i. State whether these projects were completed while employed with the current employer or previous employer.

similar to the project outlined in this RFP.

ii. Include the project name, location, description, scope, size, cost, owner, owner point of contact information, milestone dates, stakeholder involvement, consensus building strategies, and unique features and challenges resolved for each project.

c. Qualifications:

ii) Please describe how your firm and/or employees meet or exceed the preferred qualifications in this RFP.

Information as to how these individuals meet or exceed the minimum qualifications in this RFP. Please complete the “Verification of Minimum Qualifications Form in this document.

a.

10 Points

Multi-modal Transit Facility (or other rail Facility) Experience – State whether any Team Member has experience related to Multi-modal Transit Facility (or other rail)

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/�


September 2011

Facilities. If so, submit information that describes the experience of Team Member(s) in completing planning, engineering, or construction administration services for development of Multi-modal Transit Facility project(s). Provide detailed information about previous challenges experienced, recommended actions, implemented solution(s), and results.

b. Experience with Track Design

iii)

- Submit information that describes the experience of Team Member(s) that have provided railroad track design solutions. Provide detailed information about previous challenges experienced, recommended actions, implemented solution(s), and results.

Assignment of Liability related to Error and Omissions - Submit information that describes how the Respondent and other Team Members have managed errors and omissions on other projects. Provide specific examples and owner’s points of contact information. Provide an explanation of the Respondent’s corporate structure and any assurances that the Respondent is proposing that confirm that its related entity (parent company, affiliate, subsidiary, company profit center, etc.) will be responsible for 100% of costs resulting from acts for which the Consultant has legal liability. Describe the process that is proposed by the Respondent to resolve the impacts and costs of errors and omissions. Also, include any type of understanding agreed to by the Respondent and its clients in the past that minimized the cost, time, and effort of the client related to an error or omission by the Respondent.

iv)

10 Points

Firm Information: Provide a listing of any previous or pending litigation (to include description, the court and case number, and status).

v)

Pass/Fail

Other (three (3) page limit) – Include any other information that illustrates relevant experience and qualifications of Key Personnel that will assist in successfully completing the projects assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP.

b)

10 Points

Capacity to Perform Full Scope of Services Within the Required Timeframe: 40 points

i)

total for this section

Schedule, Phasing and Management:

a.

15 Points

Construction Schedule and Phasing:

b.

The project must be completed within the two year timeframe associated with the federal grant. Provide possible concept(s) and associated rationales for phasing construction of the MMTF. Illustrate the factors that will minimize impact on City operations, and describe the items that will impact the efficient development of the MMTF. Submit a Gant Chart (bar chart) schedule that illustrates the Respondent’s anticipated plan for the project in accordance with the milestones listed in this RFP, including, but not limited to, Final Design, Bidding, and Construction Administration phases.

Challenges, Issues, and Concerns:

c.

Provide a prioritized list, description, and draft plan of action for each challenge, issue and concern related to the planning, engineering and construction of the MMTF.

Highest Priority:

ii)

Provide a narrative of the “single” item that the Respondent believes is most important to successfully completing the development of the MMTF and the specific actions that will be taken by the Key Personnel to support this item.

Key Personnel: 15 Points


September 2011

a. Organization of Personnel

b.

: Provide organizational chart(s) that illustrate the relationship between the Key Personnel proposed for the projects described in this RFP. Also, illustrate the duties and responsibilities of each team member and its key personnel on the organizational chart(s).

Capacity and Commitment of Key Personnel:

c.

Identify the tasks, assignments, responsibilities, etc. for each key personnel proposed and to be assigned to the projects. For each key person, provide a chart that contains the percent (%) of time that is currently dedicated or expected to be committed to projects and tasks outside of the contract resulting from this RFP. On this same chart, include the percent (%) of each person’s time that is expected to be committed to the contract resulting from this RFP.

Staffing and Resource Allocation Plan: Submit a spreadsheet for each of the three (3) phases of services (Final Design, Competitive Bidding, and Construction) that illustrates the staffing and resource allocation plan for each

d.

of the Key Personnel to meet the requirements and schedule for each phase of the project. This spreadsheet must include all personnel classifications of each of the Key Personnel to be involved, organized in order of anticipated amount of time to be expended on the contract resulting from this RFP (with greatest on the top of the list and lowest on the bottom of the list). Respondents shall specifically identify the individual who will be responsible for management of this representation.

Staff Assignments and Replacements:

iii)

All staff assigned to the contract must be reasonably acceptable to the City. All replacements and/or reassignments of key personnel must be of equal or superior experience as the person replaced. Any staff substitutions must include a resume and be approved in writing in advance of work on the project by the City.

Communication Method and Plan: Provide illustrative chart(s) and/or flow diagrams that illustrate the communication processes and plans that will be implemented by the Respondent between the Team Members and the City to ensure successful communication throughout the duration of the contract resulting from this RFP.

iv)

5 Points

Other (two (2) page limit) – Include any other information that illustrates the resources and communication strategies that will be implemented by the Team Members to successfully complete this project (Scope of Work: 1, k).

3) SHORTLISTING: The City may shortlist the Respondents based upon responses to the above items. If necessary, the City will conduct interviews/demonstrations. The City will notify each Respondent on the shortlist, if such presentation is required. These presentations will provide an opportunity for the Respondents to respond to questions posed by the Selection Team and to clarify their proposals through exhibition and discussion. The City will not reimburse oral presentation costs of any Respondent. The City reserves the right to modify scoring based on its findings from interviews/demonstrations

5 Points


September 2011

SPECIFIC CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. AWARD: Award of the resulting Architectural and Engineering (A/E) contract is contingent upon

receipt of the project funding grant from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Award of Contract must be approved by City of Troy City Council and MDOT, and can only be awarded after the IGA with MDOT has been signed.

2. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Contract is intended to be awarded as a whole.

3. CONTRACT TERM: The contract shall be considered completed at the date at which MMTF is fully operational, effective upon execution of contract. This contract may be extended and/or expanded for added project design services if mutually agreed upon and approved in writing. After a final award and execution of the contract, the Contractor must complete said Agreement.

All terms and conditions included in the prime contract are incorporated in any subcontract.

In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any subcontract and those of the prime contract, the terms and conditions of the prime contract shall prevail.

The A/E agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of Master Agreement 2011-0231 and all provisions including ARRA provisions as stated in project authorization 2011-0231/ZX between the owner and the Michigan Department of Transportation.

4. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION: The A&E Firm understands that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) should have the maximum practical opportunity to participate in the competitive process of supplying services and goods to the City. The Contractor hereby agrees, for the term of the Agreement, to document adequate good faith efforts made to achieve DBE participation. A “Good Faith Efforts” template can be found on the State of Michigan MDOT website: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/ (click on the “Doing Business” link, then the “Disadvantaged Business Enterprise” link) to see State of Michigan requirements, definitions, and other information. Documentation of efforts must be submitted with your proposal.

5. ARRA REQUIREMENTS: ARRA monthly employment report is required for projects funded by ARRA funds. If you have questions, please contact MDOT Rail Division at (517) 373-8749. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), requires states receiving stimulus funds for railroad projects to provide monthly reports to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding the number of employees of the prime contractors, all-tier subcontractors and consultants on ARRA funded projects. The cost for complying with this Notification must be borne by the prime contractor, and all-tiers of subcontractors and consultants, as part of their overhead and is deemed to be included in the payments made under this contract. Within seven (7) days after the end of each month in which work is performed on this contract, all prime contractors and consultants must provide the Engineer a monthly report providing employment information on each ARRA project, which will include, for work performed in that preceding month:

• The total number of employees who performed work on this contract.

• The total number of hours worked by employees who performed work on this contract.

• The total wages of employees who performed work on this contract.

Prime Consultants are responsible for reporting on all sub consultants’ employment information. In addition, the prime contractor must provide a total payment amount made to any subcontractor who is a certified DBE in that preceding month. This Notification shall be included as a part of each subcontract executed by the prime contractor, and all-tiers of subcontractors and consultants. If necessary to conform to guidance provided by FRA concerning the ARRA reporting requirements,

http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/�


September 2011

the prime contractor, and all-tiers of subcontractors and consultants will revise their reporting as directed by the Engineer.

Additionally, the Federal Railroad Administration requires quarterly reports on expenditures and project progress as it relates to the project’s Statement of Work. The responsibility for these reports is similar to the employment information and these reports are due to the Engineer in the month following each quarter. The timing of these reports will be determined by the Engineer and MDOT. Questions about this report should be directed to MDOT Rail Division (517) 373-8749.

Failure to comply with the reporting requirements under ARRA would jeopardize the City’s continued receipt of ARRA funding. Accordingly, if a contractor or any-tier of subcontractor or consultant fails to comply with this Notification, the City may withhold contract payments until compliance is achieved. If the City is compelled to incur costs because of such a breach, the amount of those costs may be deducted from payments otherwise to be made under this contract. Additional sanctions may include reduction or elimination of prequalification ratings and removal of bidding Privileges.

Revised: 12-17-2009 2 NOTIFICATION REQUIRED CONTRACT PROVISIONS TO IMPLEMENT AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) SECTIONS 902 AND 1515 Note: This notification is only applicable for those projects/contracts funded with ARRA funds. If you have questions, please contact MDOT Contract Services Division at (517) 335-0071. In accordance with requirements under section 902 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the following language is made a part of this contract and is to be made a part of all tier subcontracts or consultant contracts: The U.S. Comptroller General and his representatives have the authority:

1. To examine any records of the contractor or any of its subcontractors, or any State or local agency administering such contract, that directly pertain to, and involve transactions relating to, the contract or subcontract; and

2. To interview any officer or employee of the contractor or any of its subcontractors, or of any State or local government agency administering the contract, regarding such transactions.

The Comptroller General and his representatives have the authority and rights provided under Section 902 of the ARRA with respect to this contract. As provided in section 902, nothing in section 902 shall be interpreted to limit or restrict in any way any existing authority of the Comptroller General. In accordance with the requirements of section 1515(a) of the ARRA any representatives of the Inspector General have the authority:

1. To examine any records of the contractor or grantee, any of its subcontractors or sub-grantees, or any State or local agency administering such contract, that pertain to, and involve transactions relating to the contract, subcontract, grant, or sub-grant; and

2. To interview any officer or employee of the contractor, grantee, sub grantee or agency regarding such transactions. Nothing set forth in section 1515 of the ARRA shall be interpreted to limit or restrict in any way any existing authority of an inspector general.

Additional ARRA terms and conditions apply to this contract. Please refer to the next section entitled “Revolving Fund Requirements under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”

6. NEGOTIATION: Quantities, services, and prices listed in the Scope of Work and in the Respondent’s response to this RFP may be subject to negotiation. Any Agreements resulting from negotiation that differ from what is presented in this RFP or in the Respondent’s response shall be documented and included as a part of the final contract.


September 2011

7. INSURANCE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Insurance requirements shall be in accordance with the attached Sample Insurance Certificate. The required Insurance Certificate must be submitted to Mr. Stephen Cooperrider, within 5 days of the verbal/ electronic request before the final contract is submitted for review; and pending approval of the City Manager and the Troy City Council. The Insurance Certificate may be faxed to the City Offices at (248) 526-5129, and is the only RFP document accepted in this format. To expedite the process, a copy of your current

8. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS:

coverage must be submitted with your Proposal.

A certificate of Insurance on an ACCORD Form showing present coverage or a letter from your insurance agent or carrier that the insurance to be supplied will meet specifications shall be attached to the RFP document at the time of submission of the RFP to the Office of the City Clerk. The Consultant shall not commence work under this agreement until it has obtained the following required insurance. All coverage shall be with insurance carriers acceptable to the City. All insurance carriers shall be licensed and admitted to do business in the State of Michigan. The Consultant shall require each of its sub consultants, if any, to maintain the following required insurance. If any insurance is written with a deductible or self-insured retention, the Consultant shall be solely responsible for said deductible or self-insured retention. The purchase of insurance and the furnishing of a certificate of insurance shall not constitute satisfaction of the Consultant's indemnification of the City. The Consultant and its subcontractors, if any, shall procure and maintain during the life of the agreement the following coverage and produce valid certificates of insurance upon request by the City: a) Commercial General Liability Coverage

1. Per Contract Aggregate (Annual Aggregate Contract Limit)

: Commercial general liability insurance on an "occurrence" basis with limits of liability not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and/or aggregate combined single limit, personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include the following extensions:

2. Contractual liability 3. Products and completed operations 4. Independent contractor’s coverage 5. Broad form general liability extensions or equivalent

b) Workers Compensation Coverage

c)

: At a minimum, Workers Compensation Insurance as required by State of Michigan law, Michigan statutory coverage, or evidence of an exemption for sole proprietors or a State issued exemption for corporations, partnerships or LLCs who have three or less employees. Coverage shall include a minimum $500,000 employer’s liability coverage.

Motor Vehicle Liability Coverage

d)

: Including Michigan no-fault coverage for all vehicles used in the performance of the contract. Coverage shall include all owned vehicles, all non-owned vehicles and all hired vehicles. Limits of liability shall not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit bodily injury and property damage.

Professional Liability Coverage

1. per contract aggregate and

: Professional liability coverage, issued on an "occurrence basis" or "claims made basis", with limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence/aggregate, or per claim/aggregate if on a "claims made basis". If written on a "claims made basis", the policy must continue for a period of two (2) years following the termination or end date of the contract with the City. Whether on an "occurrence basis" or a "claims made basis", the policy shall include:

2. deletion of all contractual liability exclusions and/or provisions.


September 2011

e) Additional Insured Endorsements:

"The City of Troy including architects and engineers, all elected and appointed officials, all employees and volunteers, boards, commissions and/or authorities and their board members, employees and volunteers are additional insured.” (On an ISO form B or broader).

Additional insured endorsements on both the commercial general liability insurance and motor vehicle liability coverage, as described above, shall include an endorsement stating the following shall be additional insured’s:

f) Cancellation Notice:

Stephen Cooperrider, Risk Manager

Worker' compensation insurance, commercial general liability insurance, motor vehicle liability insurance and professional liability insurance, as described above, shall include an endorsement stating that thirty (30) days' advance written notice of cancellation, non-renewal, reduction and/or material change shall be sent to:

City of Troy 500 W. Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084

g) The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.

h) If the selected firm cannot provide the specified insurance, the company will be disqualified and the City reserves the right to start negotiations with the next highest rated firm.

9. LIABILITY & INDEMNIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: The Consultant agrees that it will not settle or resolve any claim or action against the Consultant based upon its acts which includes, or may include, a claim or count against the City or its employees without obtaining a full and complete release in favor of the City with respect to any and all claims or counts against the City except those based upon the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the City or its employees. For the purpose of indemnity clauses in the agreement, "City" shall mean City of Troy, its elected and appointed officials, employees and volunteers working on behalf of the City; losses and liabilities shall mean loss, cost, expense, damage, liability or claims, whether groundless or not; personal injury shall mean false arrest, erroneous service of civil papers, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, libel, slander, defamation of character, discrimination, mental anguish, wrongful entry or eviction, violation of property, or deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and laws of the United States of America or the State of Michigan, for which the Consultant may be held liable to its injured party in an action-at-law or a suit in equity or other proceedings for redress; bodily injury shall mean bodily injury, sickness or disease and mental injury which may be sustained or claimed by any person or persons; and property damage shall mean the damage and destruction of any property including the loss of use thereof. a) Indemnification, except Professional Liability

b)

: To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant expressly agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless against all losses and liabilities arising out of personal injury, bodily injury or property damages, based upon any negligent act, grossly negligent act or omission, or willful or wanton misconduct, by the Consultant or anyone acting on the Consultant's behalf, in connection with, or incidental to, the contract or the work to be performed, except that the Consultant shall not be responsible to indemnify the City for losses or damages caused by or resulting from the City's gross negligence.

Indemnification, Professional Liability: The Consultant expressly agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless against all losses and liabilities arising out of personal injury, bodily injury or property damages to the extent of any negligent act, grossly negligent act, error or omission of the Consultant or anyone acting on the Consultant's behalf, in connection with, or incidental to, the


September 2011

contract or work to be performed, except that the Consultant shall not be responsible to indemnify the City for any losses or damages to the extent that same are caused by or result from the gross negligence of the City or any other person or entity. To the extent of the Consultant's actual degree of fault, the Consultant's obligation to indemnify and hold the City harmless shall include:

1. The obligation to defend the City from any such suit, action or proceeding, and; 2. The obligation to pay any and all judgments which may be recovered in any such suit, action

or proceeding and/or any reasonable expenses including, but not limited to costs, attorney fees and settlement expenses which may be incurred, but only to the extent that such judgments and expenses are attributable to the Consultant's actual fault.


September 2011

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT

1) Assignment/Transfer: Assignment or transfer of this contract without written consent of the City (Purchaser) may be construed by the Purchaser as a breach of contract sufficient to cancel this Agreement at the discretion of the Purchaser.

2) Excise and Sales Tax: The prices herein must not include any Federal excise taxes or sales taxes imposed by any State or Municipal Government. Such taxes, if included, must be deducted by the Successful Architect & Engineering firm (Contractor) when submitting invoice for payment.

3) IRS Form W-9: Contractor must have on file with the City an IRS Form W-9 before Purchaser will issue any payment to Contractor.

4) Amendments: No amendment, modification or supplement to this contract shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties.

5) Termination: When in the City’s best interest, the City may unilaterally cancel this Agreement at any time, whether or not the Contractor is in default of any of its obligations hereunder. Under any such cancellation, the Contractor agrees to waive any claim for damages, including loss of anticipated profit on account hereof. However, the City agrees that the Contractor shall be paid for items and/or services already accepted by City, but in no event shall the City be liable for any loss of profits on the order or portion thereof so terminated. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time for the failure of the other to comply with any of its material terms and conditions.

6) Waiver of Breach: No waiver by either party of any breach of any of the covenants or conditions herein contained performed by the other party shall be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of this same or of any other covenant or condition.

7) Records and Right to Audit: Contractor’s "records" shall upon reasonable notice be open to inspection and subject to audit and/or reproduction during normal business working hours. The City’s representative or an outside representative engaged by the City may perform such audits. The City or its designee may conduct such audits or inspections throughout the term of this contract and for a period of three years after final payment or longer if required by law.

a. Contractor's "records" as referred to in this contract shall include any and all information, materials and data of every kind and character, including without limitation, records, books, papers, documents, subscriptions, recordings, Agreements, purchase orders, leases, contracts, commitments, arrangements, notes, daily diaries, superintendent reports, drawings, receipts, vouchers and memoranda, and any and all other Agreements, sources of information and matters that may in the City's judgment, have any bearing on or pertain to any matters, rights, duties or obligations under or covered by any Contract Document. Such records shall include (hard copy, as well as computer readable data), written policies and procedures; time sheets; payroll registers; cancelled checks; subcontract files (including proposals of successful and unsuccessful bidders, bid recaps, etc.); original estimates; estimating work sheets; correspondence; change order files (including documentation covering negotiated settlements); back charge logs and supporting documentation; general ledger entries detailing cash and trade discounts earned, insurance rebates and dividends; and any other contractor records which may have a bearing on matters of interest to the City in connection with the contractor's dealings with the City (all foregoing hereinafter referred to as "records") to the extent necessary to adequately permit evaluation and verification of: a) contractor compliance with contract requirements, b) compliance with the City's Charter and policies, and c) compliance with provisions for pricing change orders, invoices or claims submitted by the contractor or his payees.

b. Contractor shall require all payees (examples of payees include sub consultants, insurance agents, material suppliers, etc.) to comply with the provisions of this article by including the


September 2011

requirements hereof in a written contract Agreement between Contractor and payee. Such requirements to include flow-down right of audit provisions in contracts with payees will also apply to Sub consultants and Sub-Sub consultants, material suppliers, etc. Contractor will cooperate fully and will charge Related Parties and all of Contractor's sub consultants (including those entering into lump sum subcontracts) to cooperate fully in furnishing or in making available to the City from time to time whenever requested in an expeditious manner any and all such information, materials and data.

c. The City's authorized representative or designee shall have reasonable access to the Contractor's facilities, shall be allowed to interview all current or former employees to discuss matters pertinent to the performance of this contract and shall be provided adequate and appropriate work space, in order to conduct audits in compliance with this article.

d. If an audit inspection or examination in accordance with this Article discloses overpricing or overcharges (of any nature) by the contractor to the City in excess of one-half of one percent (.5%) of the total contract billings, the reasonable actual cost of the City's audit shall be reimbursed to the City by the Contractor. Any adjustments and/or payments which must be made as a result of any such audit or inspection of the contractor's invoices and/or records shall be made within a reasonable amount of time (not to exceed 90 days) from presentation of the City's findings to Contractor.

8) Complete Agreement: The parties agree that the conditions of purchase stated herein or attachments hereto set forth their entire Agreement and there are no promises or understandings other than those stated herein, and that any prior negotiations between the Purchaser and Contractor or terms or conditions of sales set forth in the Contractor’s quotation or order or sales acknowledgement shall not constitute a part of the Agreement between the Purchaser and Contractor concerning this purchase. The term “Agreement” as used in this clause shall include any future written amendments, modifications, or supplements made in accordance herewith.

9) Noncompliance: Failure to deliver in accordance with specifications will be cause for the City to cancel the contract or any part thereof and purchase on the open market, charging any additional cost to the Contractor.

10) Protection of Resident Workers: The City supports the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which includes provisions addressing employment eligibility, employment verification and non-discrimination. The contractor is held responsible to establish appropriate procedures and controls so no services under this contract will be performed by any worker who is not legally eligible to perform such services. The City shall have the right to terminate the contract if the City determines that the contractor has failed to perform satisfactorily with respect to its employment practices in support of INA.

11) Non-Discrimination Clause: The bidder agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment, to be employed in the performance of such contract, with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges, of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. Breach of this covenant may be regarded as material breach of the contract as provided for in Act 220 and Act 453 of the Public Acts of 1976, as amended, entitled “Michigan Handicapper’s Civil Rights Act” and the Michigan Elliott Larson Civil Rights Act.” The bidder further agrees to require similar provisions from any sub consultants, or suppliers.

12) Use of the City Seal: Contractors are prohibited from using the official Seal of the City of Troy in this Proposal or in any other manner without the express written consent of the City.

13) Legal Proceedings: The rights and remedies set forth herein are not exclusive and are in addition to any of the rights or remedies provided by law or equity. This Agreement, and all actions arising hereunder, shall be governed by, subject to, and construed according to the law of the State of Michigan. The Contractor agrees, consents and submits to the personal jurisdiction of any competent court in Oakland County, Michigan, for any action arising out of this Agreement.


September 2011

The Contractor agrees that service of process at the address and in the manner specified in this Agreement will be sufficient to put the Contractor on notice. The Contractor also agrees it will not commence any action against the City because of any matter whatsoever arising out of or relating to this validity, construction, interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement, in any courts other than those in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan unless original jurisdiction can be had in the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court.

14) Performance of Services: a. Services shall be performed in accordance with a design schedule as approved by the City

and consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Services. Contractor must submit a draft Project design schedule to the City within seven (7) calendar days of the date of this Agreement, or as requested by the City.

b. The Contractor agrees that in the performance of Services herein enumerated by it, or by an approved sub-consultant, or anyone acting on its behalf, it will, to the best of its professional knowledge and ability, comply with any and all applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations and FRA Advisory Circulars/Orders.

c. The design services, or a portion of the Services required under this Agreement shall commence upon the initial Letter of Authorization, and continue in accordance with the approved design schedule. Construction administration services shall commence upon authorization by the City and continue until final acceptance of the Project by the City.

15) Professional Representation: By acceptance of this Agreement, Contractor represents that it is knowledgeable of all applicable orders, codes, laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances of federal, state, or municipal authorities as such affect its work; and that it is licensed to perform the Services described in this Agreement. Contractor shall comply with all such orders, laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances and shall be responsible for any and all damages resulting from its failure to comply with such orders, codes, laws, rules and regulations.

16) Sufficient Number of Qualified Employees: The Contractor shall have in its employ a sufficient number of qualified employees available to provide the professional Services described in this Agreement and in accordance with the approved design schedule.

17) Professional Endorsement of Work: Contractor shall employ professionals licensed to practice Architecture and/or Engineering in the State of Michigan and shall provide copies of signed and sealed contract documents to any jurisdictional authorities requesting same. In entering this Agreement, the City relied upon the qualifications of the Contractor’s proposed team to provide the agreed upon Services. Contractor shall obtain the approval of the City prior to the replacement or substitution of any qualified employee. The City may demand the replacement of any Contractor employee or agent without cause.

18) Right to Act as a Contractor: Contractor hereby represents and warrants that it: (1) is not subject to any restrictions whatsoever which would prevent it from entering into or carrying out the provisions of this Agreement; (2) possesses all licenses, permits, approvals and other certificates necessary and required for performing the Services pursuant to this Agreement; (3) possesses the proper skill, training, experience and background so as to be able to perform this Agreement in a competent and professional manner; and (4) has full authority to enter into this Agreement and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. Contractor warrants that the Services shall be consistent with the normal professional standards expected in the architect/engineer community.

19) Deliverables: For Services set forth herein, and as a precondition to the City approval of Contractor’s pay application for Services, the Contractor shall deliver to the City the following:

a. Copies of field inspection reports verifying existing conditions. b. Copies of a monthly report by Project with Project Number, describing the start and end

dates of the preceding period that Services were performed, services completed in the


September 2011

period, services anticipated for the proceeding period, status of the design budget, status of the design schedule and potential problems with the Project design, budget or schedule.

20) Acceptance of Documents: All questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of work, the manner of performances, rate of progress of work, and the interpretation of what the completed product shall be, will be decided by the City. The City shall decide all questions as to the satisfactory and acceptable fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement.

21) Ownership of Documents: a. The City shall have unlimited rights, in all contract documents, designs, specifications, notes

and other works of any sort developed in the performance of this Agreement, without additional compensation to the Contractor. The Contractor hereby grants to the City a paid-up license throughout the world to all such works to which it may assert or establish any claim under design patent or copyright law. Exhibit A provides additional terms and conditions related to the Ownership of Documents.

b. Upon completion or termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by the Contractor or its sub-consultants, including, but not limited to MicroStation, TIFF and/or PDF drawing files, tracings, drawings, estimates, specifications, field notes, investigations, and studies, as instruments of Services, shall become the property of the City. Contractor and its sub-consultants may retain copies of documents for information and reference. Documents prepared by the Contractor, or its sub-consultants, are only intended for the use of the City.

22) Access to Work for Coordination Purposes: The Contractor shall permit the City, and, as approved by the City, other public agencies interested in the plans and designs of the projects undertaken in accordance with this Agreement, to have full access thereto during the progress of the Services being performed thereon during normal business hours.

23) Coordination with Other Contractors: To the extent that the City contracts with multiple Contractors for activities related to the City, the Contractor will participate in the review and selection process of these other supporting/specialty Contractors. These other supporting/specialty Contractors will become part of the City’s consulting team although their contracts will be held by the City. The Contractor will assist in all project coordination with all other Contractors including but not limited to design, engineering, cost estimating, schedule, phasing, bid packaging, permitting, etc.

24) Disputes: The presence of disputes between the City and Contractor, or legal proceedings arising from such disputes, shall not relieve the Contractor of its obligations to properly and expeditiously perform the agreed Services. Contractor shall inform the City, in writing, within five (5) calendar days of the discovery of any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement. The City shall not be liable to compensate the Contractor for any additional costs accrued more than five (5) calendar days before the City received written notice of that dispute. Notification of a dispute does not infer or result in liability in and of itself. The City and the Contractor will make good faith efforts to negotiate a resolution of any disputes. Disputes not resolved by negotiation shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction within the state of Michigan.

25) Submittals for Agency Reviews: All documents prepared under the Services of this Agreement shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to transmittal to other regulatory agencies.

26) Subcontracting of Services: a. No portion of the Services, heretofore defined, shall be subcontracted, assigned,

transferred, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written consent of the City. Consent to subcontract, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of any portion of the Services shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor of any responsibility for the fulfillment of this Agreement. Any assignee(s) approved by the City, must assume all obligations and perform


September 2011

all professional Services pursuant to the Agreement. The sale of fifty (50%) percent or more of the capital stock of the Contractor (if the Contractor is a corporation having less than ten (10) shareholders) will constitute an assignment of this Agreement within the meaning of this Section.

b. The City, reserves the right to fully assign the Agreement or delegate any duties hereunder without written consent of the Contractor.

27) Additional Services: The City may request that the Contractor provide additional professional services on this or other projects. Written authorization by the City is required prior to the performance of any work and of extra work not delineated in this Agreement or subsequent tasks not provided for in this Agreement, by the Contractor. City Council approval may also be required.

28) Responsibility for Loss or Damage of Documents: During the performance of the Services, the Contractor shall be responsible for any loss or damage to all project documents, hereinafter enumerated as belonging to the City while they are in the Contractor's possession. Restoration of lost or damaged documents shall be at the Contractor’s expense.

29) Changes: a. The City may, at any time, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this

Agreement in the Services to be performed. Adjustments in the amount of agreed compensation will be made only if any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the Services under this Agreement. In connection therewith, the City shall make an equitable adjustment in the Agreement price, and shall so modify the Agreement. The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of receipt of the written order. The Contractor shall not perform work which it believes involves a material scope change without prior written order between the City and the Contractor.

b. Notwithstanding any inability of the parties to agree on an adjustment, the Contractor shall not be excused from proceeding with the Agreement as changed.

c. The Contractor shall provide written notice to the City within five (5) calendar days of a material change in its operation, ownership or financial condition. Material changes include, but are not limited to:

i. Reduction or change in staffing assigned to the Agreement. ii. Decrease in, or cancellation of, insurance coverage.

iii. Delinquent payment, or nonpayment, of tax obligations. iv. Delinquent payment, or nonpayment, of payroll obligations. v. Delinquent funding, or non-funding, of pension or profit sharing plans.

vi. Delinquent payment, or nonpayment, of sub consultants. vii. Termination of, or changes in, sub consultants.

viii. Transfer, sell, assign or delegate to an entity other than the Contractor, of ownership or administrative services.

30) Claims Due to Changes or Delays: No charges or claims for damages shall be made by the Contractor for delays or hindrances from any cause whatsoever during the progress of any portions of the Services specified in this Agreement, except as hereinafter provided above in item 29, “Changes”.

a. In case of an unreasonable delay on the part of the City in providing to the Contractor, either the necessary information or approval to proceed with the Services, resulting, through no fault of the Contractor, in the Contractor having to perform its work under changed


September 2011

conditions not contemplated, the City will consider supplemental compensation limited to increased costs incurred as a direct result of such delays. Any claim for supplemental compensation must be submitted to the City in writing and within five (5) calendar days of first discovery of a condition warranting a delay, and accompanied by substantiating data. Authorization of such supplemental compensation shall be by an amendment to this Agreement subject to prior approval by the City.

b. When delays are caused by circumstances or conditions beyond the control of the Contractor, the Contractor shall notify the City within fifteen (15) calendar days of such circumstances or conditions at which time the Contractor may be granted an extension of time for such reasonable period as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties.

31) Independent Contractor Relationship: a. The City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that Contractor is an independent

contractor, and not an employee of the City and that Contractor will have no authority to bind the City or otherwise incur liability on behalf of the City. The City will have no obligation whatsoever to provide any employee benefits or privileges of any kind or nature to Contractor, including, without limitation, insurance benefits or pension benefits.

b. Further, Contractor agrees that any and all taxes imposed, assessed or levied as a result of this Agreement or the Agreement fee shall be paid by Contractor, or if paid by the City, Contractor shall reimburse the City upon demand.

32) Sub consultants: a. Contractor warrants that any sub consultant assigned to the performance of the Services is

qualified and authorized to perform services under the state and local laws and governing professional association rules where the employee is employed.

b. Contractor shall not engage sub consultants for all or any portion of the Services called for in this Agreement without notifying the City in writing. If the Contractor requires any change in sub consultant(s), the Contractor must provide the City with a list of qualified sub consultants(s) for its review and acceptance. Such acceptance, if any is granted, shall in no way lessen the responsibility of Contractor to perform in accordance with this Agreement and shall in no way create any relationship, contractual or otherwise, between the City and any sub consultant. The City may require additional information from the Contractor as to the capabilities of certain sub consultants. The Contractor will provide the City with the requested information. If the Contractor fails to provide sufficient documentation to support the competency of the sub consultant, the City may deny the request, or remove the sub consultant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall bind any sub consultant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The City’s acceptance will constitute the permission of the City for the Contractor to engage the sub consultants for the Services, and the Contractor shall not remove or substitute any such firm without good cause shown and without the written consent of the City which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld by the City.

33) Confidentiality: Contractor agrees that any information Contractor receives or reviews concerning the City, including, but not limited to, any information concerning the City’s past, present and future research, development, operations and business activities, and any other information or material proprietary to the City of which the Contractor may obtain knowledge or access from the City during Contractor’s performance hereunder (hereinafter “Confidential Information”) is proprietary and confidential to the City. The Contractor agrees, on behalf of itself and all of its agents, to hold in confidence and not to directly or indirectly reveal, report, publish, disclose or transfer any of the Confidential Information to any person or entity, or utilize any of the Confidential Information for any purpose, except as may be agreed in writing in advance between the City and the Contractor. Prior to disclosure of Confidential Information to any of its employees or other authorized persons or sub consultants, Contractor agrees to obtain an appropriate


September 2011

Agreement, containing all of the elements set forth herein, from those persons or firms to whom such information is disclosed or who otherwise gain access to such information to maintain the confidentiality of Confidential Information. Contractor further agrees to indemnify the City against any loss or liability resulting from, or arising in connection with, unauthorized use or disclosure of Confidential Information by Contractor, its employees or any other authorized person to whom Contractor has disclosed Confidential Information.

34) Outside QA/QC Review: a. Throughout the performance of the Services, emphasis will be placed on the Contractor’s ‘in

house’ quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review process and procedure. It is the City’s expectation that the Contractor is an expert in their field and as such will provide a complete, high quality, fully coordinated set of design and construction documents.

b. Where applicable, in order to ensure the quality of the documents, the City may hire an outside company to review the final documents before such are bid. This outside review is not intended to replace the Contractor’s internal QA/QC review. The Contractor shall address all of the City’s inquiries prior to proceeding with final design documents. The outside review is intended to pick up small and/or minor discrepancies or errors in the documents. The Contractor remains fully responsible to provide the City with a complete, high quality and fully coordinated set of documents based on the highest standards of the industry.

c. It will be the Contractor’s responsibility to correct minor errors, omissions or missed coordination discovered by the outside review before the project is bid at no additional cost to the City and on a timely basis.

d. In the event that a large number of minor errors or any major errors, omissions or missed coordination items are discovered by the outside review, the City will assume that the Contractor has not performed the Services in compliance with the Agreement and the City’s expectations. Then, not only will the Contractor be required to correct those items but the Contractor will also reimburse the City for all or a portion of the fees paid by the City for the outside QA/QC review at the City’s discretion.

35) Amendment Provisions: a. In the event that the Contractor deems extra compensation will be due it for work or

materials not clearly covered in this Agreement, or not ordered by the City as a change, or due to changed conditions, the Contractor shall notify the City in writing of its intention to make claim for such extra compensation within five (5) calendar days of discovery of the changed conditions. The written notice must be received by the City before the Contractor begins such work. Failure on the part of the Contractor to give such notification will constitute a waiver of the claim for such extra compensation. The filing of such notice by the Contractor shall not in any way be construed to establish the validity of the claim. Such extra compensation shall be provided only by amendment to this Agreement.

b. Contractor must submit to the City a detailed proposal indicating additional compensation and time within Twenty (20) calendar days of the written notice of claim. The proposal must include:

i. All labor hours by individual per hourly rates that are provided in Attachment B. ii. Eligible expenses.

iii. Sub consultant fees in similar detail as the Contractor is required to comply with a revised schedule indicating the new activities required to allow the Contractor to complete the requirements for the Project.

c. If the City requires additional information to evaluate the proposal, Contractor must submit its response within five (5) calendar days of receipt of the request.


September 2011

d. The City may consider it in its best interest to change, modify or extend a term or condition of this Agreement or the City may request the Contractor to perform Additional Services. Any such change, extension or modification, which is mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor, shall be incorporated in written Amendments (herein called “Amendments”) to this Agreement. Such Amendments shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor relieve or release the Contractor or the City from any of their obligations under this Agreement.

e. No Amendment to this Agreement shall be effective and binding upon the parties, unless it expressly makes reference to this Agreement, is in writing, is signed and acknowledged by duly authorized representatives of both parties, and is approved, where required, by the City Council of the City.

36) Conflicts: During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall not represent, advise, give advice to or otherwise consult with any person, company, partnership or other entity with respect to any matters relating to the business of the City, when such matter may involve a conflict of interest between the Contractor and the City, unless an officer of the City has consented in writing to such representation, advise or consultation. By execution of this Agreement, Contractor is representing that no such conflict presently exists.

37) Federal Government Agreements: This Agreement is subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future Agreements between the City and the United States of America relative to the operation and maintenance of the City, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to the expenditure of federal funds for the development of the City.

38) Compensation: Basis for compensation will be a negotiated award predicated upon the Contractor’s (A & E firm’s) man-hour proposal submission in concert with the cost proposal submission. Compensation must be authorized by the City and MDOT. MDOT Derivation of Cost – Prime Consultant and MDOT Derivation of Cost – Sub-Consultant are provided and attached hereto as Attachment B.

a. For and in consideration of the Services rendered by the Contractor, as set forth in this Agreement, the City agrees to compensate the Contractor as provided in the Cost Proposal Form (subject to negotiations), attached hereto and made a part hereof. It is understood and agreed that all federal, state and local taxes are included in the cost of Contractor’s Services. Furthermore, it is agreed that fees may not be transferred between individual Tasks, or between Sub consultants, or between Tasks and Sub consultants, without prior written approval from the City.

b. Contractor shall invoice the City for the Services performed on a monthly basis, and the City shall pay such approved invoice within thirty (30) days following receipt and approval of a correct invoice. Contractor’s invoices shall show for each Contractor employee by name and title the specific days and hours worked and the percentage completion of each category of services as well as detailed backup and justification for any agreed reimbursable Services. Contractor invoice submission will be accompanied by a completed “Application and Invoice for Payment” form.

c. Contractor agrees to provide, in a format acceptable to the City, such other documentation as may be required to support its billings. Contractor also agrees to provide the City a monthly activity report as required under item 19 in these terms and conditions, Deliverables.

d. The City shall reimburse Contractor, as part of its fees for the Services provided herein, for actual and reasonable reimbursable expenses as long as such expenses are necessary in the performance of the Services and are eligible. Eligible reimbursable expenses are further defined in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Eligible reimbursable expenses for sub consultants must be consistent with the Contractor’s requirements.

e. Promptly following completion of the Services, Contractor shall submit to the City with monthly billings a statement of expenses to be reimbursed, on a form satisfactory to the City


September 2011

stating in detail the nature of the expenditures and enclosing receipts or detail as required. All eligible expenses must have a receipt to be reimbursable.

f. Costs incurred by Contractor for clerical or other secretarial services, time accounting, or other administrative services, as well as office supplies are not reimbursable. Reimbursable Expenses will be paid only in the amount of the actual cost to Contractor; no mark-up costs will be paid.

g. Compensation for and in consideration of the Services rendered by the Contractor for the City shall be paid on the basis of cost plus a fee (profit) yielding the total not-to-exceed price as noted on the Cost Proposal Form (subject to Negotiations). Such costs for Services and project work required and performed will be determined in accordance with the terms below:

i. Direct Labor

ii.

: Actual payroll costs of members of the firm and staff personnel on the basis of salary, on an hourly basis, (without markup for overhead and profit) actually expended for personnel directly utilized. Contractor further agrees that the rates set forth in Attachment B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, will be held firm for the Term of this Agreement. Overhead (Indirect Costs)

iii.

: A prorated portion of the actual overhead incurred by the Contractor during performance of the work set forth herein. The amount of overhead payment, including payroll overhead, will be calculated as a percentage of all direct labor costs related to staff personnel. Overhead shall include those costs, which because of their incidence for common or joint objectives, are not readily subject to treatment as a direct cost. The percentage rate for Payroll Overhead (Direct Salary Cost) and Firm Overhead combined, which will be applied to direct labor costs only for progress payments shall be determined as set forth in Attachment B. Reimbursables

iv.

: As set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, eligible reimbursable expenses shall be actual cost of materials, and services, other than salaries, as may be required hereunder but which are not normally provided as a part of the overhead of the Contractor. All actual costs shall be itemized and certified as paid to specifically named firms or individuals, and shall be supported by proper receipts. Sub consultants

39) Payment Schedule: Payments to the Contractor shall be made in accordance with the following procedures:

: As set forth in Attachment B, costs incurred by Contractor for services procured from sub consultants pursuant to its provision of the required Services will be reimbursed per Sub consultant invoices, with receipts for eligible expenses, which must be submitted with the Contractor’s monthly invoice.

a. Monthly progress payments shall be made for amounts earned to date, up to the authorized compensation amount, which shall be based on the work which has been completed to date of billing, as determined by the City. Documented reimbursable expenses also will be included.

b. Ten (10) percent of the first fifty (50) percent of the Contractor’s earned fee shall be retained to a maximum retained amount equal to five (5) percent of the total amount of the Services. Retainage may be reduced or returned at anytime upon written request from the Contractor and review and approval by the City. The withholding of Retainage may be omitted once fifty (50) percent of the Services are complete if, in the opinion of the City, the quality of the Services provided by the Contractor have met or exceed the Agreement requirements and the City’s expectations. Written approval from the City must also be obtained.

c. Final invoicing under this Agreement shall be submitted in a timely manner but not later than four (4) months after completion of Services. Invoices for work submitted later than four (4) months after completion of Services will not be paid. The City will make final payment within


September 2011

three (3) months of completion of a final audit, but in no event shall this period exceed six (6) months from the time of submission of the final invoice.

d. If Services, or any part thereof, are terminated before completed, the City shall pay the Contractor for the percentage of the Services which has been completed up to the time of termination as determined by the City. In no case shall the compensation paid to the Contractor for Services, or any part thereof, exceed the amount the Contractor would receive had the Services, or the terminated portion thereof, been completed. No amounts shall be allowed for anticipated profits for unperformed services.

40) Invoicing Procedures: a. The Contractor shall submit invoices to the City of Troy per Exhibit B. Invoices shall be sent

to: City of Troy Engineering Department 500 West Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084 Attn: Steve Vandette, City Engineer

All invoices shall contain the following information: i. Appropriate project number and name for each task.

ii. Original Authorized Purchase Order amount.

iii. Additions or subtractions to the Letter of Authorization amount.

iv. Total amounts paid-to-date and percentage of contracted amount.

v. Amount being requested by the current invoice and percentage of work complete.

vi. All supporting information and back-up data to substantiate current invoiced amounts, including hours spent by each individual, invoices/receipts for all eligible reimbursables, invoices for all sub consultants including back-up and authorizations, if applicable.

vii. Sworn statement from Contractor attesting to sub consultant’s contract amount, current amount invoiced, and amount invoiced to date, amount paid to date, and percentage of work complete.

viii. Partial and/or Final Waiver of Lien from each sub consultant.

ix. Monthly Report

41) Accounting Practices

a. The Contractor must follow standard accounting practices for a “not-to-exceed” or lump sum contract Agreement and permit a representative of the City to inspect its Project books and records at any reasonable time. Such records are to be kept available for three (3) years from the date of the final payment for Services performed pursuant to this Agreement.

b. The City shall have the right to audit the Contractor’s records pertaining to the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement at a mutually convenient time. The City’s audit rights include, but are not limited to, inspecting records to verify personnel hours (by payroll classification, billing rate or direct hours) spent on the projects, DBE participation activities,


September 2011

all invoices for reimbursable expenses (whether by Contractor or any sub consultants) and overhead rates and charges.


September 2011

REQUIRED FORMS (To be completed and returned with RFP submittal)

PROPOSAL FORM ............................................................................................................................. 43

MINIMUM / PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS FORM .......................................................................... 45

EXCEPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO RFP SCOPE/SPECIFICATIONS ........................................ 47

COST PROPOSAL FORM (Sealed in a separate envelope) ............................................................. 48

SUBCONSULTANT FORM.................................................................................................................. 49

BUSINESS INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................. 52

EXHIBIT D – Certificate of Insurance or letter from Carrier (Sample Certificate Attached) ................... 52

EXHIBIT E - Indemnification Clause…………………………………………………………………………..59 ATTACHMENT B – MDOT Cost Information ....................................................................................... 70


September 2011

PROPOSAL FORM

Failure to complete this form shall result in your Proposal being deemed nonresponsive and rejected without any further evaluation.

OFFER TO: CITY OF TROY: The Undersigned hereby offers and agrees to furnish the goods and/or services in compliance with all terms, scope of work, conditions, specifications, and addenda in the Request for Proposal.

ADDENDA: The undersigned has read, understands and is fully cognizant of the Information to Respondents, Offer, and all Exhibits thereto, together with any written addendum issued in connection with any of the above. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of the following addendum(s): _____, _____, _____, _____ (write “none” if none). In addition, the undersigned has completely and appropriately filled out all required forms.

OBLIGATION: The undersigned, by submission of this Offer, hereby agrees to be obligated, if the Offer is accepted by the City, to enter into a Contract to provide the stated goods and/or services for the term as stated herein in accordance with the Scope of Work, Specifications, and Terms and Conditions, together with any written Addenda as specified above and any negotiated terms. If this offer is accepted and signed by the City, this RFP document, together with any written Addenda and any negotiated terms shall be (collectively) the contract.

COMPLIANCE: The undersigned hereby accepts all administrative requirements of the RFP and will be in compliance with such requirements. By submitting this Proposal Form, the Respondent represents that: 1. The Respondent is in compliance with any applicable provisions of the City’s Charter and Code of

Ordinances. 2. If awarded a contract to provide the Services required in the RFP, the Respondent will comply with

the City’s Charter and Code of Ordinances. These documents can be found on the City’s website.

NONCOLLUSION: The undersigned, by submission of this Proposal Form and other required forms, hereby declares that this Proposal is made without collusion with any other business making any other Proposal, or which otherwise would make a Proposal.

PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE: The undersigned further agrees that if awarded the Contract, it will submit to the City any required type of guarantee (i.e. irrevocable letter of credit or cash deposit or Performance Bond).

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The undersigned certifies it has attached a complete response to each of the submittal requirements listed in the Evaluation Criteria and Submittal Requirements section of this RFP as well as all required forms.


September 2011

No proposal shall be accepted which has not been manually signed in ink in the appropriate space below

:

I certify, under penalty of perjury, that I have the legal authorization to bind the firm hereunder: Company Name Address City State Zip Signature of Person Authorized to Sign Printed Name Title Federal Tax ID

For clarification of this offer, contact:

Printed Name Phone Email


MINIMUM / PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS FORM Failure to complete this form will result in your bid being deemed non-responsive and rejected without further evaluation. Attach additional pages if necessary. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Describe how you meet the following minimum qualifications. f) Respondent must have, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, that will be

assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Michigan that will be responsible for managing all services resulting from this RFP.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

g) Respondent must have, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Architect licensed in the State of Michigan that will be responsible for managing all services resulting from this RFP. ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

h) Respondent must have, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, any Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) specification writer that has at least eight (8) years of experience in the development of technical specifications.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

i) Respondent must have, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, any Key

Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP that has at least eight (8) years experience in the design and engineering of steel structural systems. ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


j) Respondent must have, as an employee, sub-consultant, or partner, any Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) LEED-certified architect and engineer. ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS: Describe how you meet the following preferred qualifications: a) Have on staff, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, of the Respondent

and/or any Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Architect licensed in the United States that has at least eight (8) years of experience in the engineering of a Railway Facility. ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

b) Respondent has, either as an employee, sub-consultant or partner, Key Personnel that will be assigned to the contract resulting from this RFP, at least one (1) Professional Architect/Engineer licensed in the United States, which has at least eight (8) years of experience in the design and engineering of railway rail lines. ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________


EXCEPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO RFP SCOPE/SPECIFICATIONS

Respondents are to prepare the Cost Proposal Form(s) based on the scope and specifications set forth in the RFP documents without considering any exceptions that may be set forth on this form. 1) In the event the Respondent would like to propose an alternative solution to the RFP scope

or specifications, they may set forth alternatives in the following manner: a) The exceptions and/or alternative solutions are to be submitted as one, separately-

sealed proposal entitled, “Alternate Proposal.” Alternate proposals must include all required forms and a separately-sealed Alternate Cost Proposal Form, including all required copies.

2) In the event the Respondent takes exception to the RFP scope or specifications, they may set forth alternatives by presenting each exception separately by stating: a) The specific item for which an exception is requested (citing the page and item number). b) The suggested change to the exception, inclusive of proposed new language if

applicable. c) An explanation as to how the proposed change would benefit the City and/or why the

exception is necessary. d) For products bid as “equals,” respondent MUST

3)

include specifications when submitting a bid. Failure to submit specifications may result in your bid being deemed non-responsive and rejected without further evaluation.

4) This form must be signed by an individual authorized to commit the Respondent’s firm to the Agreement in the manner set forth below.

Exceptions to the “Standard Terms and Conditions of Agreement” may not be accepted.

Except as set forth above, Respondent is in complete Agreement with the proposed terms, conditions and business arrangements described in the RFP including the attached Agreement. The Respondent assumes the risk of all conditions foreseen or unforeseen and agrees to provide the services set forth in the Agreement under whatever circumstances may develop other than as herein provided.

Signature:

Type Name:

Title:

Date:

_______________________________________________________________________

Please note that if exceptions are taken, all required information, as set forth above must be submitted


COST PROPOSAL FORM

FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM SHALL RESULT IN YOUR PROPOSAL BEING DEEMED NONRESPONSIVE AND REJECTED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER EVALUATION. THIS COST PROPOSAL FORM AND ADDITIONAL PRICE-RELATED INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN A SEPARATE, SEALED ENVELOPE

WITH YOUR RFP SUBMISSION AND LABELED ACCORDINGLY.

PHASE 1:

FINAL DESIGN: STATION, BRIDGE AND PLATFORM IMPROVEMENTS, MULTI-MODAL FACILITIES, SITE WORK & RELATED

NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $__________________ PHASE 2 AND 3:

BIDDING AND FINAL CONSTRUCTION - SOLICITATION OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT (Provide plans, drawings, specs and bid documents; review bid submittals and make recommendation of general contractor; follow & support construction through completion and station operational start-up)

NOT TO EXCEED PRICE OF $__________________

All submitted pricing must be in the format acceptable to and required by MDOT (reference Attachment B and Exhibits).

PRICING MUST

BE SUBMITTED IN A SEPARATELY SEALED ENVELOPE

Currency: Contract prices are quoted in U.S. funds

Company Name:


SUB-CONSULTANT FORM

Failure to complete this form and/or provide the information requested will result in your Response being deemed nonresponsive and rejected without any further evaluation. Are there any sub-consultants to be utilized under this contract?

YES - You must complete both pages*. NO - You must complete only this page.

*The response must include information about each

sub-consultant that will be utilized on the contract resulting from this RFP. Sub-consultants cannot be added or replaced after submittal of the response without the prior written approval of the City Engineer of the City of Troy or his designee.

Ensuring completion of this form is the responsibility of the Respondent, and failure of the Respondent to timely arrange for its prospective sub-consultants to complete and submit the form as part of the response may result in the Respondent’s response being deemed nonresponsive. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Business: Name: Title: (Authorized Representative) Signature: Date:


SUB-CONSULTANT FORM (Continued)

(You must submit this form for each

sub-consultant. If you have more than one subconsultant, make additional copies of this form, as needed)

Prime Consultant

State relationship, if any, between Prime Consultant and each Sub-consultant:

NOTE: Both the Prime Consultant (Contractor) and Sub-consultant must sign this form appropriately.

Sub-consultant: Fed Tax ID

Address: P.O. Box

City: County State Zip:

Phone: (_____) Fax: ( ___

)

Primary contact person: Phone: (_____)

Owners/Partners/Corporate Directors/Principal Stockholders (>5% stock holdings):

Detailed description of the work to be self-performed by the sub-consultant:

Is the sub-consultant certified as a DBE by an agency participating in the Michigan Unified Certification Program (MUCP)? _____ YES _____ NO. If yes, proof of certification must be submitted

with this form.

Include the following (if applicable): • The support (financial, technical, management, training, etc.) provided by the Respondent to each

DBE partner. • A copy of the documents that contain the proposed legal relationship between the Respondent and

each DBE participant (if applicable). (E.G. A copy of the contract between the prime consultant and the sub-consultant)

• Provide a resume for the principal(s) of the DBE firm identified above if applicable.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: SUB-CONSULTANT: I acknowledge that all the above information has been completely filled out and is true. Authorized Signature Name & Title Date

PRIME CONSULTANT: I acknowledge that all the above information has been completely filled out and is true. Authorized Signature Name & Title Date


BUSINESS INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Failure to complete this form may result in your Bid or Proposal being deemed nonresponsive and rejected without any further evaluation.

NAME OF COMPANY

PRINCIPAL OFFICE ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER

DUNS# AND/OR CCR (if applicable)# _________________________________

FORM OF OWNERSHIP (Check One)

Corporation ( ) LLC ( ) Joint Venture ( )

State of Incorporation/Registration Date of Incorporation/Registration ______

Partnership ( ) If Partnership, select one of the following: Limited ( ) or General ( )

Individual ( )

LIST OF PARTNERS, PRINCIPALS, CORPORATE OFFICERS OR OWNERS

Name

Title

LIST OF CORPORATE DIRECTORS

Principal Business Affiliation

Name Other Than Respondent Directorship


HAS YOUR COMPANY OPERATED UNDER ANY DIFFERENT NAMES IN THE PAST FIVE

(5) YEARS? YES / NO IF YES, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE NAME(S) UNDERWHICH YOUR

COMPANY HAS OPERATED:

____________________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY LIST OF PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS (i.e., those holding 5% or more of the outstanding

stock)

Name Address

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Identify any contract(s), including any

contract involving a personal, familial, employment or consulting relationship, which the firm, or

its partners, principals, corporate officers or owners currently has with the City of Troy or with

any of its Council members, boards, officials or officers.

LATEST CREDIT RATING (Specify if other than Dun and Bradstreet)


I hereby certify that the foregoing business information is true, correct and complete to the best

of (my/our) knowledge and belief:

(Name of Company)

By

(Signature) Date

(Title) By

(Signature) Date

(Title)


EXHIBIT A OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

OWNERSHIP OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

SPECIFICALLY PREPARED UNDER THE SCOPE OF COMPENSATION SCHEDULED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

Ownership. Prior to payment of all sums due or anticipated to be due to the Contractor under this Agreement and upon performance of all City obligations under this Agreement, the latest original Drawings and Specifications and the latest electronic data prepared by the Contractor for the Services shall become the property of the City. This conveyance shall not deprive the Contractor of the right to retain electronic data or other reproducible copies of the Drawings and Specifications to use for information and reference. However, only with City approval shall the Contractor have the right to reuse information contained in them in the normal course of the Contractor's professional activities. The Contractor shall be deemed the author of such electronic data or documents, shall retain all rights not specifically conveyed, and shall be given appropriate credit in any public display of such Drawings and Specifications. Reuse of Documents. The City shall not use or authorize any other person to use the Drawings, Specifications, electronic data, and other instruments of service on other projects, for additions to this Project or for completion of this Project by others so long as the Contractor is not adjudged to be in default under this Agreement. Reuse without the Contractor's professional involvement will be at the City 's sole risk and without liability to the Contractor. Transfer of Ownership. Under no circumstances shall the transfer of ownership of the Drawings, Specifications, electronic data, or other instruments of service be deemed to be a sale by the Contractor.


EXHIBIT B INVOICE FORMAT

INVOICE

From: Company Name Address Address To: City of Troy Re: Multi-modal Transit Facility Invoice #:

PO Number: Invoice Date:

Project Number: Billing Period: From: Project Title: To:

DIRECT LABOR: CURRENT INVOICE

EMPLOYEE NAME HOURS RATE 1 $ - $ - 2 $ - $ - 3 $ - $ - 4 $ - $ - 5 $ - $ - 6 $ - $ - 7 $ - $ - 8 $ - $ - 9 $ - $ -

10 $ - $ - 11 $ - $ - 12 $ - $ -

TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ - OVERHEAD (TOTAL DIRECT LABOR x XXX%) $ -

SUBTOTAL (TOTAL DIRECT LABOR + OVERHEAD) $ -

FEE FOR PROFIT (SUBTOTAL x XXX%) $ -

TOTAL FEE EARNED (SUBTOTAL + FEE FOR PROFIT) $ -

REIMBURSABLE COSTS: (see backup) Fill in $ - Fill in $ - TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $ - SUBCONTRACT COST: (see backup) Fill in $ - Fill in $ - SUBTOTAL - SUBA&E FIRM COST $ - SUBTOTAL - BEFORE RETENTION $ - LESS: A&E FIRM RETENTION $ - LESS: SUBA&E FIRM RETENTION $ - Adjustment for amount in excess of contract: $ - TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: $ -


EXHIBIT C REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES

REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES: Certain reimbursable expenses of the Contractor and/or its authorized Sub consultant(s) may be authorized by the City. The request for reimbursement must include sufficient backup (invoices, receipts, bills of sale, etc.) in order to be considered by the City.

a) The following expenses are allowable and if authorized by the City will be reimbursed at

actual costs. i. Reproduction costs for printing or binding of drawings, specifications, or studies

(quantity and format as indicated on the list of deliverables). ii. Costs for postage associated with transmitting documents. iii. Costs for overnight delivery service, if required by the City. iv. Costs for permits and/or fees, if required.

b) The following expenses are allowable, and will be reimbursed at actual costs only if

authorized by prior written approval of the City. i. Costs associated with travel (company vehicle, car rental, hotel, air travel, food, etc.)

for a specific task requested by the City. ii. Overtime. iii. Costs associated with lease/purchase of City approved computerized project

management system. iv. Costs associated with lease/purchase of furniture, vehicles, trailers, or other

equipment that immediately becomes the property, where applicable, of the City.

c) The following expenses are NOT allowable and will not be reimbursed by City. i. Any costs associated with travel (mileage, hourly rates, etc.) related to commuting

between home, or office and the project site to conduct regular project work or periodic project review and management.

ii. Expenses for professional or business licensure, badges, seminars, professional development, telephone costs (equipment and transmissions), cellular phone costs (equipment and transmissions), computers, plotters, printer, scanners, PDA’s, internet access, facsimile costs (equipment and transmissions), office supplies, messenger service, other equipment, etc.


EXHIBIT D SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE


EXHIBIT E INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE

CITY OF TROY

To the fullest extent permitted by law, agrees to defend, pay on

(Name of Firm) behalf of, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Troy, its elected and appointed officials,

employees and volunteers and others working on behalf of the City of Troy against any and all

claims, demands, suits, or loss, including all costs connected therewith, and for any damages

which may be asserted, claimed or recovered against or from the City of Troy, its elected and

appointed officials, employees, volunteers or others working on behalf of the City of Troy, by

reason of personal injury, including bodily injury or death and/or property damage, including loss

of use thereof, which arises out of or is in any way connected or associated with this

contract/agreement.

___________________________________________________ Contract / Agreement ___________________________________________________ Firm representative signature/date ___________________________________________________ Witness ___________________________________________________ City of Troy representative signature/date ___________________________________________________ Witness


EXHIBIT F REVOLVING FUND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AMERICAN

RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 The project will be financed with assistance from the State of Michigan Revolving Funds using federal assistance authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The following requirements are applicable to this contract.

Wage Rates (ARRA Section 1606)

ARRA requires compliance with the Davis Bacon Act and adherence to the current U.S. Department of Labor Wage Decision. Attention is called to the fact that not less than the minimum salaries and wages as set forth in the Contract Documents (see Wage Decision included herein) must be paid on this project. The Wage Decision, including modifications, must be posted by the Contractor on the job site. A copy of the Federal Labor Standards Provisions is included and is hereby a part of this contract.

Buy American (ARRA Section 1605)

The ARRA requires that all iron, steel and manufactured goods used for the construction of this contract be produced in the United States. The ARRA states:

(a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any case or category of cases in which the head of the Federal department or agency involved finds that –

(1) applying subsection (a) would be inconsistent with the public interest;

(2) iron, steel, and the relevant manufactured goods are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; or

(3) inclusion of iron, steel, and manufactured goods produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

(c) If the head of a Federal department or agency determines that it is necessary to waive the application of subsection (a) based on a finding under subsection (b), the head of the department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived.

(d) This section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.”


29 CFR Part 5 – Labor Standards Provisions for Federally Assisted Projects

Labor standards provisions applicable to contracts funded with federal assistance authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are:

§ 5.5 Contract provisions and related matters.

(a) The Agency head shall cause or require the contracting officer to insert in full in any contract in excess of $2,000 which is entered into for the actual construction, alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of a public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part from Federal funds or in accordance with guarantees of a Federal agency or financed from funds obtained by pledge of any contract of a Federal agency to make a loan, grant or annual contribution (except where a different meaning is expressly indicated), and which is subject to the labor standards provisions of any of the acts listed in Sec. 5.1, the following clauses (or any modifications thereof to meet the particular needs of the agency, Provided, That such modifications are first approved by the Department of Labor):

(1) Minimum wages. (i) All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the construction or development of the project), will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of wages and bona fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor and such laborers and mechanics.

Contributions made or costs reasonably anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits under section 1(b)(2) of the Davis-Bacon Act on behalf of laborers or mechanics are considered wages paid to such laborers or mechanics, subject to the provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section; also, regular contributions made or costs incurred for more than a weekly period (but not less often than quarterly) under plans, funds, or programs which cover the particular weekly period, are deemed to be constructively made or incurred during such weekly period. Such laborers and mechanics shall be paid the appropriate wage rate and fringe benefits on the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed, without regard to skill, except as provided in Sec. 5.5(a)(4). Laborers or mechanics performing work in more than one classification may be compensated at the rate specified for each classification for the time actually worked therein: Provided that the employer's payroll records accurately set forth the time spent in each classification in which work is performed. The wage determination (including any additional classification and wage rates conformed under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section) and the Davis-Bacon poster (WH-1321) shall be posted at all times by the contractor and its subcontractors at the site of the work in a prominent and accessible place where it can be easily seen by the workers.

(ii)(A) The contracting officer shall require that any class of laborers or mechanics, including helpers, which is not listed in the wage determination and which is to be employed under the contract shall be classified in conformance with the wage determination. The contracting officer


shall approve an additional classification and wage rate and fringe benefits therefore only when the following criteria have been met:

(1) The work to be performed by the classification requested is not performed by a classification in the wage determination; and

(2) The classification is utilized in the area by the construction industry; and

(3) The proposed wage rate, including any bona fide fringe benefits, bears a reasonable relationship to the wage rates contained in the wage determination.

(B) If the contractor and the laborers and mechanics to be employed in the classification (if known), or their representatives, and the contracting officer agree on the classification and wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe benefits where appropriate), a report of the action taken shall be sent by the contracting officer to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210. The Administrator, or an authorized representative, will approve, modify, or disapprove every additional classification action within 30 days of receipt and so advise the contracting officer or will notify the contracting officer within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.

(C) In the event the contractor, the laborers or mechanics to be employed in the classification or their representatives, and the contracting officer do not agree on the proposed classification and wage rate (including the amount designated for fringe benefits, where appropriate), the contracting officer shall refer the questions, including the views of all interested parties and the recommendation of the contracting officer, to the Administrator for determination. The Administrator, or an authorized representative, will issue a determination within 30 days of receipt and so advise the contracting officer or will notify the contracting officer within the 30-day period that additional time is necessary.

(D) The wage rate (including fringe benefits where appropriate) determined pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) (B) or (C) of this section, shall be paid to all workers performing work in the classification under this contract from the first day on which work is performed in the classification.

(iii) Whenever the minimum wage rate prescribed in the contract for a class of laborers or mechanics includes a fringe benefit which is not expressed as an hourly rate, the contractor shall either pay the benefit as stated in the wage determination or shall pay another bona fide fringe benefit or an hourly cash equivalent thereof.

(iv) If the contractor does not make payments to a trustee or other third person, the contractor may consider as part of the wages of any laborer or mechanic the amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in providing bona fide fringe benefits under a plan or program, Provided, That the Secretary of Labor has found, upon the written request of the contractor, that the applicable standards of the Davis-Bacon Act have been met. The Secretary of Labor may require the contractor to set aside in a separate account assets for the meeting of obligations under the plan or program.


(2) Withholding. The City shall upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld from the contractor under this contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally-assisted contract subject to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, which is held by the same prime contractor, so much of the accrued payments or advances as may be considered necessary to pay laborers and mechanics, including apprentices, trainees, and helpers, employed by the contractor or any subcontractor the full amount of wages required by the contract. In the event of failure to pay any laborer or mechanic, including any apprentice, trainee, or helper, employed or working on the site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the construction or development of the project), all or part of the wages required by the contract, the City may, after written notice to the contractor, sponsor, applicant, or owner, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds until such violations have ceased.

(3) Payrolls and basic records. (i) Payrolls and basic records relating thereto shall be maintained by the contractor during the course of the work and preserved for a period of three years thereafter for all laborers and mechanics working at the site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937, or under the Housing Act of 1949, in the construction or development of the project). Such records shall contain the name, address, and social security number of each such worker, his or her correct classification, hourly rates of wages paid (including rates of contributions or costs anticipated for bona fide fringe benefits or cash equivalents thereof of the types described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis-Bacon Act), daily and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made and actual wages paid. Whenever the Secretary of Labor has found under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1)(iv) that the wages of any laborer or mechanic include the amount of any costs reasonably anticipated in providing benefits under a plan or program described in section 1(b)(2)(B) of the Davis-Bacon Act, the contractor shall maintain records which show that the commitment to provide such benefits is enforceable, that the plan or program is financially responsible, and that the plan or program has been communicated in writing to the laborers or mechanics affected, and records which show the costs anticipated or the actual cost incurred in providing such benefits. Contractors employing apprentices or trainees under approved programs shall maintain written evidence of the registration of apprenticeship programs and certification of trainee programs, the registration of the apprentices and trainees, and the ratios and wage rates prescribed in the applicable programs.

(ii)(A) The contractor shall submit weekly for each week in which any contract work is performed a copy of all payrolls to the City if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such a party, the contractor will submit the payrolls to the applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be, for transmission to the City. The payrolls submitted shall set out accurately and completely all of the information required to be maintained under 29 CFR 5.5(a)(3)(i), except that full social security numbers and home addresses shall not be included on weekly transmittals. Instead the payrolls shall only need to include an individually identifying number for each employee (e.g., the last four digits of the employee's social security number). The required weekly payroll information may be submitted in any form desired. Optional Form WH-347 is available for this purpose from the Wage and Hour Division Web site at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/forms/wh347instr.htm or its successor site. The prime contractor is responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls by all subcontractors. Contractors and


subcontractors shall maintain the full social security number and current address of each covered worker, and shall provide them upon request to the City, if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such a party, the contractor will submit them to the applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be, for transmission to the City, the contractor, or the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor for purposes of an investigation or audit of compliance with prevailing wage requirements. It is not a violation of this section for a prime contractor to require a subcontractor to provide addresses and social security numbers to the prime contractor for its own records, without weekly submission to the sponsoring government agency (or the applicant, sponsor, or owner).

(B) Each payroll submitted shall be accompanied by a ``Statement of Compliance,'' signed by the contractor or subcontractor or his or her agent who pays or supervises the payment of the persons employed under the contract and shall certify the following:

(1) That the payroll for the payroll period contains the information required to be provided under Sec. 5.5 (a)(3)(ii) of Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, the appropriate information is being maintained under Sec. 5.5 (a)(3)(i) of Regulations, 29 CFR part 5, and that such information is correct and complete;

(2) That each laborer or mechanic (including each helper, apprentice, and trainee) employed on the contract during the payroll period has been paid the full weekly wages earned, without rebate, either directly or indirectly, and that no deductions have been made either directly or indirectly from the full wages earned, other than permissible deductions as set forth in Regulations, 29 CFR part 3;

(3) That each laborer or mechanic has been paid not less than the applicable wage rates and fringe benefits or cash equivalents for the classification of work performed, as specified in the applicable wage determination incorporated into the contract.

(C) The weekly submission of a properly executed certification set forth on the reverse side of Optional Form WH-347 shall satisfy the requirement for submission of the ``Statement of Compliance'' required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.

(D) The falsification of any of the above certifications may subject the contractor or subcontractor to civil or criminal prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 and section 231 of title 31 of the United States Code.

(iii) The contractor or subcontractor shall make the records required under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section available for inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of the City or the Department of Labor, and shall permit such representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job. If the contractor or subcontractor fails to submit the required records or to make them available, the Federal agency may, after written notice to the contractor, sponsor, applicant, or owner, take such action as may be necessary to cause the suspension of any further payment, advance, or guarantee of funds. Furthermore, failure to submit the required records upon request or to make such records available may be grounds for debarment action pursuant to 29 CFR 5.12.

(4) Apprentices and trainees--(i) Apprentices. Apprentices will be permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the work they performed when they are employed pursuant to and


individually registered in a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services, or with a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, or if a person is employed in his or her first 90 days of probationary employment as an apprentice in such an apprenticeship program, who is not individually registered in the program, but who has been certified by the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services or a State Apprenticeship Agency (where appropriate) to be eligible for probationary employment as an apprentice. The allowable ratio of apprentices to journeymen on the job site in any craft classification shall not be greater than the ratio permitted to the contractor as to the entire work force under the registered program. Any worker listed on a payroll at an apprentice wage rate, who is not registered or otherwise employed as stated above, shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed. In addition, any apprentice performing work on the job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the work actually performed. Where a contractor is performing construction on a project in a locality other than that in which its program is registered, the ratios and wage rates (expressed in percentages of the journeyman's hourly rate) specified in the contractor's or subcontractor's registered program shall be observed. Every apprentice must be paid at not less than the rate specified in the registered program for the apprentice's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeymen hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Apprentices shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the apprenticeship program. If the apprenticeship program does not specify fringe benefits, apprentices must be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed on the wage determination for the applicable classification. If the Administrator determines that a different practice prevails for the applicable apprentice classification, fringes shall be paid in accordance with that determination. In the event the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services, or a State Apprenticeship Agency recognized by the Office, withdraws approval of an apprenticeship program, the contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize apprentices at less than the applicable predetermined rate for the work performed until an acceptable program is approved.

(ii) Trainees. Except as provided in 29 CFR 5.16, trainees will not be permitted to work at less than the predetermined rate for the work performed unless they are employed pursuant to and individually registered in a program which has received prior approval, evidenced by formal certification by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. The ratio of trainees to journeymen on the job site shall not be greater than permitted under the plan approved by the Employment and Training Administration. Every trainee must be paid at not less than the rate specified in the approved program for the trainee's level of progress, expressed as a percentage of the journeyman hourly rate specified in the applicable wage determination. Trainees shall be paid fringe benefits in accordance with the provisions of the trainee program. If the trainee program does not mention fringe benefits, trainees shall be paid the full amount of fringe benefits listed on the wage determination unless the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division determines that there is an apprenticeship program associated with the corresponding journeyman wage rate on the wage determination which provides for less than full fringe benefits for apprentices. Any employee listed on the payroll at a trainee rate who is not registered and participating in a training plan approved by the Employment and Training Administration shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the classification of work actually performed. In addition, any trainee performing work on the


job site in excess of the ratio permitted under the registered program shall be paid not less than the applicable wage rate on the wage determination for the work actually performed. In the event the Employment and Training Administration withdraws approval of a training program, the contractor will no longer be permitted to utilize trainees at less than the applicable predetermined rate for the work performed until an acceptable program is approved.

(iii) Equal employment opportunity. The utilization of apprentices, trainees and journeymen under this part shall be in conformity with the equal employment opportunity requirements of Executive Order 11246, as amended, and 29 CFR part 30.

(5) Compliance with Copeland Act requirements. The contractor shall comply with the requirements of 29 CFR part 3, which are incorporated by reference in this contract.

(6) Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clauses contained in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1) through (10) and such other clauses as the City of Troy/Birmingham may by appropriate instructions require, and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with all the contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5.

(7) Contract termination: debarment. A breach of the contract clauses in 29 CFR 5.5 may be grounds for termination of the contract, and for debarment as a contractor and a subcontractor as provided in 29 CFR 5.12.

(8) Compliance with Davis-Bacon and Related Act requirements. All rulings and interpretations of the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts contained in 29 CFR parts 1, 3, and 5 are herein incorporated by reference in this contract.

(9) Disputes concerning labor standards. Disputes arising out of the labor standards provisions of this contract shall not be subject to the general disputes clause of this contract. Such disputes shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures of the Department of Labor set forth in 29 CFR parts 5, 6, and 7. Disputes within the meaning of this clause include disputes between the contractor (or any of its subcontractors) and the contracting agency, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the employees or their representatives.

(10) Certification of eligibility. (i) By entering into this contract, the contractor certifies that neither it (nor he or she) nor any person or firm who has an interest in the contractor's firm is a person or firm ineligible to be awarded Government contracts by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis-Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).

(ii) No part of this contract shall be subcontracted to any person or firm ineligible for award of a Government contract by virtue of section 3(a) of the Davis-Bacon Act or 29 CFR 5.12(a)(1).

(iii) The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in the U.S. Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. 1001.

(b) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. The Agency Head shall cause or require the contracting officer to insert the following clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section in full in any contract in an amount in excess of $100,000 and subject to the


overtime provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. These clauses shall be inserted in addition to the clauses required by Sec. 5.5(a) or 4.6 of part 4 of this title. As used in this paragraph, the terms laborers and mechanics include watchmen and guards.

(1) Overtime requirements. No contractor or subcontractor contracting for any part of the contract work which may require or involve the employment of laborers or mechanics shall require or permit any such laborer or mechanic in any workweek in which he or she is employed on such work to work in excess of forty hours in such workweek unless such laborer or mechanic receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in such workweek.

(2) Violation; liability for unpaid wages; liquidated damages. In the event of any violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the contractor and any subcontractor responsible there for shall be liable for the unpaid wages. In addition, such contractor and subcontractor shall be liable to the United States (in the case of work done under contract for the District of Columbia or a territory, to such District or to such territory), for liquidated damages. Such liquidated damages shall be computed with respect to each individual laborer or mechanic, including watchmen and guards, employed in violation of the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, in the sum of $10 for each calendar day on which such individual was required or permitted to work in excess of the standard workweek of forty hours without payment of the overtime wages required by the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(3) Withholding for unpaid wages and liquidated damages. the City shall upon its own action or upon written request of an authorized representative of the Department of Labor withhold or cause to be withheld, from any moneys payable on account of work performed by the contractor or subcontractor under any such contract or any other Federal contract with the same prime contractor, or any other federally-assisted contract subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which is held by the same prime contractor, such sums as may be determined to be necessary to satisfy any liabilities of such contractor or subcontractor for unpaid wages and liquidated damages as provided in the clause set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(4) Subcontracts. The contractor or subcontractor shall insert in any subcontracts the clauses set forth in paragraph (b)(1) through (4) of this section and also a clause requiring the subcontractors to include these clauses in any lower tier subcontracts. The prime contractor shall be responsible for compliance by any subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor with the clauses set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. (c) In addition to the clauses contained in paragraph (b), in any contract subject only to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and not to any of the other statutes cited in Sec. 5.1, the Agency Head shall cause or require the contracting officer to insert a clause requiring that the contractor or subcontractor shall maintain payrolls and basic payroll records during the course of the work and shall preserve them for a period of three years from the completion of the contract for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, working on the contract. Such records shall contain the name and address of each such employee, social security number, correct classifications, hourly rates of wages paid, daily and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made, and actual wages paid. Further, the Agency Head shall cause or require the contracting officer to insert in any such contract a clause providing that the


records to be maintained under this paragraph shall be made available by the contractor or subcontractor for inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of the City and the Department of Labor, and the contractor or subcontractor will permit such representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job.


ATTACHMENT A (Attached Separately)


ATTACHMENT B MDOT COST INFORMATION

The total derivation of costs shall be divided into parts as follows:

Exhibit 1. Derivation of Cost - Prime Consultant B-A 2. Derivation of Cost - Sub-consultant(s) B-B DERIVATION OF COST - PRIME CONSULTANT: Exhibit B-A is a sample layout for the prime consultant's proposed costs. These costs are broken out into direct labor, overhead, facilities cost of capital, direct costs, fixed fee, and conclude with a total proposed cost. Direct Labor: Indicate each labor classification, the hours for that classification, the

related hourly rate for that classification and the dollar total for that classification. At the bottom of the Direct Labor portion of the sheet, indicate the total hours and dollars for direct labor.

Overhead: Indicate the overhead rate being applied against direct labor. At the right,

indicate the total overhead in dollars that results from the multiplication of the rate times the direct labor cost shown on this page.

Facilities Cost Indicate the FCC rate being applied against direct labor. At the right, of Capital (FCC) indicate the total FCC in dollars that results from the multiplication of the

rate times the direct labor cost shown on this page. Direct Expenses: List the direct expenses with a brief description and purchase price for the

item. Indicate the total of these direct expenses at the bottom right of this portion of the sheet.

Fixed Fee: Indicate the fixed fee percentage for this project. This fee is to be applied

against direct labor and overhead only, not against direct expenses or FCC. The fixed fee percentage may not exceed the percentage approved by MDOT. MDOT determines an appropriate fixed fee percentage for the project based on several factors although this percent is open to negotiation. At the right, indicate the total of this calculation.

Total: At the bottom of the page, indicate the sum of the direct labor, overhead,

FCC, direct expenses and fixed fee as calculated on this page. DERIVATION OF COST - SUB-CONSULTANT(S): Exhibit B-B is a sample layout for the sub-consultants' proposed costs. A separate sheet for derivation of costs must be submitted for each sub-consultant in the same manner as described above for the prime consultant.


EXHIBIT B-A – Prime Consultant

DERIVATION OF COST PROPOSAL JOB NUMBER

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

CONSULTANT NAME

(Submit separate pages for each sub-consultant and each Job Number including phases A & C ) DIRECT LABOR: Person Hourly

Labor Classification Hours x Rate

= Costs Total Hours ________

Total Labor $ OVERHEAD: (Total Labor) x __ ___ % = Total

Overhead $ FACILITIES COST OF CAPITAL: (Total Labor) x __ ___ % = Total

F.C.C. $ DIRECT EXPENSES: (Listed by Item at Actual Cost to you - NO MARKUP) Total

Direct Costs $ SUBCONSULTANT FEES Total Subconsultant Cost $ (*Subconsultants also prepare this form) FIXED FEE: (Total Labor + Total Overhead) x _____% = Total Fixed Fee

$

TOTAL

COSTS $


EXHIBIT B-B - Sub consultant

DERIVATION OF COST PROPOSAL JOB NUMBER

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

CONSULTANT NAME

(Submit separate pages for each sub-consultant and each Job Number including phases A & C ) DIRECT LABOR: Person Hourly

Labor Classification Hours x Rate

= Costs Total Hours ________

Total Labor $ OVERHEAD: (Total Labor) x __ ___ % = Total

Overhead $ FACILITIES COST OF CAPITAL: (Total Labor) x __ ___ % = Total

F.C.C. $ DIRECT EXPENSES: (Listed by Item at Actual Cost to you - NO MARKUP) Total

Direct Costs $ SUBCONSULTANT FEES Total Sub consultant Cost $ (*Sub consultants also prepare this form) FIXED FEE: (Total Labor + Total Overhead) x _____% = Total Fixed Fee

$

TOTAL COSTS $

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE TROY TRANSIT CENTER INTERMODAL RAIL PASSENGER FACILITY

OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545 by the Michigan Department of Transportation and City of Troy, Michigan

June 2011

The following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

Steven J. Vandette City of Troy Engineering Department 500 Big Beaver Road Troy, MI

Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Executive Summary July 2011 Page i

Executive Summary

The City of Troy in Oakland County, Michigan is proposing to construct the William J. Huotari Troy Transit Center Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility (Intermodal Facility). The Intermodal Facility would serve the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, Michigan. The City of Troy may utilize federal monies for the construction of this project. Therefore, this planning study and associated documentation have been performed and prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) acting as the lead federal agency. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on the natural, social, economic and cultural environment, and disclose those considerations in a public document. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment (40 CFR § 1500.1).

The Intermodal Facility would service the communities of Troy and Birmingham by strengthening the existing transit options in the area through a centralized facility that will allow users to access intercity rail service, local and regional rail and bus routes and other modes such as air and taxi services. The proposed Intermodal Facility is included as a hub in the Detroit Regional Mass Transit plan (DRMT). The facility would serve as a catalyst for coordinated regional mass transit in Southeastern Michigan.

In 2000, the City of Troy identified potential locations for an Intermodal Facility. The City applied for and received funding from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in 2006 to evaluate several alternatives for an Intermodal Facility. This funding was used to begin this study, the purpose of which is to identify a Preferred Alternative site within the proposed project area and to complete preliminary engineering on the Preferred Alternative. Several alternatives are considered based on input from the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, as well as agency and public comment and other stakeholder input. These include the No Action Alternative, use of the existing station in Birmingham, and four build alternative sites located along the Canadian National (CN) Rail line that bisects Troy and Birmingham. The alternative sites were compared based on criteria formed from public and agency input and professional experience. From the alternative sites considered, a Preferred Alternative was identified in the City of Troy. The Preferred Alternative site, located 1,700 feet south of Maple Road on Doyle Drive, was selected based on the site’s ability to maximize views and access from both Maple Road and Coolidge Highway and to facilitate transfers between travel modes. The proposed Intermodal Facility would be located adjacent to the rail along the south property line and would include an approximately 2,500 square foot station building, station accommodations for bus and other public transit vehicles, pedestrian bridge, and surface parking for approximately 116 passenger vehicles. The site is located on an existing surface parking lot in Troy that is accessed from Doyle Drive, either from Maple Road or Coolidge Highway, allowing for easy access to parking and for easy pick-up and drop-off. Parking spaces would be provided on site, including barrier-free spaces. Barrier-free sidewalks and crosswalks would be provided.

Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Executive Summary July 2011 Page ii

A new Amtrak platform alongside the eastern rail line would require passenger trains to switch to the eastern track of the CN Railroad so that passengers could access trains without crossing over the CN tracks. The Intermodal Facility would also be pedestrian and bicycle accessible, and would be completely compliant with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Design elements intended to improve accessibility include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, horizontal landing areas, and benches. The planned connecting pathways would be designed and landscaped to improve aesthetics, reduce soil erosion/runoff, and create a comfortable, attractive space for people to enjoy. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) is the public bus service provider in the metropolitan Detroit area. SMART currently provides service to the Cities of Birmingham and Troy, and SMART officials have indicated that the Preferred Alternative would be an appropriate hub for the regional bus system. A drop-off area with slips for four buses is proposed to provide transit links for rail passengers. The Intermodal Facility building and site would be designed using sustainable design concepts including, but not limited to, a green roof, rain gardens and geothermal HVAC. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would have few environmental impacts. The existing use of the property, for the most part, is a parking lot. A small grassed area and some planted trees may be disturbed. There are no threatened or endangered species in the vicinity. There are no residences or businesses to be relocated. The Intermodal Facility would not cause substantial changes in air quality, noise or vibration, or hydrology and water quality. There are no populations living adjacent to the site, and, therefore, no impacts would occur to community cohesion. No community facilities would be impacted. There would be no environmental justice issues. The project is consistent with local land use plans and would require utility tie-ins. Operation of the station would impact transit schedules and routes for some buses, traffic surrounding the station would increase, and some commuter traffic would decrease due to the connectivity provided through the station. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in minor short-term negative impacts related to construction activities, such as a temporary increase in noise levels, exhaust, fumes, and fugitive dust. There are no anticipated long-term negative impacts resulting from the project. The Preferred Alternative would have numerous positive effects, including economic benefits from potential opportunities for transit oriented development, a decrease in reliance on the automobile, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved access to multiple modes of public transit.

Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment Table of Contents July 2011

Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Section 1. Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location and Description..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Needs ................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Ridership Projections ....................................................................................................... 4

Section 2. Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................... 12

Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts ................................................... 14 3.1 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 16

3.1.1 Rail Passenger and Freight Traffic ......................................................................... 16 3.1.2 Transit ..................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3 Traffic and Parking ................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 23 3.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 23 3.2.2 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 27 3.2.4 Energy Conservation and Use ................................................................................. 28

3.3 Ecological Environment................................................................................................. 29 3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources .............................................................................................. 29 3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 29

3.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 30 3.4.1 General Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................ 30 3.4.2 Consistency with Local Plans ................................................................................. 31 3.4.3 Utilities .................................................................................................................... 31

3.5 Social and Economic Environment ................................................................................ 31 3.5.1 Community Facilities .............................................................................................. 31 3.5.2 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 32 3.5.3 Economic Resources ............................................................................................... 32 3.5.4 Community Cohesion ............................................................................................. 33 3.5.5 Safety and Security ................................................................................................. 34 3.5.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped .................................................. 35

3.6 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 35 3.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 37 3.8 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 38 3.9 Contaminated Sites and Areas of Environmental Interest ............................................. 38 3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................... 39 3.11 Construction Impacts ..................................................................................................... 41

Section 4. Agency Coordination and Public Participation............................................................ 42 Section 5. Sources Consulted ....................................................................................................... 45 Appendix



List of Figures Figure 1-1: Project Location and Project Area ............................................................................... 3 Figure 2-1: Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-2: Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design.................................................................. 13 Figure 3-1: Study Area Intersections Evaluated ........................................................................... 20 List of Tables Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Evaluation ............................................................................. 11 Table 3-1: Resources/Issues Considered and Impacts Identified ................................................. 15 Table 3-2. SMART Bus Routes that Would Serve the Preferred Alternative ............................. 17 Table 3-3: SMART Bus and Taxi /Sedan Service Emissions....................................................... 25 Table 3-4: Construction and Fugitive Emissions Estimate ........................................................... 25 Table 3-5: Estimated Emissions from the Preferred Alternative by Year .................................... 26 Table 3-6: Proposed Action Peak Year Comparison for Preferred Alternative ............................ 26 Table 3-7: Occupations ................................................................................................................. 33 Table 3-8: Unemployment Rates .................................................................................................. 33

Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility Environmental Assessment July 2011 Page 1

Section 1. Purpose and Need

The City of Troy in Oakland County, Michigan, is proposing to construct an Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility (Intermodal Facility) to serve as a hub for all transportation modes, a gateway for the city and the region, and to provide for transfers between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes. The proposed Intermodal Facility would contribute to the region’s economic health while avoiding impacts to the environment. The project is located in the City of Troy, Oakland County, Michigan, approximately 15 miles north of downtown Detroit. The need for a new transit facility arises from the inadequacy of the existing local Amtrak station located in the City of Birmingham to serve Amtrak users, a lack of direct access from Troy, and no opportunities for intermodal connectivity with buses, taxis or shuttles. Amtrak service consists of six trains per day; three southbound trains arriving from Pontiac and departing for Detroit, and three northbound trains arriving from Detroit and departing for Pontiac. The existing station consists of a platform with a semi-enclosed shelter adjacent to the tracks in Birmingham. A pay telephone is located on site. There are only four parking spaces available for users at this station, which is not sufficient for current ridership. Presently, vehicles or pedestrians from Troy can only access the station from one quarter mile to the northwest at Maple Road and Eton Street. 1.1 Project Location and Description

The City of Troy is a low-density, suburban community, with a mix of low density residential subdivisions, large industrial properties, retail shopping malls and strip centers, and sprawling office parks. The City is approximately 34 square miles in size and is home to approximately 81,000 people. More importantly, it is home to many international corporations and about 6,000 individual businesses, with over 18 million square feet of manufacturing/engineering space, 17 million square feet of office space, and 6.59 million square feet of retail space. Troy provides a significant employment base for all of metropolitan Detroit, with a workforce of 125,000 people and a daytime population of 136,000 people. Many private employers are included among the stakeholders who support improvements to transportation options that will assist the regional workforce to gain access to jobs in Troy. The City of Birmingham is a densely populated city with a strong urban core. It is approximately four square miles in size, and is home to just under 20,000 people. The City was developed in the early 1900s and was home to many automotive executives as early as the 1920s when the Detroit Inter-Urban Streetcars ran out along America’s first highway, which runs directly from downtown Detroit, through Birmingham to Pontiac, Michigan to the north. As such, the City has a historic downtown core, with a vibrant mix of retail, restaurant and entertainment uses on the first floor, office uses on the second and third floors, and residential units on the upper floors. It serves as one of only five walkable, urban cores within the Detroit metropolitan area, and thus acts as the downtown for many of the surrounding, sprawl-based suburbs. Three major Southeast Michigan transportation corridors are located within the Cities of Troy and Birmingham: 1) Woodward Avenue (M-1), a state trunkline, which bisects the City of


Birmingham and extends from Detroit to Pontiac, 2) Big Beaver Road, also known as 16 Mile Road, which links both the Cities of Troy and Birmingham with the interstate system; and 3) the CN Rail line that runs from Pontiac through Detroit, Lansing, Kalamazoo and continues into Illinois (Figure 1-1). Amtrak provides the “Wolverine” service on this line which travels daily between Pontiac and Chicago. The project area is located on the eastern limits of the City of Birmingham where they abut the western limits of the City of Troy, from Maple Road extending south approximately one-half mile to the east and west of the CN Railroad line, between Eton Street in Birmingham and Coolidge Highway in Troy. The proposed Intermodal Facility would provide multi-modal access to intercity rail service and public transit, and would provide much needed connections between carriers and routes. It would act as a hub in the regional transit system, thus greatly enhancing mobility and access to jobs within the area. The Intermodal Facility would also provide an opportunity for bus travelers to choose rail travel, thus providing a drastic reduction in travel times over buses in mixed traffic on public roads. By encouraging the creation of walkable places and improving public transit options and connections, congestion on area streets will be reduced, thereby reducing commuting time and improving the quality of life for area residents.


Figure 1-1: Project Location and Project Area


1.2 Project Needs

The need for the project is based on the following factors:

• Absence of transit and other modal connections to existing intercity rail service in Birmingham and Troy;

• Absence of passenger services at the existing Amtrak Station, and the inability to offer such services given the size constraints of the existing facility; and

• Focus of local policy on transit improvements and connections rather than vehicular-centric roadway improvements as part of a more balanced and sustainable approach to future growth;

• Need for economic development and investment in the Cities of Birmingham and Troy. The goal for the project is to develop an intermodal transportation facility to provide for a variety of transportation modes and to act as a transportation hub for both Cities, and for the region. In addition, the City would like the facility to serve as a demonstration project for sustainability. As an intermodal facility, the facility would provide a smooth transfer area between motorized and non-motorized transportation modes, (i.e. bus, rail, air, automobile, bicycle, vans, walking, etc.). As a demonstration project for sustainability, the Intermodal Facility would utilize energy efficient geothermal heating and cooling systems, LED lighting, greywater recycling, a green roof, natural daylighting and recyclable building materials. The facility would also provide multiple electric vehicle charging stations. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification would be sought for the facility through the U.S. Green Building Council. 1.3 Project Purpose

The purpose of the Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility is to: • Provide multimodal transit connections to Amtrak platform that provides intercity rail

service between Pontiac, Detroit and Chicago; • Provide basic services to intercity rail travelers, including ticketing services, restrooms,

climate controlled waiting and connection facilities, and much needed parking; • Improve public transit service linkage and provide greater mobility options; • Improve linkages to major activity centers; and • Support the City’s economic development goals.

The Intermodal Facility would provide multiple transit services, as well as multi-modal transit connections, increased parking for rail and transit riders, increased safety and convenience, and room for expansion in the future. The Intermodal Facility would anchor the community’s new Intermodal Facility District to the east and serve as a critical hub in the region's advanced mass transit plan. 1.4 Ridership Projections

The existing Amtrak service to the Birmingham Station consists of six trains daily, with three southbound (arriving from Pontiac & departing for Detroit) and three northbound (arriving from Detroit & departing for Pontiac) trains. According to Amtrak data, the annual ridership for the


existing Birmingham Station was 19,404 passengers in fiscal year 2007 and 19,714 passengers in fiscal year 2008.

In February 2008, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the new Intermodal Facility (prepared by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. for the City of Troy). Rail ridership projections were conducted for the years 2012 and 2027. In the year 2012, the study projected that the new Intermodal Facility would be served by the existing Amtrak service (three daily northbound and three daily southbound) with average daily boardings and alightings of 124 passengers (annual ridership of 24,765 passengers). In 2027, projected ridership average daily boardings and alightings would increase to 257 passengers daily (annual ridership of 51,485 passengers). This is an anticipated 25.6% growth in daily passengers between 2008 and 2012 and a projected growth between 2012 and 2027 of 108%.

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is also preparing to commence commuter rail service between Detroit and Ann Arbor as a demonstration project. Should this line be successful in terms of ridership, consideration will be given to extending this commuter service north from Detroit to Pontiac, with a stop at the new Intermodal Facility. Projections for ridership on this portion of the commuter line have not been established, as the majority of users of the current Amtrak service are long-distance trips, not daily commutes. According to SEMCOG traffic data, approximately 50,000 vehicles daily travel on I-75 from northern suburbs towards downtown Detroit. Many of those automobile commuters would benefit from a commuter rail service and would likely use it if available. The new Intermodal Facility would provide a centralized location for future commuter rail users in addition to existing intercity rail users.


Section 2. Alternatives

This chapter summarizes the alternatives analysis that lead to the identification of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The chapter describes the reasonable alternatives, including the No Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, which are evaluated in this environmental assessment. In total, six different alternatives were evaluated:

• Alternative 1: Expand and Renovate the Existing Train Station in Birmingham; • Alternative 2: Maple Road, Birmingham; • Alternative 3A: End of Holland Street, Birmingham; • Alternative 3B: Doyle Drive, Troy; • Alternative 4: East end of Lincoln Street, Birmingham; and • Alternative 5: No Build Alternative.

An initial screening process was used to limit those alternatives that would be studied further. The criteria used in the screening process involved the ability of the proposed alternatives to meet the project’s purpose and need, including providing multi-modal connections to the station, sufficiency of land to accommodate an expandable intermodal facility, providing passenger services and ample public parking, the ability to provide greater mobility options and linkages to major activity centers in both Birmingham and Troy, and the opportunity to stimulate transit-oriented development (TOD) in both Birmingham and Troy. 2.1 Alternatives Considered

The following provides a brief description of alternatives considered, as listed above and shown in Figure 2-1. Each of the alternative sites is described, as are the benefits and issues/concerns associated with locating the Intermodal Facility on the site. A summary of the evaluation criteria used is illustrated in Table 2-1 that follows the alternatives’ descriptions. The alternatives were rated using a point system of 0 to 5 points, with 5 being given to the alternatives that best met the criteria, and 0 points given to the alternatives that did not meet the criteria. Of a total of 35 possible points, a rating above 30 was initially considered acceptable.


Figure 2-1: Alternatives Considered


Alternative 1: Expand and Renovate the Existing Birmingham Train Station The existing site, located in Birmingham at the end of Villa Street, provides easy access to Eton Street. The existing station has poor visibility from the main streets and there is a severe shortage of parking. The existing station provides only four off-street parking spaces for users. The area surrounding the existing station has recently been redeveloped with four-story, mixed use buildings constructed within three feet of the existing station right-of-way. The development is fully occupied. Expansion and renovation would require the taking of this recently developed property to provide for adequate parking and construction of an intermodal facility building. The current traffic control is adequate, but significant physical modifications would be required to accommodate large volumes of vehicle traffic and to provide multi-modal connections. Additional directional signage would be needed to identify the station’s location. The site received a low rating (22 of 35 possible points) using the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). As a result, this alternative was dismissed. Alternative 2: Maple Road, Birmingham This site is located in Birmingham northwest of the existing Amtrak station, adjacent to and east of the CN Rail overpass, south of Maple Road. Approximately two acres in size, the site has frontage and good visibility from Maple Road. This parcel has been developed since its initial identification as an alternative location with an office building and a large surface parking lot. An existing cell tower and associated equipment is located immediately adjacent to the CN Rail right-of-way on this site in Birmingham. The site is located on a steep slope from the roadbed under the railroad overpass, sloping up to the railroad tracks. Given the slope and proximity to the overpass, driver sight distance at the existing driveway is very poor. The existing intersection would have to be completely reconfigured to provide appropriate sight distance and queuing storage for the large vehicles that need to access the site. The site would not allow for future expansion and requires major geometric improvements to access. Maple Road would need to be widened to accommodate buses in the vicinity of the rail overpass, and the community has already demonstrated intense opposition to the widening of Maple Road between Coolidge and Woodward Avenue. The newly constructed office building would require removal and its tenants relocated. In addition, a National Register Historic District, the Birmingham Grand Trunk Western Railroad Depot Historic District, is located on the west side of the CN Rail line, and the expansion of a platform with a covered canopy would have a significant visual impact on the Historic District. The site received a rating of 28 out of 35 points in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). As a result, this alternative was dismissed. Alternative 3A: End of Holland Street, Birmingham This site is located in Birmingham approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Amtrak stop, along the CN Rail line. The site is long and narrow and is approximately 2.5 acres in size. The site is not visible from Maple Road or Eton Road. The parcel is currently not occupied with a building, but there is significant outdoor storage of landscaping materials and equipment on the site. Access to the site is across a 12-foot wide easement on an adjacent lot owned by an automobile towing company.


Development of this site would require major investments in transportation improvements to provide appropriate access, including construction of new roads that would accommodate a significant increase in traffic volume as well as large buses. This location would provide only one access point to Eton Road. All traffic, including buses, would be routed through the multi-family mixed use development to the north (Eton Street Station) to gain access to Eton Road and Maple Road, severely affecting the community. The capacity of this single-lane frontage road may not be adequate for the additional site traffic. The existing intersection at Eton and Hazel and/or Villa Street would need to be reconstructed and signalized to accommodate the increased traffic into the Intermodal Facility. There is insufficient room to accommodate access roads, bus slips and queuing, as well as an Intermodal Facility with sufficient parking. The site received a rating of 23 points out of a possible 35 in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). As a result of the evaluation, this alternative was dismissed. Alternative 3B: Doyle Drive, Troy (Preferred Alternative) This site is located in the City of Troy, approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Amtrak stop in Birmingham and on the east side of the CN Railroad line. The 2.73-acre site is part of a 77-acre Brownfield redevelopment area owned by Grand Sakwa and is currently partially developed with a large surface parking lot. The site has been set aside in a Consent Agreement between the City of Troy and Grand Sakwa to be donated to the City of Troy for use to construct an Intermodal Facility. Thus, the land is essentially a private donation to the project and there would be no cost is associated with its transfer to the City of Troy. The site has adequate egress and ingress from Doyle Drive, which directly accesses Maple Road to the north at a signalized intersection and Coolidge Highway to the east. Sufficient room exists along Doyle Drive for bus stops and queuing, as well as the Intermodal Facility building. The parking facility would provide 116 spaces for users of the Intermodal Facility. The platform would be relocated from Birmingham to Troy, on the eastern side of the CN Railroad tracks, and CN would install appropriate track switch signals to provide access to the platform from the western track. A pedestrian bridge would be constructed over the tracks, connecting the station to the west side in Birmingham. Access to the pedestrian bridge would be provided by stairs and elevators on both sides of the tracks. All of the desired elements of the Intermodal Facility can be accommodated to meet the project’s purposes. Figure 2-2 in Section 2.2 shows the proposed development of this site. In the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). This site is identified as the Preferred Alternative by the City of Troy and MDOT and is carried forward for further evaluation. Alternative 4: East End of Lincoln Street, Birmingham This site is located in Birmingham approximately 3,000 feet south of the existing Amtrak station along the CN Rail line. The site is approximately six acres in size, and is not visible from Maple Road or Eton Street. The parcel is currently unoccupied, open and void of buildings. Access to the site is currently at the east end of East Lincoln Avenue. Although all of the desired elements of the Intermodal Facility can be accommodated to meet the project’s purposes on this site, development of the site would require major investments in


transportation improvements to provide a secondary access point to the site, provide circulation, queuing and bus stops, and provide on-site parking for patrons. These investments would include the reconstruction of existing roads and construction of new roads and parking facilities that would accommodate a significant increase in traffic volume from existing levels, as well as queuing for large buses. The capacity of the single-lane frontage road, Eton Street, may not be adequate for the additional site traffic. The existing intersection at Eton Street and East Lincoln Avenue would need to be reconstructed and signalized to accommodate the increased traffic volumes and large vehicles accessing the Intermodal Facility. This site received the second highest rating, 27 of 35 points, in the initial Screening Evaluation (see Table 2-1). Although this site scored an acceptable rating, the comparative complexity of access infrastructure needed between this alternative and Alternative 3B led to its dismissal. Alternative 5: No Build Alternative The No Action Alternative, hereafter referred to as the No Build Alternative, consists of routine maintenance and repairs to the existing road, rail and transit system. The existing station’s amenities were described previously under Alternative 1. No initiatives would be taken to develop intermodal-type facilities in the Project Area. The existing rail station would remain in use solely as an Amtrak station. The No Build Alternative would not improve the level and quality of passenger rail service in Birmingham and Troy; would not provide intermodal connections to rail passengers; would not provide additional parking for rail passengers, and would not contribute to economic growth within the region. Although the No Build Alternative does not meet the project’s purpose and need, this alternative is carried forward for detailed study to serve as a baseline for evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).


Table 2-1: Alternatives Screening Evaluation

Screen 1 Evaluation Criteria

Alternative 1 Expand & Renovate Existing

Birmingham Train Station

Alternative 2 Maple Road, Birmingham

Alternative 3A

End of Holland Street,

Birmingham

Alternative 3B

Doyle Drive, Troy

Alternative 4 East end of

Lincoln Street,

Birmingham

Alternative 5 No Build

Screen 1 Criteria Proximity to Employment Opportunities 5 5 5 5 5 0 Ability to Provide Multi-Modal Connections to Existing Transit Routes in Birmingham & Troy 2 4 3 3 3 0 Underutilized Land to Construct/Expand Transit Center with Passenger Services Adjacent to Rail 1 2 4 5 5 0 Available Land for Parking 2 2 2 5 5 0 Proximity to Retail and Other Major Trip Generators (within 1/2 mile)

3 5 3 5 3 0

Proximity to Major Roadways 4 5 4 4 3 0 Proximity to Existing Transit Routes 4 5 3 5 3 2

Total Rating 21 28 24 32 27 2 Recommendation Dismiss Dismiss Dismiss Retain Dismiss Retain*

Scoring Definition: 0 = Did Not Meet Criteria 5 = Best Met Criteria *The No-Build Alternative is retained as a baseline for comparison of alternatives.


2.2 Preferred Alternative Alternative 3B was chosen as the Preferred Alternative as it best meets the purpose and need of the study. Additionally, when compared to the other alternatives, it requires fewer major roadway improvements, does not require a large parking facility, provides land at no cost to the city, and provides the greatest potential for TOD in Troy. The Preferred Alternative (Figure 2-2) would be designed to maximize views from both Maple Road and Coolidge Highway making it easy to find, easy to access, and easy to facilitate transfers between travel modes. A large parking facility currently exists on site. The site would provide easy access for buses, including bus stop areas that would accommodate four full size buses, queuing space for four additional buses, and a hub connector service stop that accommodates a 20-foot long bus. The site would provide for drop off and pick up of passengers and a taxi queuing area. An approximately 2,500 square foot facility building would be constructed on the site to provide ticket sales, a large waiting room, public restrooms, and kiosk space for lease. A large plaza area and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant walkway would provide access from Troy down to a new boarding platform for access to the eastern rail line on which Amtrak will operate. The new Amtrak platform would be equipped with a wheelchair lift and is otherwise ADA compliant. The current Amtrak train service, three trains daily in each direction between Pontiac and Detroit, would continue at the new Troy location, and the existing station in Birmingham would close. No additional passenger rail service is anticipated at this time. SMART bus service would use the Intermodal Facility in Alternative 3B as a transit hub. Alternative 3B will improve existing connectivity by providing a new multi-modal center that will serve as a transfer point and coordination center for Amtrak intercity rail travel, regional SMART bus services, the new direct Hub Connector service, access to ground transportation to Detroit Metro Airport and Troy Oakland County Airport, and local transportation programs. The No Build Alternative is carried forward for further evaluation as well, to serve as a basis for comparison. Both the No Build Alternative and Alternative 3B were further evaluated for environmental benefits and impacts, socioeconomic factors, social equity and environmental justice factors, community goals and objectives, conceptual engineering issues, transportation benefits and impacts. Public perception was also considered. The results of this evaluation are provided in Section 3 of this EA.


Figure 2-2: Preferred Alternative Preliminary Design Insert 11x17 pdf of new design, with ramp directly to platform


Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

This section describes the existing conditions and potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative on the natural and built environment. This EA focuses only on those resources that would be affected by the Preferred Alternative, shown on Figure 2-2. The EA focuses on the following resource categories: transportation (including passenger and freight, by all modes, including automobile, mass transit, pedestrian and bicycle); air quality; noise and vibration; water quality; energy resources; ecological systems; threatened and endangered species; land use; socioeconomic environment; public health; commerce; potential barriers to the elderly or handicapped; environmental justice populations; cultural resources; aesthetics and design quality; public safety, including impacts of hazardous materials; and construction period impacts. This section also considers indirect and cumulative effects. There would be some unavoidable, short-term adverse impacts associated with the construction of the Intermodal Facility. However, these will be mitigated as set forth herein and the project would have numerous positive impacts on a number of the aforementioned categories. The project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The following resources are not located within the Study Area and therefore are not affected by the Preferred Alternative: solid waste disposal; wetland areas; flood hazards or floodplains; coastal zones; wildlife; other natural resources such as water, minerals, or timber; recreational opportunities; or Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) protected properties. Thus, effects on these resources are not evaluated in this document. Table 3-1 summarizes all of the potential environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative, based on the analysis provided in the sections following.


Table 3-1: Resources/Issues Considered and Impacts Identified

Resource/Issue Evaluated for Impacts Impact Comment/ Mitigation

Air quality Yes No Water quality Yes No Impacts minimized through use of green technologies Noise & Vibration Yes No Solid waste disposal Not present N/A Ecological systems Not present N/A Wetland areas Not present N/A Endangered species or wildlife Not present N/A Floodplains Not present N/A Coastal zone management Not present N/A Use of energy resources Yes No Minimized through resource conservation Use of other natural resources, such as water, minerals or timber Not present N/A Aesthetics and design quality Yes No Visual improvement over existing Impacts on transportation (all modes) in local, regional, national & international perspectives; including traffic congestion: Encourages transit ridership by providing linkages to existing transit Provides modal choices Provides transit access to services and attractions Improves motor vehicle, pedestrian & bicycle safety Roadway congestion & intersection operations

Yes

No

Moderate positive impact Moderate positive impact Moderate positive impact Minor positive impact Minor impact on surrounding roads and intersections

Possible barriers to the elderly and handicapped Yes No ADA-compliant facility Land use (existing & planned) Yes No Consistent with zoning and with Cities’ master plans Socioeconomic environment Yes No Likely to stimulate economic development Environmental justice Yes No Minor positive impact Public health Yes No Public safety, including impacts due to hazmats Yes No Recreational opportunities Not present N/A Locations of historic, archeological, architectural or cultural significance, including if applicable, consultation with the appropriate SHPO Yes No No effect on historic resources

Use of Section 4(f) protected properties Not present N/A

Indirect and Cumulative Effects Yes No Likely to promote TOD; encourages future transit development

Construction period impacts (temporary) Yes Yes Minimized through adherence to regulations for noise and air quality


3.1 Transportation

3.1.1 Rail Passenger and Freight Traffic

Existing Conditions The existing Amtrak service to the Birmingham Station consists of six trains daily, with three southbound (arriving from Pontiac & departing for Detroit) and three northbound (arriving from Detroit & departing for Pontiac) trains. Amtrak passenger service operates on the western track of the CN rail line mixed with freight trains on the same track. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact existing rail passenger or freight service. The Preferred Alternative site is located adjacent to the eastern rail track. CN Railroad has agreed (refer to the June 28, 2011 letter in the Appendix) to provide infrastructure improvements such as signaling relocation and upgrades, crossovers and turnouts as required to serve the new Troy station. In addition, although CN has plans to remove the eastern track, they would preserve a portion of sufficient length to serve as the station track for the transit center. Ongoing maintenance would be subject to future negotiation in a future operating agreement to be developed between MDOT and CN. As there are no plans to increase existing passenger service, passenger and freight rail would continue to operate on the existing western track, and installation of switching signals would allow for seamless service to the Troy station without affecting freight movement through the area.

3.1.2 Transit

Existing Conditions The Cities of Troy and Birmingham are currently served by a public transportation system consisting of bus service operated by SMART, Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT), and Amtrak rail service. SMART operates both fixed route and community transit service, which is curb to curb advanced reservation service designed to meet the special needs of people who cannot access SMART’s regular fixed route service. SMART operates 54 bus routes that serve Macomb, Wayne, and Oakland Counties. Average weekday ridership on the system overall is 37,000 passengers, and average weekly ridership including weekends brings that total to 200,000 passengers. Based on information provided by SMART, nearly 13 million people of all ages and incomes ride SMART buses annually. Almost 70 percent of SMART riders use the service to get to or from work and an additional 20 percent to commute to educational facilities. Nearly 40 percent of SMART riders do not have a car and over 41 percent of SMART riders have been a rider for five years or more (SMART, 2007). SMART Bus currently operates 18 fixed bus routes, nine each in Troy and Birmingham. Six of the nine Troy routes currently terminate or pass through the area near the proposed Intermodal Facility. These existing routes generate 209 trips daily in the vicinity of the proposed Intermodal Facility. Table 3-2 details the six routes that currently terminate or run through the area near the Preferred Alternative and the areas served:


Table 3-2. SMART Bus Routes that Would Serve the Preferred Alternative Route Communities Served Trips/Day

415 Berkley, Beverly Hills, Birmingham, Detroit, Oak Park, Royal Oak, Royal Oak Township, Southfield, Troy 42

420 Berkley, Beverly Hills, Birmingham, Detroit, Oak Park, Royal Oak, Royal Oak Township, Southfield, Troy 42

460 Berkley, Birmingham, Detroit, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Troy 65

465 Auburn Hills, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Detroit, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Pontiac, Royal Oak, Troy

12

475 Berkley, Birmingham, Detroit, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, Pleasant Ridge, Royal Oak, Troy 8

780 Birmingham, Bloomfield Township, Clawson, Clinton Township, Fraser, Roseville, St. Clair Shores, Sterling Heights, Troy, West Bloomfield Township

40

In addition, there are numerous taxi companies in Troy and Birmingham which provide services to the public, as well as Black Sedan service, and auto rental companies. However, the existing Amtrak Station does not have sufficient space to accommodate bus, taxi, or Black Sedan service at the facility. Future Planned and Proposed Services SMART has agreed to coordinate all nine Birmingham and Troy bus routes through the Intermodal Facility in the Preferred Alternative to provide enhanced local and regional connections. The City of Troy has also been working with Detroit Regional Mass Transit (DRMT), a regional effort between Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and the City of Detroit to develop a regional mass transit plan for the entire Detroit metropolitan area. The Intermodal Facility is included in the regional transit plan as one of ten regional transit hubs. This designation is important as all existing and all future transit services would provide connections to the Intermodal Facility, increasing the ease and convenience of travel for local residents and employees. In addition, designation as a regional hub would provide a brand new, direct Hub Connector Service between this Intermodal Facility and regional transit hubs in the cities of Sterling Heights, Roseville, Harper Woods, Detroit, Dearborn, Southfield, Taylor, State Fair Grounds (on the Wayne/Oakland County border), Plymouth and Flint, Michigan. The addition of a Hub Connector Service would add yet another travel option for users of the Intermodal Facility, as it would include direct routes to each of the above cities with service proposed every 15 minutes. The Hub Connector Service is anticipated to reduce the average travel time by 54 minutes when compared to existing bus routes for the trip between regional hubs. This represents a 50.8 percent improvement for hub to hub travel within the region. The City has also worked with Detroit Metro Airport and the Troy Oakland Airport to provide transit connections to both destinations. The Preferred Alternative is located approximately one-quarter mile west of the Troy Oakland Airport. Currently this airport handles small charter airplanes for private and corporate users and a flying school. The airport is capable of handling light jet service (air taxi) to other airports, including Detroit Metro Airport. The Preferred


Alternative would provide an essential transit connection between the Troy Oakland Airport and other modes of transit, including bus and rail services, Black Sedan (car for hire), and taxi connections to Detroit Metro Airport. Other transit services in Troy that are operated or sponsored by SMART, such as Dial-A-Ride, Job Express, Oakland Mall Job Shuttle and Troy Medi-Go Plus, could also be benefited by providing service to the Intermodal Facility. The transit hub would provide a convenient location for these services to pick up/deliver passengers. SMART also provides ADA Paratransit services for persons with disabilities who are unable to use SMART’s regular fixed route bus service. Every Community Transit/Connector vehicle is wheelchair lift-equipped. This service provides curb-to-curb transportation and covers the same areas, times, and transfers as SMART fixed route services, which will include the routes that would terminate or pass through the Intermodal Facility. The Preferred Alternative building and site would provide opportunities for shared or rental bicycle services. All SMART fixed route buses are being equipped with an industry standard bike rack that is reliable, easy to use, and quickly secures up to two bicycles. These racks would allow passengers to switch transportation modes quickly and easily. The Intermodal Facility would also provide secure storage areas for bicycles, and a bicycle rental/share program is proposed. There are several bike paths and trails available in the City of Troy that would provide bicycle connections from the Preferred Alternative to the surrounding area. A pedestrian bridge would be provided to provide access from the station to the Birmingham (west) side of the CN tracks. In addition, the Preferred Alternative would significantly enhance user mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation options for travelers, including the following:

• Providing services and amenities, including extensive parking, to rail travelers between Pontiac, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois via Detroit on existing Amtrak routes;

• Providing access for the entire region to rail travel options through new connections with local and regional bus routes that would run through the Intermodal Facility, with rail connections to destinations across the state and country;

• Providing a brand new, direct, Hub Connector Service between this Intermodal Facility and Sterling Heights, Roseville, Harper Woods, Rosa Parks Intermodal Facility in Detroit, Dearborn, Southfield, Taylor, State Fair Grounds (Wayne/Oakland County border), Plymouth and Flint, Michigan;

• Providing new connections to eastbound Amtrak trains out of Toledo, Ohio; • Providing new connections to Detroit Metro Airport and Oakland County Airport through

a taxi and Black Sedan service hub on site; and • Providing car and bike rental options for short distance travel.

Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact existing transit. The existing Amtrak Station does not currently provide for the inclusion of bus, taxi, or Black Sedan and is unable to accommodate it given the limited size and functionality of this facility. Under the No Build Alternative, transportation options and regional connectivity would not be enhanced.


The Preferred Alternative would affect existing bus transit in the area by rerouting existing services to serve the Intermodal Facility, resulting in a small change in travel patterns for bus passengers. The parking lot in Troy would be reconfigured to accommodate a driveway to allow the addition of bus slips along Doyle Drive. Once the station is completed, SMART would begin to reroute some of the fixed route buses to serve the new Intermodal Facility. Changes to the fixed route bus lines to serve the Intermodal Facility have not been determined, but would likely create a negligible change in travel pattern for the commuter. SMART does not plan to develop new routes, only adapt existing routes to serve the Intermodal Facility while likely keeping existing bus stop locations the same. The Preferred Alternative would provide a year-round, 24-hour facility that would link commuter and high speed rail transit with bus, taxi and Black Sedan service. The Preferred Alternative would provide a new intermodal facility that would be open 24 hours a day and would provide positive benefits for commuters. The Intermodal Facility would support a TOD district for Troy; future residents and businesses would utilize the connection to rail, bus and van service. The Preferred Alternative would positively impact the current Amtrak ridership statistics, as the new facility would provide enhanced services and conveniences and facilitate improved ridership. The impact of the Preferred Alternative on transit would be positive, as the new Intermodal Facility would provide better linkages for public transit commuters to destinations locally, regionally, and outside the state on existing and new transit alternatives.

3.1.3 Traffic and Parking

Traffic The impacts of the Preferred Alternative on the surrounding roadway network were evaluated for years 2007, 2012, 2017, 2022, and 2027. The site is located along Doyle Drive, approximately 1,500 feet south of the intersection of Doyle Drive and Maple Road and approximately 1,300 feet west of the intersection of Doyle Drive and Coolidge Road. The site would feature two-way internal circulation for bus service adjacent to the Intermodal Facility on Doyle Drive and pick up/drop off activity at the Intermodal Facility. Existing Conditions Existing year 2007 peak hour traffic conditions were evaluated for the Study Area intersections and roadways of Maple Road, Coolidge Highway, Adams Road and 14 Mile Road. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes vary from a low of 13,571 vehicles per day (vpd) on Adams Road to a high of 32,435 vpd on Coolidge Highway. Weekday traffic peak hours occur from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The Study Area includes five existing intersections, shown in Figure 3-1:

• Maple Road at Adams Road – signalized • Maple Road at Doyle Drive – signalized • Maple Road at Coolidge Highway – signalized • Doyle Drive at Coolidge Highway – unsignalized • 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway – signalized


Figure 3-1: Study Area Intersections Evaluated


The studied intersections were analyzed using the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to identify the Level-of-Service (LOS) and overall delays for the Study Area intersections. LOS is a term used to denote different operating conditions which occur at a given intersection under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors including intersection geometrics, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver and safety. LOS provides an index to the operational qualities of an intersection as perceived by motorists. LOS A represents the best operating conditions while LOS F represents the worst. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable. Under existing conditions the following three signalized Study Area intersections operate at an overall failing LOS (E or F) during the AM or PM peak hour:

• Maple Road at Adams Road (PM peak hour) • Maple Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour), and • 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway (PM peak hour);

and the signalized intersection at Maple Road and Doyle Drive operates at LOS A during the AM peak and at LOS B during PM peak hours. Under existing conditions, each of the four signalized intersections have some critical movements that will operate at a failing LOS. The critical movement at the unsignalized intersection of Coolidge Highway and Doyle Drive operates at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better). The signalized intersections in the Study Area operate poorly under current conditions largely because peak hour volumes exceed the existing capacity. This problem is exacerbated by the number of conflicting movements. These intersections are located on roadways which are classified as arterials and function as major east-west or north-south connectors in this area. The intersection of two major roadways results in conflicting movements and high demand for green time, leading to delays. Impacts The No Build Alternative considers traffic growth that would occur over time for the future conditions in 2012, 2017, 2022 and 2027. Forecasted traffic volume data was obtained from SEMCOG. Traffic volumes on Study Area roadways are anticipated to remain stagnant over the next 20 years. For a more conservative analysis, the existing peak hour traffic volumes were increased by 1.25 percent annually to reflect background traffic growth on the roadways. Results of the No-Build analyses indicate the following three Study Area intersections would continue to operate at an overall failing LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour in all future analysis years:

• Maple Road at Adams Road (PM peak hour), • Maple Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour), and • 14 Mile Road at Coolidge Highway (AM and PM peak hour).

All four signalized intersections, including Maple Road at Doyle Drive, have critical movements that are projected to continue to operate poorly. The critical movement at the unsignalized intersection of Coolidge Highway and Doyle Drive is projected to operate at acceptable levels


during the 2012 and 2017 conditions but would operate at an overall failing LOS in 2022 and 2027 conditions. For the Preferred Alternative, results of the traffic analyses indicate that with the proposed Intermodal Facility, traffic operations at the Study Area intersections are anticipated to be similar to operations under the No-Build conditions. The Preferred Alternative is projected to generate the following weekday peak hour trips during the AM and PM peak hours based on the estimated number of rail and bus passengers that would arrive by vehicle and the number of buses that would access the site (SMART and MDOT projections):

• 2012 – 91 vehicles per hour (vph), • 2017 – 122 vph, • 2022 – 159 vph, and • 2027 – 201 vph.

Under the Preferred Alternative, the same three Study Area intersections are projected to operate at an overall failing LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour. Also, all Study Area intersections would have the same critical movements operate poorly under the Preferred Alternative with the sole proposed addition of the westbound left turn movement (Maple Road westbound to Adams Road southbound) at the intersection of Maple Road and Adams Road during the AM peak hour (LOS E). Traffic operations at the site access points are expected to be adequate during both peak hours. Thus, operational inefficiencies at the Study Area intersections would not result from the proposed Intermodal Facility traffic, but as a result of existing traffic growth that naturally occurs over a period of time. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to increase congestion or decrease the LOS at Study Area intersections. Mitigation Though improvements are not warranted to address traffic impacts that would result from completion of the Preferred Alternative, mitigation measures were identified and evaluated to determine what improvements would address the operational inefficiencies that result from the existing and future projected travel demand. The improvements identified include signal timing modifications, addition of a traffic signal at the unsignalized intersection, and construction of exclusive left turn lanes at select locations. Mitigation measures would be implemented based on actual traffic growth in the future. Modifications to traffic signal timings can be made in real-time due to the adaptive signal system in place. Physical improvements (i.e. new traffic signal and turn lanes) would be implemented if operational inefficiencies are realized in the future. Parking Existing Conditions The existing parking lot on the Preferred Alternative site adjacent to Doyle Drive provides 125 regular spaces and five ADA compliant handicap spaces. This parking lot was constructed in anticipation of the Intermodal Facility when the Midtown Shopping Plaza was constructed in 2000 and is not currently used. However, these parking spaces are not currently accessible to the existing Amtrak station, as no crossing is available in this vicinity to connect the parking area


and the existing Birmingham station. There are four parking spaces at the existing Birmingham Station. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact parking. The existing parking lot would continue to be unused. The Preferred Alternative would include a total of 116 parking spaces reserved for the Intermodal Facility users. Seven new handicap spaces and two new spaces for electric car charging are proposed north of the Intermodal Facility building. Based on traffic and ridership projections, there would be ample parking for intercity rail passengers with additional spaces for future rail passenger expansion. Projected parking forecasts for future build years indicate a need for spaces for 42 cars daily in 2012 up to 94 cars daily by 2027. The existing parking lot area on the site would also allow for consideration of a parking deck in the future if needed. 3.2 Physical Environment

3.2.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Anthropogenic sources of air pollutants include both mobile and stationary sources often from combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, diesel, or gasoline. The principal factors affecting air pollutant concentrations with respect to transportation projects are the amount of traffic, the type of vehicle and fuel used, and vehicle emission rates. In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. These are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Areas that do not meet the standards for these pollutants are designated as nonattainment and states must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve the air quality in these areas and bring them into attainment by specific deadlines set by the EPA. Federal agencies responsible for an action occurring in nonattainment areas are required to determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP. The General Conformity regulations under 40 CFR Part 93 consist of the following two parts and detail the requirements for determining whether or not a proposed action conforms to a SIP:

• Transportation Conformity - Transportation projects developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A]; and

• General Conformity - Other proposed actions not developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B].

The proposed alternative covered by this EA does not fall under Transportation Conformity requirements. No funding assistance or approval is being provided through the Federal Aid Highway program or the Federal mass transit program for the proposed action; only the General Conformity requirements must be considered when evaluating the proposed action.


General Conformity General Conformity was established under section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act. The purpose of the General Conformity Rule was to provide states a tool to help improve air quality in areas that do not meet the NAAQS. Under the General Conformity Rule, federal actions that occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area must conform to the air quality plans established in the applicable SIP. The Conformity rule ensures:

• Federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violation of NAAQS; • Actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violations of or contribute to new

violations the NAAQS; and • Attainment of the NAAQSs is not delayed.

Existing Air Quality of the Project Area The Proposed Action is planned to occur in the cities of Birmingham and Troy which are both located in Oakland County. Oakland County is in attainment for NO2, SO2, CO, lead and coarse particulate matter (PM10). The County is in maintenance for ozone and nonattainment for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In 2005, Oakland County was designated part of a seven-county nonattainment area for the annual and 24-hour daily PM2.5 standards. In 2008, MDNRE submitted a SIP to EPA detailing its strategy for attaining the annual standard. The plan has been implemented and monitoring data indicates that the entire seven-county area is in compliance with the annual PM2.5 standard and 24-hour daily PM2.5 standard. MDNRE has requested the counties be redesignated as in attainment for PM2.5. However, since the County has not been redesignated as attainment, Oakland County is still considered in nonattainment for PM2.5. No Build Alternative Under the No Build Alternative, the only actions that would occur at the existing station would be routine maintenance and repair of the facility. Since these routine actions would not increase existing air emissions, the No-Build Alternative would not impact regional or local air quality. Preferred Alternative Under the Preferred Alternative, the existing Birmingham train station will be closed and a new platform and parking lot will be built approximately 1,200 feet to the south. The new facility will provide both better service for train riders as well as various transit services that were not available at the existing station. The new station will include new bus slips as well as a place for taxis/sedan service. To ensure that constructions activities and the increase in transit traffic in the area do not affect the surrounding air quality, an emission analysis was conducted for the Preferred Alternative. The four sources of air quality emissions analyzed as part of this EA include SMART bus operations, taxi/sedan services, construction activities, and fugitive emissions. SMART bus and taxi/sedan emissions were analyzed based on information provided from the City of Troy regarding the additional vehicle miles traveled and number of SMART bus and taxi/sedan service trips to the proposed station. The increase in transit vehicles at the new Troy


station would cause only a minor increase in air quality emissions because of the relatively small increase in additional miles traveled by buses and taxi/sedans to the new station (see Table 3-3).

Table 3-3: SMART Bus and Taxi /Sedan Service Emissions

Pollutant Emissions (tons/yr) SMART Bus Taxi/Sedan Service Totals

CO 0.06 0.03 0.09 NOx 0.08 0.003 0.08 PM10 0.002 2.65E-05 0.002 PM2.5 0.002 2.12E-05 0.002 VOC 0.003 0.002 0.006

Emissions from the proposed DRMT hub could not be estimated since the DRMT hub is still in the initial planning phase and does not yet exist. In addition, emissions could not be estimated for the curb to curb transportation services because there are no fixed routes with these buses. Emissions from construction activities, including equipment operation and the hauling of material, will result in a temporary increase of emissions and are accounted for in this analysis (see Table 3-4). Construction emissions were estimated based on an assumed mix of construction equipment operating during facility construction for a specific length of time. Since the construction plan is not complete, broad assumptions were made in determining the type and amount of equipment as well as the estimated length of construction. For details of the construction emission analysis, refer to Appendix A.

Table 3-4: Construction and Fugitive Emissions Estimate

Pollutant Emissions (tons/yr) Construction Fugitive Totals

CO 4.10 N/A 4.10 NOx 7.58 N/A 7.58 PM10 0.68 7.71 8.39 PM2.5 0.60 0.77 1.37 SO2 0.27 N/A 0.27 VOC 0.70 N/A 0.70

PM10 emissions from construction equipment that will travel on unpaved roads and surfaces during construction were estimated based on the acreage of disturbed land and months of activity. PM2.5 emissions were calculated by using a multiplier to infer PM2.5 emissions from PM10 emissions. Emissions that do result from construction dust associated with exposed soils would be controlled, if necessary, with the application of water or other approved dust palliatives. Total Emissions by Year To determine whether or not a General Conformity determination was required, the results of the emissions estimates for the various portions of the proposed action were compiled on a yearly basis and compared to the General Conformity de minimis thresholds (see Table 3-5). The assumption was made all construction would occur in Year 1 with the balance of emissions for the year comprised of emissions from the bus and taxi/sedan vehicles. The out years (e.g.,


Year 2 and beyond) would consist only of emissions from the bus and taxi/sedan vehicles; no attempt was made to scale these emissions to account for the change in ridership or alternative bus/taxi/sedan schedules. Table 3-5: Estimated Emissions from the Preferred Alternative by Year

Year Emissions (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC Year 1 4.13 7.60 8.39 1.37 0.27 0.7 Year 2 and beyond 0.09 0.08 0.002 0.002 - 0.006

Table 3-6 provides a comparison of estimated emissions for Year 1 (the year during which the greatest emissions are expected to occur) to the de minimis thresholds. The comparison shows that the Preferred Alternative would not require a formal conformity determination because projected emission levels would be below the applicable de minimis thresholds. It is expected, therefore, any impacts on air quality would not be significant.

Table 3-6: Proposed Action Peak Year Comparison for Preferred Alternative

Pollutant Year 1 Emissions (tons/year)

de minimis Threshold (tons/year)

NOx 7.60 100 VOC 0.71 100 PM2.5 1.37 100 Note: Year 1 represents the year with the greatest potential to produce the most emissions from the Proposed Action.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Alternative would have no significant impact on current or future air quality standard based on the analysis performed as part of this EA. The analysis shows the increase in emissions from increased bus and taxi/sedan service is relatively low and the emissions from construction activities are of short duration. In addition, the proposed alternative does not have the potential to cause the area to exceed the NAAQS, lead to the establishment of a new nonattainment area, or delay achievement of standard attainment.

3.2.2 Noise and Vibration

Existing Conditions Noise and vibration impacts were assessed in accordance with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) guidelines set forth in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 1996), which FRA relies upon for assessing impacts from passenger rail projects of this nature. Traffic noise is unwanted sound that is a function of the volume and speed of traffic. An important consideration in noise analysis is the proximity of noise-sensitive receptors to the source of the noise. These receptors are stationary far-field positions at which noise or vibration levels are specified. They are important because the receptors predict whether or not the specified noise limits will be exceeded. Should these limits be exceeded, mitigation measures and a demonstration of the expected noise reductions resulting from these measures would be


included in construction plans. Vibration refers to the ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. For people living near a transit route, the rumbling sound and vibration from passing trains may permeate an entire building and may be extremely annoying for occupants. A screening was completed to identify potential noise and/or vibration sensitive land uses within the Study Area. Land uses in the Study Area are mostly commercial and business, and are not noise or vibration sensitive. Some residential develop abuts the Study Area in Troy (Midtown Square); however, this area is beyond the range of influence for noise and vibration impacts Impacts The No Build Alternative would not cause noise or vibration impacts to sensitive receptors in the Study Area. Equipment operation and the hauling of material could result in temporarily increased noise and vibration during construction activities. These activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM Monday through Friday as permitted by City ordinances. Increased noise and vibration levels would be short term, occurring only during construction periods. After construction is completed, the Preferred Alternative would not have adverse effects on noise or vibration levels in the Study Area.

3.2.3 Hydrology and Water Quality

Existing Conditions The Preferred Alternative lies entirely within the Twelve Towns Drain Area, a subwatershed of the Clinton River drainage basin. There are no streams or wetlands located within the Preferred Alternative site or affected directly by the construction of the Intermodal Facility. The Twelve Towns Drain Area is a combined sewer system. Normal dry weather flow discharges to the Dequindre Interceptor, from where it is routed to the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) for treatment. When certain wet weather conditions occur, flows are routed to the George W Kuhn Drainage District CSO Retention Treatment Basin (completed in 2007) where it is retained until it can be rerouted to the DWSD. In instances where flows exceed the retention treatment basin’s capacity, flows are treated and discharged to the Red Run Drain. The Red Run Drain is a 12.7 mile long tributary to the Clinton River. From the confluence of the Red Run Drain, the Clinton River runs approximately 16.7 miles east and discharges to Lake St. Clair. The Preferred Alternative lies within the Midtown Square Shopping Center site. Separate storm sewers and a storm water detention basin were constructed for the shopping center in 2000; the design included provisions for future development of the Intermodal Facility and is adequate for the future facility. The area drains to the Twelve Towns Drain on Coolidge Highway. The existing impervious area for the site is currently developed to 46 percent of its design capacity. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact the existing sewer and stormwater drainage systems, and the directly-measured overall impervious surface area of the site would not increase.


The Preferred Alternative would not have a direct impact on the Twelve Towns Drainage system nor the George W Kuhn Drainage District CSO Retention Treatment Basin as these systems were designed to accept flows from the project area and the Midtown Square Shopping Center’s storm water detention basin. Following construction of the Preferred Alternative, the directly-measured overall impervious surface area of the site would increase from 46 percent to 71 percent of its design capacity. Any water quality impacts that may result from this increase should be minimal and can be adequately mitigated with stormwater management best management practices (BMPs) that would be included during final design. Mitigation To mitigate the increase in impervious surface area resulting from construction of the Preferred Alternative, a number of measures would be employed throughout the project area for both the facility building and parking areas. These measures will effectively reduce the imperviousness by decreasing the peak runoff rate and volume from the site and improving surface water quality as compared to existing conditions. These include the use of a green roof system on the facility building, rain gardens, underdrains, and rainwater recycling. During construction, specific environmental control methods would be employed to minimize water quality impacts. Soil erosion would be minimized by wetting down construction areas, installing soil erosion control measures, seeding disturbed land areas, and covering haul trucks in accordance with City ordinances and Michigan laws. Sediment and erosion control measures would be used to minimize any water quality impacts during construction in accordance with the Troy Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance requirements.

3.2.4 Energy Conservation and Use

Existing Conditions The Preferred Alternative location currently has a paved parking lot with lighting on the northwest end of the property. Energy is needed to operate the lights that are on continuously from dusk to dawn. There are no buildings or other facilities on the site that use energy resources. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact energy conservation or use. The Preferred Alternative would minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of development and other activities through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials, systems and techniques. The Preferred Alternative would also encourage mode-shift to transit options through increased connectivity and non-motorized transportation opportunities provided through various pathways and links as well as storage and rental of bicycles, rollerblades, skateboards, and new emerging types of personal transportation, which would potentially reduce energy consumption.


3.3 Ecological Environment

3.3.1 Terrestrial Resources

Existing Conditions The Preferred Alternative parcel includes an open mowed grass area adjacent to Doyle Drive and an existing parking lot to the north. The parcel is surrounded by a mixed-use development with large retail stores and a nearby condominium community. Trees throughout the site are the result of the shopping center development landscaping that took place in 2000. There is also an area of unimproved right-of-way that is scrub/shrub and grass-type vegetation. Field observations to ascertain the presence of high-quality habitat were conducted in early spring 2010; no species of significance were observed. It is important to note that there have been numerous coyote sightings along the rail corridor. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect terrestrial resources. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would impact terrestrial resources in the Study Area because it would involve only the removal of an open mowed area. This impact would be minor given the previously disturbed character of the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative.

3.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

Existing Conditions A review of the readily available and accessible data from Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) data was performed. The following is a summary of the results from the MNFI for the Project Area: Watershed Name: Clinton HUC ID: 04090003010150 Scientific Name Common Name State Status Global Rank State Rank Angelica venenosa Hairy angelica SC G5 S3 Arabis missouriensis var. deamii Missouri rock-cress SC G5 S2 Asclepias sullivantii Sullivant's milkweed T G5 S2 Carex lupuliformis False hop sedge T G4 S2 Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle T G5 S2 Galearis spectabilis Showy orchis T G5 S2 Scirpus clintonii Clinton's bulrush SC G4 S3 T= Threatened SC= Special Concern G4= Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range G5 = Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range S2 = Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because

of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state S3= Rare or uncommon in state (on the order of 21 to 100 occurrences).


During the field observations conducted in early spring 2010, no listed species or other species of significance were observed. The Preferred Alternative is located on a parking lot and an area of mowed turf. The likelihood of any occurrence of the plant species listed above is very small. In addition, it is unlikely that any amphibians would be utilizing the mowed turf and/or paved parking lot for habitat. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact the listed species. As a result of observations and analysis, it is concluded that the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on known species of concern at the locations specified. Consequently, construction of the Preferred Alternative would have no impact on threatened and endangered species in the Study Area. 3.4 Land Use

3.4.1 General Land Use and Zoning

Existing Conditions Land Use The existing land use of Preferred Alternative site is paved parking with a small open mowed grass area. The area that surrounds the Preferred Alternative site contains a mix of uses with large retail stores and a condominium community; the CN railway right-of way adjoins the western boundary. There are two sets of CN tracks within the right-of-way. The Troy Oakland Airport and industrial facilities are to the east of the retail development. The existing Amtrak station is located in Birmingham, on the west side of the tracks, approximately 1,200 feet north of the Preferred Alternative site. The station consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus type shelter. Zoning The City of Troy adopted its new Zoning Ordinance on April 28, 2011. Under the new ordinance, the 2.7-acre Preferred Alternative site is zoned IB, Integrated Industrial Business District, with a transit facility such as the Intermodal Facility listed as a permitted use. The CN Railway right-of-way serves as the western boundary of the site as well as the boundary between the Cities of Troy and Birmingham. The adjacent surrounding zoning designation is IB, with IB, MR Maple Road – multi-family residential using form-based codes, and MR – mutli-family residential to the north and east. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect land use or zoning. The Preferred Alternative would not impact land use or zoning. Construction of the centralized intermodal facility would support surrounding land uses. The proposed facility would benefit the area by providing a transportation hub that would centralize Amtrak service, local bus service, and taxi services.


3.4.2 Consistency with Local Plans

Existing Conditions The City of Troy Master Plan, adopted in October 2008, identifies the Troy Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility as the Troy-Birmingham Transit Center. According to the Master Plan, the surrounding area is described as mixed use made up of a complementary combination of residential, commercial, and service-oriented land uses. The Red Run Watershed Management Plan (WMP; 2006) goals include 1) Protect, restore and enhance water quality of the Red Run watershed; and 2) Reduce runoff impacts through sustainable storm water management. Impacts The No Build Alternative is not inconsistent with local plans. The Preferred Alternative is consistent with local plans. In addition to meeting the goals of the City of Troy Master Plan in supporting growth and development in the surrounding area, the new Intermodal Facility would also support the goals of the WMP through the implementation of BMPs and sustainable station design.

3.4.3 Utilities

Existing Conditions The utilities within the project area include natural gas, International Transmission Company electric transmission lines overhead, and underground telecommunication lines within the Canadian National Railroad right-of-way. Overhead electric lines, telecommunication lines, underground electric service lines, sanitary, storm sewer and water lines are located on the site. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact any utilities. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require relocation of an underground telecommunication line in the CN right-of-way, relocation of overhead electric and telecommunication lines, and taps to existing sanitary, storm sewer and water within the Midtown Square shopping center in Troy. No major impacts to utilities or utility corridors are anticipated. Utility customers will be informed of the scheduled work times, and, although no outages are anticipated, emergency measures will be developed in case of interruption of service. 3.5 Social and Economic Environment

3.5.1 Community Facilities

Existing Conditions A number of community facilities and services are found within the Project Area; however, there are no community facilities, including parks and other Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties, located within the Study Area or that would be affected by the construction of the Intermodal Facility.


Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect community facilities. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not affect any community facilities. Emergency response time would not be affected by the Preferred Alternative.

3.5.2 Demographics

Existing Conditions Demographics include a description of population and housing characteristics in the Study Area. The Preferred Alternative lies within an area zoned for business, light industrial, commercial, and residential uses in Troy (see Section 3.4.1). Nearby residences include the Village at Midtown Square townhomes in the southeast quadrant of Maple Road and Doyle Drive in Troy. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact population or housing. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not displace any businesses or residences and would not adversely affect the demographics of the Study Area. Businesses in the area would benefit from the more efficient transportation of people as a result of the Intermodal Facility. Population trends would continue with or without the proposed Intermodal Facility.

3.5.3 Economic Resources

Existing Conditions The following section provides a description of economic indicators within the Study Area. Per Capita Income According to the 2000 U.S. Census, per capita income in Troy in 2000 was $35,936. Per capita income for Oakland County was $32,534 and for the State of Michigan was $22,168. Employment According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the majority of workers in Troy (54.8%) were in management, professional and related occupations (Table 3-7). The proportions of persons in similar occupations were less in both Oakland County (44.6%) and the State of Michigan (31.5%). Major employers in Troy include Flagstar Bank, William Beaumont Hospital, Delphi Automotive Systems, Troy School District and Kelly Services, Inc. (Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services, 2009).


Table 3-7: Occupations Occupation State of

Michigan Oakland County

City of Troy

Management, professional and related occupations 31.5% 44.6% 54.8%

Service occupations 14.8% 10.7% 8.4% Sales and office occupations 25.6% 26.8% 25.3% Farming, fishing and forestry occupations 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 9.2% 6.9% 4.3%

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 18.5% 10.9% 7.2%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000. The unemployment rate in Troy in 2000 was 2.3%. As a comparison, unemployment in Oakland County was 2.5% and in the State of Michigan was 3.7%. Beginning in 2008, unemployment rates have dramatically increased in the local area and the State of Michigan in light of the national recession. Table 3-8 illustrates the 2000 and existing levels of unemployment in the area. Current predictions have indicated that unemployment rates have stabilized and are expected to decrease slowly over the next several years.

Table 3-8: Unemployment Rates Year State of Michigan Oakland County City of Troy 2000 3.7% 2.5% 2.3% 2010 15.8%1 10.6%1 13.2%2

Sources: 1. Michigan Department of Labor (2010) 2. www.city-data.com (2010) 3. www.bestplaces.net (2010)

Impacts The No Build Alternative would have no impact on economic resources. The Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect economic resources in the Project Area. No businesses or government services would be displaced or otherwise adversely affected. It is anticipated that construction of the Preferred Alternative would provide new jobs during construction and during operation of the facility and would stimulate investment in new commercial ventures adjacent to the Intermodal Facility. This would improve the Troy economy by providing additional tax base and employment opportunities.

3.5.4 Community Cohesion

Existing Conditions The location of the Preferred Alternative for the proposed Intermodal Facility site is on parcels of underutilized land. At present, it serves no community function and does not provide any special benefit to the local businesses or residents.

http://www.city-data.com/

http://www.bestplaces.net/


In Troy, the Village at Midtown Square is a condominium complex of 295 residential units located north of the Preferred Alternative site, west of Coolidge Highway and south of Maple Road. This residential complex is a part of the Brownfields redevelopment site. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not change existing community cohesion patterns. The No Build Alternative would not result in increased opportunities for community cohesion through increased connectivity. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not affect the existing community in the Village at Midtown Square. The residential area of Midtown Square would be within a walkable distance of the Intermodal Facility, providing residents easy access to all modes of transportation. The location of the Preferred Alternative would provide walkable access to the commercial areas of Midtown Square. There would be no adverse effects to community cohesion.

3.5.5 Safety and Security

Existing Conditions The existing Amtrak station is located in Birmingham, on the west side of the tracks, north of the Preferred Alternative. The station consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus type shelter; it offers no rail passenger services and does not connect to any other public transportation systems. There are disembarking platforms between the tracks that may be used for passenger trains operating on the eastern track; Amtrak uses the westerly track, adjacent to the platform, to serve the station. The easterly track is used for freight traffic. There have been no train-related crashes within the vicinity of the existing station or the Preferred Alternative (SEMCOG). Impacts The No Build Alternative would not alter safety conditions associated with the existing Birmingham Amtrak station. In the event that passengers are discharged to the platform in between the tracks, they would have to cross the tracks to reach the station, which is a safety issue. Safety elements and ADA compliance would be incorporated into the design of the Preferred Alternative. A new Amtrak platform would be constructed on the east side of the CN Railroad, and passenger service would be provided on the easterly track using either track switches or a turnout. CN would provide the appropriate switching service so that passenger trains can safely stop at the Intermodal Facility for alighting and boarding passengers. It is anticipated that freight trains would be routed onto the westerly track during scheduled passenger dwell times. Access to the platform would be provided by barrier-free ramps and stairs. Design elements intended to improve safety and accessibility include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, horizontal landing areas, benches, and radiant heat under ramps to melt ice and snow during winter months. Security cameras would be installed throughout the facility, parking areas, and on the platform. The passenger platform would be enhanced by the addition of a large canopy, shielded on four sides, to protect users from the elements and to provide a sense of security.


New 8-foot high fencing would be installed to prevent pedestrian access to the railroad tracks, except in the designated platform area. Doyle Drive would be restriped to provide a bike lane on one side to provide a safe path for bicyclists traveling to and from the Intermodal Facility. The bike lane would provide a linkage between existing bicycle routes, and the Intermodal Facility would provide bicycle racks for commuters using this form of transportation. Security would also be provided by regular ongoing police patrol. Emergency phones are planned within the Intermodal Facility building. Pedestrian scale lighting is planned for the inside and outside of the Intermodal Facility building, throughout the parking area, and around the passenger platform area. The increased police presence, cameras, lighting and phones would ensure that the Intermodal Facility is safe and secure for all of its users.

3.5.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped

Existing Conditions The existing Amtrak station in Birmingham consists of a concrete platform with a simple bus type shelter. The existing station offers no services and does not connect to any other public transportation systems. Access to the platform is provided by stairs and a handicapped accessible ramp. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not alter conditions associated with the existing Birmingham Amtrak station, and thus would not provide any additional improvements for or eliminate existing barriers to access and use by the elderly and the handicapped. The Preferred Alternative would improve accessibility for both the elderly and the handicapped. Designated ADA compliant parking spaces would be provided to assure the availability of parking and decrease the distance for elderly and disabled passengers to travel to the train platform. Access to the platform would be provided by both barrier-free ramps and stairs, and lifts will be provided from the platform to board the trains. The pedestrian bridge would beaccessible by elevators on both sides of the tracks. Additional design elements in the Preferred Alternative intended to improve safety and accessibility for all users, particularly the elderly and handicapped, include pedestrian scale lighting, hand rails, horizontal landing areas for rest along barrier-free ramps, benches, and radiant heat under the ramp to melt ice and snow during winter months to reduce slip and fall incidents. The Intermodal Facility would be designed to facilitate use by the elderly and the handicapped. 3.6 Environmental Justice

The policy on nondiscrimination in all federally funded activities formally began with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Section 601 of Title VI requires that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance.”


Further guidance was provided in 1994 with Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The intent of the Executive Order is to identify and avoid disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Existing Conditions Data from the 2000 Census was used to determine the presence of minority and low-income populations within the Project Area. According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), minorities are defined as the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic (1997). Analysis of the data indicates that, at the block level, there are no minority populations greater than 14.4 percent within the Project Area, which is roughly equivalent to the percent minority of the surrounding area of the City of Troy (13.2 percent) but slightly higher than that of Oakland County (10.1 percent). Economic data from the 2000 Census indicated that there is a small percentage (3.2 percent) of the population below the poverty level within the Project Area. However, this percentage is below that of Oakland County (3.8 percent) and higher than for the City of Troy (2.7 percent). Additionally, a review of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority directory of subsidized housing indicates there is no such housing in the Study Area. Public Involvement The planning and development of the Intermodal Facility began as a collaborative effort between the Cities of Troy and Birmingham and the Troy and Birmingham-Bloomfield Chambers of Commerce. The two planning bodies have held numerous joint public meetings on the proposed Intermodal Facility and the Intermodal Facility District that was jointly established. All of these meetings were open to the public. Public participation was encouraged by advertising through social media and websites, direct mailings to local residents, traditional media coverage and press releases. The meetings have been accessible by public bus (existing bus routes on East Maple and Lincoln Roads) and bike routes with ADA accessible sidewalks to all meeting locations. In all cases, members of the public were present and participated in the discussion. A two-day charrette, open to the public, was held on June 15-16, 2009 in Birmingham and Troy. Admission to the charrette was free, and light food and beverages were also provided to attendees throughout, free of charge. This public input process was designed to inform the public about the planning efforts for the Intermodal Facility and the Intermodal Facility District and to solicit public input on the proposed Intermodal Facility location and on the future development of the area surrounding the proposed location. The charrette was held adjacent to the existing Amtrak station, and was publicized through the same means as the meetings described above. The charrette was held in an ADA accessible building which was within 500 feet of an existing bus route, with sidewalk access. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not have an impact on EJ populations.


The Preferred Alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on either minority or low-income populations. The Preferred Alternative is expected to have a net positive impact on minority and low-income populations by increasing mobility between underserved areas with high unemployment and areas where job opportunities exist in greater numbers and by increasing affordable transportation options for local residents. 3.7 Cultural Resources

Existing Conditions A cultural resources field review was completed to investigate the presence of archaeological or architectural resources in the Project Area. With respect to archaeological resources, the Intermodal Facility project would involve ground disturbing activity, utility installation and removal of a small number of trees (although they would be transplanted and reused on the site). The study determined, and the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) concurred, that there was a low potential for recovery of archaeological remains and no further investigation was warranted. The Preferred Alternative location was studied under the Draft Service NEPA Environmental Assessment for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Rail Corridor Improvements from Chicago, Illinois to Pontiac, Michigan, completed by MI DOT and submitted to FRA in October 2009. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the then-proposed Troy/Birmingham transit station as part of the document investigations. A list of known and identified National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible, listed, or potentially eligible above-ground historic resources was reviewed, and it was determined that no above-ground cultural and historic resources in the area would be affected by the proposed transit station. A copy of the SHPO letter of September 22, 2009, expressing concurrence with the determination of No Adverse Effect, is included in the Appendix. The only nearby historic resource is the Birmingham Grand Trunk & Western Railroad Depot, which opened on August 1, 1931. The Depot is located lies at the northern edge of the Project Area, west of the CN tracks. The property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on September 12, 1985. The building was closed as a railroad depot in 1978 and was later restored and converted into a restaurant. Impacts The No Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Birmingham Grand Trunk & Western Railroad Depot. The Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Birmingham Grand Trunk & Western Railroad Depot due to distance (approximately 1,500 feet) from the proposed facility and intervening structures. There are no other historic buildings or structures located on or adjacent to the Preferred Alternative site that would be affected by the project.


3.8 Visual Resources

Existing Conditions The Intermodal Facility site is located on the east side of the CN Rail corridor, south of Maple Avenue. The site is at the back of a retail complex to the north and east; a public storage complex is north of the site, east of the railroad. Across the CN Railroad from the site, the Birmingham School District bus yard lies adjacent to the tracks surrounded by open storage of landscaping materials; a towing company lies to the south. There is little visual quality surrounding the site. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not affect the visual quality of the site or surrounding area. The new Intermodal Facility would be designed as a gateway in the area. The building would provide visual interest and the facility complex would be a visual asset to the area. The architectural style of the building, which has not yet been determined, has been the topic of many public meetings and the June 2009 charrette, where much input was received regarding community preference. In order to meet the required track clearance requirements, the roof of the pedestrian bridge would be approximately 35 feet high, and would be 22 feet above the roofline of the station building. The bridge would be visible from nearby apartments and businesses. However, the bridge would not modify the visual context of the community given the existing urban characteristics of the study area. 3.9 Contaminated Sites and Areas of Environmental Interest

Existing Conditions The Preferred Alternative parcel is a 2.73-acre portion of a 77-acre Brownfield redevelopment project. Historic operations resulted in releases of hazardous substances at 34 areas of concern (AOCs) across the 77-acre property. Nine former AOCs are on or within the boundary of the proposed Intermodal Facility site. In accordance with the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451), which was implemented by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), environmental cleanup actions have occurred at the Brownfield property. Documentation required under Act 451 includes the Remedial Action Completion Report that details the cleanup actions. A review of available soil verification data indicates that the MDEQ Generic Criteria developed for Commercial Land Use are met throughout the site. All appropriate permits required by both the City of Troy and the State of Michigan were obtained for both the remediation of the site and all site construction before completion of the current structures, parking lots and open areas. Impacts The No Build Alternative would not impact, or be impacted, by hazardous materials on the preferred site. The Preferred Alternative would not impact or be impacted by hazardous materials on the site. Remediation has been completed and contaminated soils removed.


3.10 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to the environment that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future (later in time) or in the vicinity of, but not at the exact same location, as direct impacts associated with implementation of a build alternative. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define indirect (secondary) impacts as those that are “…caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 CFR § 1508.8b). Indirect impacts can be associated with the consequences of land-use development that would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Indirect impacts differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a facility itself and are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development.” Induced development would include a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic vitality, property value, population density. The potential for indirect impacts to occur is determined in part by local land-use and development-planning objectives and the physical location of a proposed action. Specific resources may be affected by indirect development, but resource-specific indirect impacts cannot be reasonably foreseen. The Troy/Birmingham Transit Center Strategic & Implementation Plan, 2007, a study completed by the University of Michigan for the Urban Land Institute, identifies the market potential for future development, transportation options and complementary land uses near the proposed Intermodal Facility. The study indicates there is a sufficient demand for as many as 300 attached residential rental units within the Intermodal Facility District in the next five years. The City of Troy Master Plan calls for a transformation of the area surrounding the Intermodal Facility, and the April 2011 Zoning Ordinance is the tool that will implement the Master Plan. Under the new Zoning Ordinance, the Intermodal Facility area and District is designated IB - Integrated Industrial Business District, with permitted and allowed uses that include those found in mixed-use and TOD areas. Permitted and allowed uses include multi-family residential uses, complementary commercial, retail, and service oriented land uses, transit centers (the Oakland/Troy Airport and the planned Intermodal Facility), public schools, recreational facilities and parks. The combination of air, rail, bus and non-motorized transportation in one compact area, supported by a high-density residential development and regional commercial uses, is anticipated to create a vibrant gateway to the southwest corner of Troy. The City of Birmingham’s Master Plan for the area also calls for further mixed use development in the area, including residential, commercial and light industrial uses, higher densities, and walkable urban form. This type of development in the area in Birmingham west of the Preferred Alternative has already started to develop in this manner.


The No Build Alternative would not result in indirect impacts and would not promote growth or changes in land use. The Preferred Alternative would likely result in beneficial indirect impacts. The Preferred Alternative may accelerate land use changes that are recommended in the Master Plans of both Birmingham and Troy. The land use surrounding the new Intermodal Facility may shift to land uses compatible with these new transit opportunities, such as higher density TOD mixed-use residential and commercial development designed to maximize access to public transport and incorporate features to encourage transit ridership. As the surrounding area changes, it is expected that the new land use would support the Intermodal Facility and would encourage ridership and use. There is the potential for the Preferred Alternative to spur growth of residential development (new or redevelopment), providing greater housing opportunities and improved access to jobs. The increased density may spur further development and redevelopment of residential and commercial properties. The improved access to transit alternatives could provide more opportunity for minorities and persons at lower income brackets to access Birmingham and Troy to live, work and play, therefore, increasing socioeconomic diversity. As these future development possibilities unfold, there may be indirect impacts associated with natural resources and the existing built environment, including historic resources. Indirect impacts are generally addressed only for those resources that are directly impacted. Environmental regulations and guidelines, such as Section 106 and Section 4(f) among others, as well as the master planning documents and zoning regulations, would assure the consideration and avoidance or minimization of impacts to protected resources and provide for the mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative could result in an increased tax base due to an increase in commercial, industrial and residential development. It is anticipated that there would be an increase in employment opportunities and worker productivity due to improved transit and access to a labor pool residing outside of Birmingham and Troy. Increased pedestrian activity could result in greater patronage of local businesses and the likelihood of visitors accessing local, civic, and recreational resources in both Birmingham and Troy and the local area. Cumulative Impacts The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present, and future actions that have altered the quantity, quality, or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR § 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts from federal, non-federal, public, and private actions on the quality or quantity of a resource.


The intent of the cumulative effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the proposed action to those aggregate effects. The No-Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts. The Preferred Alternative would have beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. Cumulative effects expected to occur as a result of construction of the Preferred Alternative include reduced automobile traffic, resulting in less congestion and air and noise pollution. This would also increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and would to lead to improved community livability and cohesion. There is also a potential to decrease dependence on the automobile and increase non-motorized transit alternatives including development of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The Preferred Alternative is also consistent with the master plans of both Birmingham and Troy, and both communities’ visions for growth in this area. 3.11 Construction Impacts

Construction of the Preferred Alternative may result in short-term water, air quality and noise impacts that have been addressed within each resource discussion (Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 respectively. Construction documents would identify specific environmental control methods to minimize air and water quality impacts. These air and water quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and exhaust from construction equipment and soil erosion would be minimized by wetting down construction areas, installing soil erosion control measures, seeding disturbed land areas, and covering haul trucks in accordance with City ordinances and Michigan laws. Sediment and erosion control measures would be used to minimize any water quality impacts during construction in accordance with Troy’s Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance requirements. There would be an increase in noise and vibration levels during construction activities. These activities may be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM Monday through Friday as permitted by City ordinances. Increased noise and vibration levels would be short term, occurring only during the period of construction. Emissions from construction activities, including equipment operation and the hauling of material, will result in a temporary increase of emissions; estimated amounts are shown previously in Table 3-4. Construction emissions are estimated based on an assumed mix of construction equipment operating during facility construction for a specific length of time. Emissions that would result from construction dust associated with exposed soils would be controlled, if necessary, with the application of water or other approved dust palliatives.


Section 4. Agency Coordination and Public Participation

It should be noted that the City of Birmingham withdrew from the joint cities effort in the spring of 2011, as this EA document was being prepared for FRA acceptance. The past efforts of the City of Birmingham have contributed much to the planning process associated with the proposed Intermodal Facility, as the City of Troy and MDOT continue forward. In order to ensure long term success and high levels of transit utilization subsequent to the construction of the Intermodal Facility, education and engagement relative to the benefits of transit was an important component of the planning strategy. To that end, the Cities of Birmingham and Troy, in tandem with the respective Chambers of Commerce, formed a transit team comprised of tacticians capable of making the Intermodal Facility a reality and advancing the need for a region wide transit system. The team established a regular bi-weekly meeting schedule over a roughly two year period (and continues to meet presently). The bi-weekly meetings have been a critical component in effectively coordinating the myriad agencies necessary for the decision making process to flow and in actively engaging the public. A sampling of agency coordination and public involvement related initiatives follows. Early coordination activities were designed to inform residents, public officials, business owners, property owners, other stakeholders, and regulatory agencies about the issues involved in studying the feasibility of creating an intermodal transportation facility for the Cities of Troy and Birmingham. Agency Coordination Several meetings were held between the Federal Transportation Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, MDOT, and the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth to discuss the project and details associated with the Intermodal Facility. Letters were also sent to the MDEQ, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Wildlife Division), the Michigan Historical Center (Archaeology Division), and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Services) to gather information regarding rare and unique natural features, historical resources, and threatened and endangered species within the Project Area. Coordination with the SHPO and Tribal Affairs was also undertaken to determine the presence of potential architectural or archeological resources listed or eligible for the NRHP. All comments received as a result of the agency coordination process are provided in Appendix C. Relationship Management with Other Agencies/Stakeholders The transit team has also proactively engaged multiple agencies and stakeholders for the primary purpose of supporting and evaluating the proposed Intermodal Facility and to advance the need for regional transit with intermodal connections. Included in this outreach are SEMCOG, SMART, CN, Amtrak, Detroit Regional Mass Transit, Transportation Riders United, The Center for Michigan, Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Aerotropolis and Regional Transit Authority advocates, Connect and Prosper, the Detroit Regional Chamber, House Transportation Committee, neighboring property owners, homeowner associations, complementary committees/groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce affiliated economic development groups, etc.), County Commissioners, County Executive, foundations, Oakland County City Managers


Association, Destination District representatives, and others. Resolutions and/or letters of support were procured where appropriate. Public Participation In addition, public participation efforts sought community input regarding the alternatives being considered, potential environmental impacts, and other study concerns. As part of the project, a series of public presentations and workshops were held. Participants at the public presentations and workshops included local MDOT representatives, homeowners representing individual properties as well as neighborhood associations, business representatives, elected and appointed officials, property owners in the Project Area, and special interest groups. These sessions enabled the study team to gain a greater understanding of local concerns and priorities and to receive suggestions regarding potential alternatives and impacts. Workshops were held in Troy and in Birmingham. University of Michigan/Urban Land Institute Real Estate Forum – November 2007, Troy MI The Forum was the culmination of a year-long planning process that focused on the Project Area. The planning process was led by Brookings Fellow and University of Michigan professor, Christopher Leinberger, supported by a graduate level student team and local representatives. It was an important opportunity to conduct detailed research, galvanize a team of decision makers, educate the public, identify resources, initiate the planning process and evaluate alternatives. The year-long study included a market study, economic impact analysis, traffic analysis, site analysis and design recommendations. Results of the study were presented and public comments were recorded. SEMCOG University Walkable Communities Workshop - April 2009, Birmingham MI Peter Lagerwey convened this workshop in order to provide a common vocabulary, understanding and appreciation for building healthy, sustainable, livable, and walkable, communities with active transportation options. The workshop served to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to work collaboratively toward an evaluation of the Project Area and the necessary pedestrian and vehicular improvements to ensure full access to the Intermodal Facility. Public comments were recorded. Joint Planning Board Meetings – 2008, 2009, 2010 The planning bodies of Birmingham (Birmingham Planning Board) and Troy (Troy Planning Commission) have convened nine joint public meetings since 2008 for the sole purpose of advancing quality planning relative to the location and design of the Intermodal Facility and future transit oriented development in the surrounding area. Both the Birmingham-Bloomfield Chamber and the Troy Chamber of Commerce have attended and supported the planning groups at each of these meetings. These official meetings continue today and have alternated in location between Birmingham and Troy. All of the meetings were open to the public and were conducted in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. Members of the public were in attendance at each of the meetings, and public comments were recorded. Transit Oriented Development Charrette – June 15th and 16th 2009, Birmingham MI A two-day charrette was held on June 15-16, 2009 in Birmingham and Troy. This public input process was conducted by both the Cities of Troy and Birmingham, the Troy Chamber of


Commerce and the Birmingham-Bloomfield Chamber. The charrette was designed to (1) inform the public about the planning efforts for the Intermodal Facility itself and the Intermodal Facility District that was established in the surrounding area, and (2) to solicit public input on the proposed Intermodal Facility location and on the future development of the area surrounding the proposed location. Activities included walking tours, stakeholder interviews, and visioning sessions. Topics covered included planning for multi-modal transportation options in the District, creating a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use, walkable destination around the Intermodal Facility, and the nature and form of development that was envisioned. The charrette was organized to ensure that key stakeholder groups were represented throughout the process. Participants in the charrette included business owners and residents of the Project Area; developers and representatives of the Cities of Birmingham and Troy; and architects, urban designers and students from local colleges and universities. Over 200 people attended the two-day charrette, and over 100 letters of support for the Intermodal Facility were obtained. Walking tours of the surrounding area in both Birmingham and Troy were conducted to familiarize the public with the proposed sites and to provide an opportunity for alternative evaluation. The outcome was the presentation of design concepts and preliminary recommendations based on stakeholder input. The website www.15miletransit.org keeps the public informed on the status of the project. Encouraging Full Public Participation Throughout the planning process, a concerted effort has been made to apprise the elected bodies (Birmingham City Commission and Troy City Council) of the status of the Intermodal Facility. These updates have occurred on an ongoing basis and, because the meetings are televised and open to all, they serve to update and educate the public regarding all aspects of the location, design and operation of the Intermodal Facility and provide important opportunities for community dialogue. Recognizing the need for public education and advocacy support, the transit team also placed some emphasis on engaging media outlets in the attempt to build grass roots support. Multiple reports were conveyed in traditional outlets such as CNN, The Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, Crain’s Detroit Business, local print publications like the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers, Oakland Press, The Paper, Troy Today (and myriad others), and niche outlets such as National Public Radio, Metromode, and others. The Chambers and the Cities continue to work together to facilitate and monitor the development of the Intermodal Facility and the corresponding Intermodal Facility District. In an effort to keep the communities and the region updated on the Intermodal Facility progress, the Cities and Chambers established the website www.15miletransit.org, a LinkedIn Group (15 Mile Transit), a Facebook account, and a Twitter account (also known as 15 Mile Transit).

http://www.15miletransit.org/

http://www.15miletransit.org/


Section 5. Sources Consulted

Amtrak Stations, Birmingham, Michigan, http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=BMM Architects & Engineers PC – June 2009

Birmingham Historical Museum, Historic Property Archives, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, Birmingham, Michigan Birmingham Remembered, Jervis B. McMechan, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan Center for Transportation Excellence website: http://www.cfte.org/trends/benefits.asp City of Birmingham Eton Road Corridor Plan (1998) City of Birmingham, Community Development, Planning and Development Department, Planning Division, Designated Historic Property Files, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, Birmingham Michigan City of Birmingham Zoning Ordinance, May 2005 City of Troy Brownfield Redevelopment Authority http://67.38.83.10/BrownfieldRedevelopmentAuthority/BrownfieldPlans.aspx City of Troy Zoning Ordinance, October 2008 City of Troy Master Plan (2009) Clinton River Watershed Management Plan for Improving Water Quality in the Red Run Drain, Clinton River, Lake St. Clair, and the Great Lakes; The Red Run Subwatershed of Macomb and Oakland Counties, 2006, prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. Department of Environmental Quality http://www.deq.state.mi.us/SiteRegistry/ Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm Grand Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/22488.htm Haley & Aldrich Consultants, Environmental Site Assessment Report, Proposed Intermodal Facility

http://www.cfte.org/trends/benefits.asp

http://67.38.83.10/BrownfieldRedevelopmentAuthority/BrownfieldPlans.aspx

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/SiteRegistry/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ejustice/facts/index.htm

http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/hso/sites/22488.htm


McMechan/Clohset/Klein, “The Book of Birmingham,” Averill Press, Birmingham, Michigan, 1976 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, www.msue.msu.edu/mnfi

Michigan State Housing Development Authority http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=birmingham&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection= Michigan State Housing Development Authority http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=troy&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection= Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) Michigan State Housing Development Authority, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) National Park Service, U. S. Department of Interior, National Register of Historic Places, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Birmingham Depot, http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0 New Restaurant on Tap, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan, April 17, 1997 New Train Station Preserves Tradition, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan, June 20, 2004 Reusing Railroad Stations, Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., New York, New York, 1974 Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, George W. Kuhn Drainage District Operation Plan

Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner, Twelve Towns Drain Project Plan

SMART website: http://www.smartbus.org/smart/Home Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) website, Data and Maps–Traffic Crash Data, http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/crash.cfm?mcd=8999 Traffic Impact Study – Troy Intermodal Intermodal Facility, prepared by Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc., February 2008 Train Station Recycling Rolling, in The Birmingham Eccentric, Birmingham, Michigan Trainweb, Birmingham, Michigan, http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/birminghammi.htm

http://www.msue.msu.edu/mnfi

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=birmingham&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=birmingham&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=troy&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection

http://www.mshda.info/housing_locator/index.jsp?Keyword=troy&searchtype=SearchKeyword&submit=Search&home=home&display=home&section=&subsection

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregsearchresult.do?fullresult=true&recordid=0

http://www.smartbus.org/smart/Home

http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/crash.cfm?mcd=8999

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/birminghammi.htm


Troy-Birmingham Intermodal Facility - Schematic Design Report, prepared by Wendel Duchscherer University of Michigan for the Urban Land Institute, Intermodal Facility Strategic & Implementation Plan (2007) U.S. Census Bureau Website http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en Wikipedia, Birmingham, Michigan (Amtrak Station), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham,_Michigan_(Amtrak_Station)

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham,_Michigan_(Amtrak_station

APPENDIX

ATTACHMENT 3

STATEMENT OF WORK

Troy Multimodal Transit Facility BACKGROUND The cities of Troy and Birmingham, MI, are both located approximately 15 miles north of downtown Detroit. The two cities share a common border along the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) railroad line that runs from Detroit to Pontiac and points beyond. The CN rail line is host to the Detroit-Pontiac leg of Amtrak’s Wolverine intercity passenger train that connects to Chicago with three daily trains in each direction. Three stations on this line are served by the Wolverine passenger train: Pontiac, Birmingham, and Royal Oak. The existing Birmingham Amtrak station is located within the city limits and currently consists of a bus-type passenger shelter on a single, low-level platform; there are no connections with other transportation modes at the Birmingham Station. The station’s limited facilities and parking spaces have negatively affected its ridership, revenues, and general attractiveness of service. To increase the station’s passenger utilization and to bring local transit modes together into a common passenger transfer facility, the city of Troy has developed a plan for an Intermodal Transit Facility that is accessible to both communities (Troy and Birmingham). Since a planning study was completed in 2006, the cities of Troy and Birmingham have worked together to develop a station that will include improved Amtrak passenger facilities, an accessible and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant pathway between the two sides of the rail line, expanded parking availability, Amtrak passenger drop-off areas, and local transit connections for rail passengers and local citizens. With this project, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT or Grantee), in partnership with the city of Troy, will construct the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility (the Project). The Project will include an Amtrak passenger waiting facility, a single low-level passenger platform, parking areas, and ADA-compliant pathways for rail and transit passengers. Completion of the Project will dramatically improve the comfort, safety, and quality of the station facilities available to intercity rail passengers traveling to and from the Troy/Birmingham area and will better integrate the station with both the surrounding community and local and regional transit services. GENERAL OBJECTIVE The goal of this Project is to relocate an underutilized Amtrak station from Birmingham to a more accessible site located in the city of Troy. The new station will be located approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Birmingham Station. The Troy Multimodal Transit Facility will service both communities by strengthening the existing transportation options in the area through a centralized facility allowing user access to intercity passenger rail service, as well as regional bus routes and taxi services. In addition, citizens will now be served by an accessible, ADA-compliant, safe, and secure transportation center.

2

PROJECT LIMITS The Troy Multimodal Transit Facility will be built in Troy, MI. The 4.22-acre Project site is located adjacent to the CN railroad line approximately 1,200 feet south of the existing Birmingham Amtrak Station, on Doyle Drive, south of East Maple Road and west of Coolidge Highway. The platform will be constructed within the CN right-of-way. DESCRIPTION OF WORK The Project includes a 2,400-square-foot building with a waiting area and public restrooms. The building will meet all Amtrak standards for stations of this type. The station will provide linkages to groundside intermodal facilities and will have ADA-compliant sidewalks and a pedestrian bridge, accessible from either side of the tracks. The parking lot will have 116 parking spaces, which will consist of 106 standard parking spaces, 8 ADA-compliant spaces, and 2 parking spaces equipped for electric car charging. All parking spaces will be connected to the station by barrier-free sidewalks and crosswalks leading to a landscaped pedestrian plaza. The new facility will also provide a bus stop area sized to accommodate four full-size buses and a hub connector service stop that can accommodate a 20-foot bus, a passenger dropoff and pickup lane, and a taxi waiting area. The station will achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification and will include a green roof, rain gardens, and a geothermal heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system. The station may also include commercial concessions such as food and beverage service. Design elements will improve accessibility and safety and include pedestrian bridge with scale lighting, walkways, a ramp, handrails, stair landings, benches, and radiant heat under the ramp to melt ice and snow during winter months. The ramp and stair areas will be landscaped to improve aesthetics, reduce soil erosion and runoff, and create a comfortable, attractive space for people to enjoy. SCOPE OF WORK The Grantee will carry out and complete the Project through the tasks identified below. The Project is divided into two tasks and several subtasks, described in detail below. Subtasks will often overlap. Task 1: Final Design This task includes all work associated with the final design of the Project and is divided into two subtasks: final design and selection of an at-risk construction manager. Task 1 is estimated to cost $1,958,004 and is scheduled to take 6 months, from October 2011 to March 2012. Subtask 1.1 Final Design of Project

3

MDOT will select the design consultant team. This selection includes appointing a selection team, issuing a final design request for proposals (RFPs), reviewing proposals, and selecting the design consultant. This solicitation will culminate in the selection of a final design team in November 2011. The RFP’s Scope of Services will comply with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements, including the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Interim Program Guidance published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2009. MDOT will complete the final design (100% design) of the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility to a level adequate to support bidding for the construction of the Facility. Final design will be completed pursuant to the scope of services used to solicit professional architecture and engineering (A&E) services for the Project. The A&E firm selected to provide final design services will use existing preliminary engineering design documents to prepare final plans, specifications, and estimates for the Project components. The primary construction components of the Project are described in detail below. Final design consists of developing the final plans and specifications and bid package for the station building, pedestrian bridge, and rail platform. Final design of the 2,400-square-foot building will include a vestibule entrance, a public waiting area, restroom facilities, drinking fountains, a mechanical and electrical room, a storage room, LED lighting, a green roof, geothermal HVAC, kiosk space for transit service providers, and space for supporting services such as coffee vendors. It also includes the final design of the passenger rail platform. The platform will include the construction of a new platform and a structural steel and glass canopy. CN will approve and sign the final design and construction planning documents for the rail and platform improvements. Final design will also include final design of all site work. The package will include plans and specifications for the construction of all access drives, islands, and canopies required to accommodate various groundside transportation modes; bus access and drop-off stands for shuttles, taxis, and limousines; and accommodations for pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. In addition, this bid package will include underground utility relocation and the construction of roads, curbing, access drives and approaches, sidewalks, drop-off areas, parking lots and bus stop areas, electric car-charging stations, storm-water management facilities, landscaping, lighting, signs, and outdoor furnishings such as bike racks and other landscaping. The final design deliverables will be submitted to FRA for review and comment. FRA will provide written approval of the final design deliverables and authorization to proceed with Task 2, Construction. Final design deliverables are as follows:

1) Site Work plans, including grading, parking, and circulation; 2) Underground Fiber-Optic and Overhead DTE Power and AT&T Relocation plans; 3) Station Building Construction Drawings packages (Amtrak approved); 4) Platform Construction Drawings packages (Amtrak and CN approved); 5) Construction Cost Estimates suitable for the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

agreement with the Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) and for construction purposes;

6) An updated itemized cost estimate of work;

4

7) Updated Project schedule; 8) Construction phasing plan (CN and Amtrak approved); 9) Updated Project Management Plan; 10) Updated Financial Plan; and 11) Safety and Security Plan.

Subtask 1.2 Construction Manager Selection and Construction Procurement MDOT will select a CMR by appointing a selection team, issuing a CMR RFP, reviewing proposals, and selecting the CMR. The CMR will provide analysis, consultation, advice, and reasonable recommendations relating to the design, planning, and administration of the Project during the final design phase. The CMR will review all construction documents and provide recommendations during the design process to identify opportunities for cost, schedule, or operations and maintenance savings that can be achieved without adversely impacting the safe operation, design intent, or functional quality of the Project. Furthermore, the CMR will perform a full range of preconstruction, construction management, and post construction services for the design team support, bid solicitation, construction, and commissioning of the Project. MDOT will develop all procurement specifications and related documents, including all construction/shop drawings and supporting quantities/data. MDOT will attend all pre bid meetings, post bid interviews, and participate in the construction contractor precertification process as required and will participate with the owner in the bid review, evaluation, and award processes as required. MDOT will obtain all required building permits in advance of the start of construction. Subtask 1.3 Easements and Permits The Project will be constructed on land owned by the city of Troy. One easement will be acquired as part of the Project. MDOT will obtain an easement from CN for the passenger rail platform. In addition, MDOT will secure all necessary permits and will enter into agreements with all required parties required to begin construction. Task 2: Construction Task 2 includes all activities associated with the construction of the station, the intermodal facilities, the passenger rail platform, and all site work. This task includes the bidding and awarding of construction contracts. MDOT will perform the subtasks below in accordance with the deliverables developed and approved during Task 1 of the Project. After construction is complete, MDOT will verify that all station area facilities meet local building codes and standards. In addition, MDOT will verify that all utility placements comply with American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association standards following relocation. Finally, MDOT will update all Project record drawings to reflect as-built configuration, with copies provided to FRA after construction is complete. MDOT will also retain copies. Task 2 is estimated to cost $6,527,208 and is scheduled to take 18 months, from March 2012 to October 2013. Subtask 2.1 Construction Bid and Award

5

MDOT will complete bidding and awarding of contracts for the construction of the facility, including advertising, reviewing, and selecting the construction contractors. Subtask 2.2 Site Work Construction MDOT will construct the following: access drives, islands, and canopies required to accommodate various groundside transportation modes; bus access and dropoff stands for shuttles, taxis, and limousines; a pedestrian bridge connecting the rail platform to the building and site; and accommodations for pedestrians and bicycles to access this site in accordance with the final design documents. In addition, MDOT will complete all underground and overhead utility relocations, roads, curbing, access drives and approaches, sidewalks, dropoff areas, parking lots and bus stop areas, electric car-charging stations, storm-water management facilities, landscaping, lighting, signs, and outdoor furnishings such as bike racks and other landscaping in accordance with the final design documents. Subtask 2.3 Station Building and Platform Construction MDOT will construct a new Amtrak platform, a structural steel and glass canopy, and walkways to connect the platform to parking in accordance with the final design documents. These items are in the CN right-of-way, and CN will approve and sign all construction documents for the rail and platform improvements. In addition, MDOT will construct the station facility in accordance with the final design documents. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES The period of performance for the above work will be 24 months, October 1, 2011, through October 31, 2013.

Phase Description Proposed Start Date

Proposed End Date

Task 1 Final Design October 2011 March 2012 Task 2 Construction March 2012 October 2013 MDOT will provide the prerequisites and achieve the performance objectives, deliverables, and milestones as noted below in compliance with FRA and Cooperative Agreement requirements. All deliverables are listed below with the anticipated due date.

Task Description Deliverables Estimated Delivery Date

6

Subtask 1.1 Final Design 1. Site Work plans, including grading, parking, and circulation

2. Underground and Overhead Utility Relocation plans

3. Station Building Construction Drawings packages (Amtrak approved)

4. Platform Construction Drawings packages (Amtrak and CN approved)

5. Construction Cost Estimates suitable for the GMP agreement with the CMR and for construction purposes

6. An updated itemized cost estimate of work 7. Updated Project schedule 8. Construction phasing plan (CN and Amtrak

approved) 9. Updated Project Management Plan 10. Updated Financial Plan 11. Safety and Security Plan

March 2012

Subtask 1.2 Construction Manager Selection/ Procurement

CMR Contract Jan. 2012

Subtask 1.3 Easement and Permitting

Easement and Permits required for construction March 2012

Subtask 2.1 Construction Procurement

Construction Procurement Documents as appropriate

May 2012

Subtask 2.2 Site Work Construction

Site work as specified in the final construction drawings and specifications in Task 1.

October 2013

Subtask 2.3 Station Building and Platform Construction

Passenger rail platform as specified in the final construction drawings and specifications in Task 1.

Station as specified in the final construction drawings and specifications in Task 1.

October 2013

PROJECT BUDGET The total estimated cost of the Project is $8,485,212, for which Federal funding under this Cooperative Agreement will contribute no more than $8,485,212, or 100% of the total Project cost. Any additional expense required beyond that provided in this Grant/Cooperative Agreement to complete the Project shall be borne by the Grantee.

7

Project Cost Details: Task Estimated CostTask 1: Final Design $1,958,004Task 2: Construction $6,527,208

Total $8,485,212 PROJECT COORDINATION MDOT will assign a Project manager from its Office of High-Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement to work with the Project Manager from the city of Troy, the lead city on the Project. This MDOT Project Manager will provide management and oversight for the final design and construction tasks as outlined in Task 1 and Task 2 of this statement of work. MDOT is responsible to FRA for the implementation of this Project. The City of Troy will be the contracting agency with MDOT for the final design and construction of the Project. The working partnership for the Project includes FRA, MDOT, the City of Troy, CN and Amtrak. A Project Management Plan, which has been submitted to FRA, includes an organization chart illustrating the working relationships between the organizations and the individuals that are responsible for Project management. The city of Troy will have primary responsibility for preparing the final design plans for the Project. Also, it will be the responsible contracting agency and will be responsible for construction acceptance. The city will be the primary party in the right-of-way easement agreement with CN. PROJECT MANAGEMENT MDOT has assigned a Project Manager from the Office of High-Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement as the primary point of contact for the Project. The Project Manager will guide the Project to completion by coordinating with FRA and the city of Troy on Project issues and grant management. The Project Manager will provide management oversight for the final design and construction of the Project as outlined in Task 1 and Task 2 of this statement of work. The Project Manager will report to MDOT’s Team Coordinator, who is responsible for overseeing multiple Michigan station projects, including the Dearborn Intermodal Rail Passenger Facility. Upon award of the Project, MDOT will monitor and evaluate the Project’s progress through the administration of regular progress meetings scheduled throughout the Project duration. Topics of discussion may include review of construction activities, field observations, identification of problems incurred and decisions/fixes for those problems, identification of potential future problems that could impede progress and proposed corrective measures to regain the projected schedule, review of Project schedule and progress, and review of billing invoices. There will be continued communication by all parties involved throughout the Project. The city of Troy manages large capital improvement projects regularly in the course of its ongoing infrastructure and economic development efforts. It will consider this Project a major capital project. Troy’s Engineering Department will manage the overall day-to-day Project

8

responsibilities. This Engineering Department manages the City’s Capital Improvement Program and various other Federal and State grants, including those involving development projects. The Engineering Department will also provide for the internal coordination of other departments and organizations. The Troy City Engineer will review infrastructure improvements for the Project with the design, CMR, and construction teams in accordance with the City Engineering Division requirements. Such review will include underground utilities, such as water, sewer, and storm-water management, as well as access roads and pedestrian and greenway connections. The City Engineer is also the City’s liaison to MDOT. The Troy Purchasing Department will coordinate all competitive solicitations related to the design, construction, and management of this Project. The Troy City Building department will provide inspections and permits for commercial buildings and will provide these services for the Project as coordinated by the CMR and Project Manager. The city of Troy will work closely with the Project architects, engineers, CMR, and contractor along with MDOT, CN, Amtrak, and the other Project partners to ensure the Project stays on track. This will be accomplished via regular Project progress monitoring meetings (weekly/biweekly) and appropriate adjustments to keep the Project on schedule and budget. Additional Project Conditions MDOT recognizes that the Project, the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility, is intended for the benefit of intercity passenger rail service. MDOT will preserve such benefits to intercity passenger rail service. As such, MDOT agrees to the following:

1. Except as provided below, MDOT will ensure that the use of all parking facilities constructed by the Project will be limited to intercity rail passengers, employees engaged in providing intercity passenger rail service (including station operations), and those doing other business at the station related to intercity passenger rail service (e.g., purchasing intercity passenger rail tickets, making inquiries concerning intercity passenger rail service, or picking up/dropping off intercity rail passengers). MDOT agrees to ensure that all agreements related to the use or operation of the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility contain the terms and conditions necessary to ensure that the parking facilities are used in a manner that is consistent with this paragraph.

2. Should MDOT determine that there are periods of time (e.g., certain hours of the day,

days of the week, or periods of the year) during which the full use of the parking facilities is not required for the purpose of fully supporting intercity passenger rail service, MDOT may submit to FRA a written request to temporarily allow some of the parking facilities to be used for “alternate purposes.” To the extent that such alternate purpose does not compromise the utility of the parking facilities for providing intercity passenger rail service, such areas may be made available for “joint use” by other transportation providers (e.g., buses, limousines, taxies) and their passengers. Such a request shall include specific details as to the time periods during which the parking facility would be made available for alternate purposes, how many parking spaces would be required, the duration of the proposed waiver, how any parking revenue generated by use of the facilities for alternate purposes would be utilized, and the mechanisms for enforcing any such limitations (including time limits and limits on the number of available spaces) on

9

the use the parking facility for alternate purposes. If FRA grants such a request, FRA may suspend, revoke, or otherwise condition such a grant at any time by way of written notice to MDOT.

3. MDOT will ensure that all “back office” areas of the station facility (including, but not

limited to, ticket offices, employee health and welfare facilities, management offices, and baggage areas) that have been designed to support intercity passenger rail service will be reserved for such use, and that such areas will not be made available for any other exclusive use (e.g., commercial establishments or other transportation providers, including potential future commuter rail service providers). To the extent that such use does not compromise the utility of such station facility areas for providing intercity passenger rail service, such areas may be made available for “joint use” by the intercity passenger rail provider and other transportation providers (e.g., joint use of a ticket office to sell both intercity passenger rail and commuter rail tickets). MDOT agrees to ensure that all agreements related to the use or operation of the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility contain such terms and conditions necessary to ensure that the back-office station facilities are used in a manner that is consistent with this paragraph.

4. MDOT will ensure that intercity passenger trains will have absolute priority in use of the

station platforms, both in the development of timetables, and in the dispatching of day-to-day operations, over all other passenger rail services (e.g., potential future commuter rail service) that may serve the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility. MDOT agrees to ensure that all agreements related to the use or operation of the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility contain such terms and conditions necessary to ensure that intercity passenger trains receive absolute priority use of the station platforms.

SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT MDOT may choose to employ a third-party consultant or the city of Troy for portions of this work; however, MDOT will be responsible for implementation of the Project and all obligations under the terms of this Cooperative Agreement. Under the Cooperative Agreement, FRA will participate in the Project, as described in the statement of work and work plan and through review of the task deliverables. Oversight of any consultants will be conducted by MDOT, and there will be no modifications permitted to the funding under this Cooperative Agreement for cost overruns. All Federal progress reporting requirements will be handled by MDOT. FRA retains the right to audit or inspect all documentation and work throughout the term of this Cooperative Agreement.

DRAFT

Project Management Plan Page 1 HSIPR MI-CH HUB-CHI-DTW: Stations Troy

September 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________

Project Management Plan Troy Intermodal Transit Facility

DRAFT


Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PMP Purpose and Overview 1.2. Project Description 1.3. Project Delivery 1.4. Operations and Maintenance 1.5. Schedule and Cost 1.6. Project Management Plan Maintenance

2. ORGANIZATION 2.1. Agency Organization Structure 2.2. Project Management Organization

2.2.1. Project Organization Chart 2.2.2. Key MDOT Position Descriptions and Responsibilities 2.2.3. Staffing Plans and Staff Qualifications

2.3. Use of Consultants and Construction Contractors 2.3.1. Engineering Design Consultants 2.3.2. Construction Engineering and Inspection Consultants 2.3.3. Construction Consultants

2.4. Interface with Other Agencies 2.4.1. Interface with FRA 2.4.2. Interface with Amtrak 2.4.3. Interface with City and Counties

3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

3.1. Configuration Control 3.2. Schedule Management 3.3. Cost Management 3.4. Change Management 3.5. Grant Accounting 3.6. Claims Management 3.7. Design Management 3.8. Reporting 3.9. Document Control 3.10. Communications 3.11. Project and Grant Close-Out

4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCUREMENT APPROACH

4.1. Responsibility 4.2. Procurement

5. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

DRAFT


5.1. MDOT Construction Project Cost & Schedule Management Responsibilities 5.2. MDOT Construction Engineering & Inspection (CE&I) Consultant 5.3. Construction Project Documentation 5.4. Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5.5. Traffic Management Activities

6. RISK MANAGEMENT

6.1. Organization Responsibilities 6.2. Major Sources of Risk 6.3. Risk Management Process

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

7.1. Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 7.2. Construction QA/QC

8. SAFETY AND SECURITY

8.1. Organization Responsibilities 8.2. Safety Approach 8.3. Security Approach

9. TESTING START-UP, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

10. APPENDIX A: Project Map 11. APPENDIX B: Project Organization Chart

DRAFT


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PMP Purpose and Overview This Project Management Plan (PMP) for the Intermodal Transit Facility in Troy (Project), Michigan has been prepared to provide a common understanding between the City of Troy, The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding the project management approach to completing the intermodal facility. The PMP establishes the organization and framework for the Project in compliance with FRA HSIPR Program Guideline requirements. The PMP provides the management methodology and guidelines to implement the Project. 1.2. Project Description

The cities of Troy and Birmingham, Michigan are located approximately 15 miles north of downtown Detroit. The two cities share a common border along the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) railroad line that runs from Detroit to Pontiac and points beyond. The CN rail line is host to the Detroit-Pontiac leg of Amtrak’s Wolverine intercity passenger train that connects to Chicago with three daily trains in each direction. Three stations on this line are served by the Wolverine passenger train: Pontiac, Birmingham, and Royal Oak. The existing Birmingham Amtrak station is located within the city limits and currently consists of a bus-type passenger shelter on a single, low-level platform; there are no connections with other transportation modes at the Birmingham Station. The station’s limited facilities and parking spaces have negatively impacted its ridership, revenues, and general attractiveness of service. To increase the station’s passenger utilization and to bring local transit modes together into a common passenger transfer facility, the city of Troy has developed a plan for an Intermodal Transit Facility that is accessible to both communities. Since a planning study was completed in 2006, the Cities of Troy and Birmingham have worked together to develop a station that will include improved Amtrak passenger facilities, an accessible and ADA-compliant pathway between the two sides of the rail line, expanded parking availability, Amtrak passenger drop-off areas, and local transit connections for rail passengers and local citizens. With this project, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), in partnership with the City of Troy, will construct the Troy Intermodal Transit Facility. The Project will include: an Amtrak passenger waiting facility, a single low-level passenger platform, parking areas, and ADA-compliant pathways for rail and transit passengers. Completion of the Project will dramatically improve the comfort, safety, and quality of the station facilities available to intercity rail passengers traveling to and from the Troy/Birmingham area, and will better integrate the station with both the surrounding community and local and regional transit services. The scope of work includes final design and construction of the project. A detailed description of the project can be found in the Statement of Work (SOW).

DRAFT


1.3. Project Delivery MDOT has developed guidelines for consultants and contractors that will be the established procedures for the project. Delivery strategy will be refined as the project is progressed based on the requirements of the individual projects during the final design phase. [Below table should be updated to reflect project delivery tasks with types of contractors in place or to be selected and dates of contracts.]

PROJECT/CONTRACT TYPE START COMPLETION

1. FD Troy Station Facility, Bridge & Platform Work FD: A/EConsultant CE&I: CMR

Nov. 2011 Dec. 2011

April 2012 Oct, 2013

2. Construction of Site Work Construction: April. 2012 Oct. 2013 3. Construction of Building Construction: Oct. 2012 Oct. 2013 4. Construction of Bridge & Platform Construction: Sept. 2012 Jan. 2013

1.4. Operations and Maintenance Operations and maintenance for Amtrak’s Detroit to Pontiac service will not change. The projects will enhance the operational reliability on the corridor for intercity passenger trains. MDOT will need to modify the agreement with City of Troy for station facilities maintenance to reflect that new station location and facility. 1.5. Schedule and Cost The project budget for the Track 1A funding is $8,485,212 which is funded 100% by the 2009 ARRA HSIPR program.

1.6. Project Management Plan Maintenance This Project Management Plan (PMP) will be reviewed by all MDOT [Passenger Rail project management staff] on an annual basis unless significant changes warrant an update. All MDOT management involved with the Pontiac to Chicago HSIPR Project will be given copies of the plan for their use and guidance. MDOT’s [Project Manager] will gather and assemble the information and be responsible for updating the PMP.

The PMP covers the projects from final design through construction. It will be updated as necessary in order to address any changes such as those that may be required to MDOT’s Passenger Rail organizational structure, management controls, internal or external relationships, project schedule, etc., in the interim. Requests for change to the PMP should be provided to the MDOT [Project Manager]. Once defined, the revision will only occur with the approval of the [Passenger Rail Planning Manager]. A copy of the updated PMP will be submitted to the FRA for review and comment. The PMP will also be available to staff in electronic format [via the MDOT internal business network] to assure that the most current version is continuously available. It shall be provided to all Passenger Rail staff, consultants and contractors as they are responsible for adherence to the PMP. A listing of all these parties shall be kept in the project files and when revisions are made to the PMP, revised copies, with highlighted revisions, will be forwarded to all these parties electronically so as to

DRAFT


provide a record of receipt. In addition to the PMP being prepared and maintained to MDOT standards, the PMP will also meet the ARRA HSIPR requirements.

DRAFT


2. ORGANIZATION 2.1. Agency Organization Structure

MDOT primary functions include the construction, improvement, and maintenance of the state highway system -the 9,620 miles of interstate, U.S. - and M-numbered highways, and the administration of other state transportation programs. Responsibilities include the development and implementation of comprehensive transportation plans for the entire state, including aeronautics and bus and rail transit, providing professional and technical assistance, and the administration of state and federal funds allocated for these programs. The director of the department is appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate. MDOT is made up of [three] executive offices and [five] divisions organized according to transportation function. MDOT’s Central office is located in Lansing at the State Transportation Building; however, MDOT maintains regional offices throughout the State as a way to preserve the local approach to transportation development and to better serve the publics’ needs. The figure below is the MDOT Organization Chart. The figure illustrates the various divisions within the DOT.

2.2. Project Management Organization Responsibility for administration of the projects through all of its phases rests with the Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement] which reports directly to the State Transportation Director. Accordingly, the Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement Administrator will be the person in charge at any given stage of the project. .

DRAFT


2.2.1. Project Organization Chart

FRA, MDOT, the City of Troy, CN, and Amtrak will work together to deliver the Project. The overall project team is organized as shown in the figure below: Troy Intermodal Transit Facility Project Organization Chart

2.2.2. Key Project Position Descriptions and Responsibilities

MDOT’s Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement will have oversight over the project. The City of Troy will be responsible for the management of the projects. The MDOT and Troy Team include: MDOT Team Supervisor The Team Supervisor is responsible for the oversight of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility project. MDOT Project Manager The MDOT Project Manager will be responsible for project management and coordination with FRA and the City of Troy on project issues and grant implementation/management.

DRAFT


City of Troy Project Director The City’s Project Director provides project oversight to assure FRA, MDOT, and City contract compliance plus A/E and CMR contract performance to deliver the station project on time and budget. City of Troy Project Manager The City Project Manager is responsible for day-to-day management and coordination with city officials, the A/E, and the CMR regarding project progress and budget/schedule performance.

City Engineer and the Department of Public Works The City Engineer and the Department of Public Works will coordinate infrastructure improvements for the project with the design and construction teams. This includes underground utilities (water, sewer and storm water management) and access, road and pedestrian/greenway connections. Project Working Committee The Project Working Committee provides an advisory role to the City and the community to disseminate information about the project and promote its implementation and improvements to Troy’s transportation system.

Final Design and Construction Team The Final Design and Construction Team is comprised of the City’s selected Architect/Engineer (A/E) and Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) consultants responsible for the design and construction of the project. These consultants have been procured meeting all applicable local, state and federal regulations, their contracts are awarded and they are ready to proceed with the project. Rail and Utilities Teams The Rail Team is coordinated by Canadian National Railroad (CN) and responsible permitting the platform, bridge construction and utility relocations. The Utilities Team is coordinated by DTE Energy. DTE is responsible for relocating overhead to underground power and communications (ATT) in the vicinity of the station. ATT is responsible for relocating overhead to underground. ATT and Sprint are responsible for relocation of underground fiber optics in the vicinity of the platform and bridge and in the vicinity of the existing platform in Birmingham, which will be demolished. Both rail and utility teams will interface with the City Project Team. Technical Team The Technical Team is comprised of the design, engineering and construction professionals assigned to the project. This team will meet regularly to monitor project quality, budget and progress. These meetings will range from weekly to monthly depending on the project activity level. Interface with the Rail and Utilities Teams will be as needed to complete the construction coordination between participating agencies and organizations. Interface between the Technical Team and the Working Committee occurs quarterly with the City or more frequently as project activity warrants to address any administrative or procedural issues. Grant Team The Grant and Technical Teams will have regular interface during the start-up period of the project, at all major milestones on the schedule and to meet reporting and accounting requirements of the Grant. Construction Manager The City has retained the Construction Management Team of XXX to serve as the Construction Manager at Risk for project construction and management of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility.

DRAFT


Final Design Consulting Team This support team, consisting of XXXXX organization will assist the City of Troy in daily project management services including:

• monitor and document progress in the master schedule, budget, and monthly reports • prepare a document describing the preceding month’s activities in addition to work

scheduled for next month • perform all necessary tasks to guide, schedule, and coordinate project activities to achieve

planned service start in October 2013, attend and organize monthly meetings and weekly conference calls when appropriate, prepare minutes and follow up on agreed upon actions

• meet or teleconference with the City of Troy project manager when needed to discuss concerns, task scheduling, procedural issues, deliverable reviews, and coordination activities

• perform administrative activities including document control, coordination, preparation, and the preparation of monthly progress reports and invoices.

• develop, maintain and update the following deliverables including: 1. Project Management Plan 2. Project Quality Management Plan 3. Risk Management Plan 4. Contract Management Plan 5. Operator Quality Management Plan 6. Financial Plan 7. Safety and Security Management Plan 8. Testing and Commissioning Plan 9. Maintenance Plan 10. Performance Standards 11. Safety and Security Certification Plan 12. Operating Plan

• collaborate with the City of Dearborn to implement Pre-construction and Construction Schedule activities

2.2.3. Staffing Plans and Staff Qualifications

MDOT and City of Troy staff assigned to the Passenger Rail Team includes experienced and knowledgeable individuals in practices that have been involved in the management of the existing passenger rail operations and planning for future programs. These individuals include:

Timothy H. Hoeffner, Administrator, MDOT OHSR&IPA–Timothy H. Hoeffner is the administrator of MDOT’s newly created Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement and reports to MDOT’s Director while overseeing staff that consists of a team of experts in rail management, who are responsible for promoting and developing the infrastructure

DRAFT


needed to support high speed intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and rail rapid transit services.

Al Johnson, Supervisor, MDOT OHSPR&IPA – Al Johnson, is a supervisor in the Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement, has been involved in managing public transportation programs for over 21 years. The past six years have been focused on both capital and operating programs for intercity passenger rail. Most recently, he is working on the development and implementation of high speed rail projects in Michigan.

Therese G. Cody, Manager, MDOT OHSPR&IPA – Therese G. Cody is the Rail Operating Programs Manager in the Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement. She oversees the three intercity passenger rail services that run through Michigan, the Pere Marquette, the Blue Water and the Wolverine. Therese is responsible for marketing these services and also for passenger rail station development. She is part of the team which is developing the infrastructure needed to support high speed intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and rail rapid transit services. Mark Miller, City of Troy’s Economic and Community Development Director Mr. Miller has a broad background in urban project planning and development. Prior to joining the City of Troy in 2000, Mr. Miller had 16 years of experience with municipal and township planning departments in Ohio and Michigan, including 9 years as Assistant Director of the Clinton Township Department of Planning and Community Development for Clinton Township, Michigan. Mr. Miller participated in a variety of major planning projects for Troy, including the Big Beaver Corridor Study, Parks and Recreation Plan and the City of Troy 2008 Master Plan. He has also been extensively involved in the preliminary planning and design of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility. Mr. Miller holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban Planning from Michigan State University . Steven J. Vandette, P.E., City Engineer Mr. Vandette has been the City Engineer for the City of Troy for 11 years and has a broad background in municipal engineering and capital construction. Prior to joining the City of Troy, Mr. Vandette had 20 years of experience in municipal and consulting engineering in Michigan, including 12 years as City Engineer for the City of Southfield, Michigan. He has significant experience in major federally funded road, water, sewer and bridge projects in Troy, Southfield and other Michigan cities. He has been principally involved in leading the preliminary planning and design of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit facility since the project began in 2007 . Mr. Vandette holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Michigan State University. William J. Huotari, P.E., City of Troy’s Deputy City Engineer/Traffic Engineer – Mr. Huotari has worked for the City of Troy for over 16 years and has a broad background in municipal improvements and capital construction projects. Mr. Huotari has significant experience in federally funded road projects ranging in cost from $100,000 to $15,000,000. Mr. Huotari also prepares and administers the Capital Improvement budget for the city and has direct supervision over all traffic engineering functions. He has been extensively involved in the preliminary planning and design of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit facility. Mr. Huotari holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Michigan Technological University in Houghton.

DRAFT


R. Brent Savidant, AICP, PCP, Planning Director Mr. Savidant has a broad range of planning experience in both the public and private sector. Prior to joining the City of Troy in 2002, Mr. Savidant spent 7 years as a planner for a multi-disciplined consulting firm. He served as a planner for cities, villages, townships and counties throughout Michigan, assisting on a broad range of projects including planning, zoning, economic development and parks and recreation. Mr. Savidant participated in a variety of major planning projects for Troy, including the Big beaver Corridor Study, City of Troy Master Plan, City of Troy Zoning Ordinance, Sustainable Development Checklist and Big Beaver Design Standards. He is responsible for processing all development applications in the City, including site plan reviews, special use approvals, rezoning and planned unit. He has been involved in the preliminary planning and design of the Troy Multi-Modal Transit Facility. Mr. Savidant holds a Masters in Planning from Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario, Canada).

2.3. Use of Consultants and Construction Contractors

The project approach features a nucleus of experienced transportation and rail professionals and relies on consultants to augment and support the MDOT and the City of Troy workforces. These consultants will support key project staff as necessary to monitor and verify the project implementation, schedule and budget.

2.3.1. Engineering Design Consultants (EDCs)

CONSULTANT PRIMARY TASKS

[Name of Consulting Firm] • Review concept design drawings and validate final design parameters including architectural, landscape architectural, and civil/structural/mechanical/electrical

• Assist Construction Manager with update of Project Budget & Schedule, and phased bid package issuance.

• Prepare Construction Documents in multiple bid packages for fast‐track construction schedule.

• Assist Construction Manager in subcontractor bidding processes. • Provide A/E Construction Administration services including RFI

responses, change orders, job meetings, pay request reviews, etc. • Prepare Project Closeout activities including punch list,

warranty/guarantee receipt/reviews, Certificate of Substantial Completion, and final pay request review.

DRAFT


2.3.2. Construction Engineering and Inspection Consultants (CE&I)


[Name of Consulting Firm] Construction Testing may include, but not be limited to: • Soil borings/capacity • Concrete strength • Steel connections (welding) • Structural Masonry walls • Fireproofing (integrity) • Curtain walls (water/wind resistance) • Floor slab prep (moisture content)

2.3.3. Construction Consultants


[Name of Consulting Firm] Pre‐Construction Services: • Contractor will provide analysis, consultation, advice, and reasonable

recommendations relating to the design, planning and administration of the project.

o Establish documentation requirements. o Utilize required document format and software. o Develop CMR team organization, reporting structure and

work plan. o Complete Design Reviews. o Develop and maintain project schedule. o Develop bid packages and trade contractor scopes of work. o Establish and manage the bid list.

General Construction Administration: • CMR will hold and administer all construction subcontracts, and serve

as agent for the City of Troy and sole point of authority during construction.

• Manage construction aspects and consult with the designer for recommendations to the city during all phases of construction.

• Attend & Assist the City & designer at construction meetings and conferences.

• Administer City’s form of agreement. • Preparation of all Construction related payment

applications. • Review subcontractor submittal documents for city

directed changes. • Assist the City in the process of negotiating costs for City

directed changes. • Provide the following:

Review and analyze testing reports. Inspect work in progress, maintain field

investigative reports. Periodic progress reports.

DRAFT


Maintain/update project schedule Review all shop drawings. Quality acceptance testing requirements. LEED reporting related to the construction to

obtain LEED certification of the facility. Post‐Construction Services: • Start up and commissioning of systems • Provide CAD as‐built documents to Architect • Provide complete operations and maintenance manuals as well as

training. • Provide warrantees of systems. • Turn over spare materials and parts to the City. • Close all permits, obtain certificates of occupancy. • Resolve any claims.

2.4. Interface with Other Agencies

Final design and construction of the projects will require the continual interface with federal, state, local and other key stakeholders. Through the years, MDOT staff has built relationships with the railroads and affected agencies and these relationships will continue throughout this project. Depending on the issue being addressed, regular and ad hoc meetings will occur between project staff and both private and public entities throughout the final design and construction phases of the program. The continuation of these meetings is critical to the success of the program through design, construction and implementation. The MDOT Project Manager will have the ultimate responsibility for policy level interface between the railroad and Amtrak. The day-to-day contact will provided by the MDOT Project Manager or other designated staff for the program depending on the issue. During the final design phase of the Troy Intermodal facility, MDOT will commence negotiations with the City of Troy to amend the station facilities construction and maintenance contracts for the new facility. The MDOT and City of Troy station facilities maintenance contract will be effective upon construction completion. The City of Troy will also execute a tenant agreement with Amtrak to include responsibilities, requirements, management, limit and compensation of the station. MDOT will work with CN to update the railroad on project progress and consult with CN when and where needed.

2.4.1. Interface with FRA

FRA administers and oversees the expenditures of federal funds for the ARRA HSIPR Program. FRA also contracts with a Program Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) to act as an extension of its program management staff in monitoring the grantee’s performance on the projects along with being point of interface with FRA on policy issues. The MDOT Project Manager will interface on projects and technical issues with the FRA and PMOC.

DRAFT


MDOT will maintain open communications with the FRA throughout the final design and construction of the projects. MDOT will cooperate with the FRA in providing access to facilities, records, construction sites and other areas necessary to permit project oversight. MDOT will continue to communicate with the FRA regarding key project matters in order to ensure that it remains eligible for federal funding. 2.4.2. Interface with Canadian National Railway Company (CN)

MDOT will engage CN, as the host railroad (owner and operator) of the north side of the NS Troy Subdivision tracks of the Pontiac to Chicago corridor. As such, MDOT will engage NS in the final design and construction of the projects. CN has approved the preliminary engineering for the projects. CN, with MDOT oversight, will manage the final design and construction of the Troy Intermodal Facility project; this includes work to be performed by railroad forces, consultants and contractors.

2.4.3. Interface with Amtrak

MDOT will engage Amtrak, as the intercity passenger rail operator, for the Detroit to Pontiac corridor in the final design and construction for the infrastructure improvements. Amtrak has signed-off on the preliminary engineering for the projects to confirm operational viability for passenger train operations over the corridor. Any public or employee notices required related to the construction and potential impacts to passenger train operations will be coordinated by MDOT with Amtrak. 2.4.4. Interface with Local Governments

Under contract with MDOT, the City of Troy is responsible for the project management, and on-going maintenance of the facilities. MDOT and Troy have a long history of accomplishing complex transportation projects through coordinated planning, design, construction and ongoing maintenance. The Troy Intermodal Passenger Rail Facility will be no exception and the City and State will engage their experience and expertise to assure a successful outcome. The City will maintain the station to it usual high standards for all public facilities in Troy.

DRAFT


3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 3.1. Configuration Control

Configuration management is a management process for defining, recording, and maintaining the consistency of performance, functional characteristics and physical attributes of the MDOT Passenger Rail Program. This coordination is achieved by establishing a baseline description of the system and controlling changes to this baseline as planning, design, and construction progress, and during operation. Control of all documents defining the project configuration and baseline is managed to maintain an accurate historical record, providing support and up-to-date information to all involved parties as work proceeds and issues arise in subsequent phases. It is necessary to identify documents that impact continuing project development and to provide a control system for those documents which is compatible with the desired level of control. For example, design documents are subject to continual revision during the design process, and need more flexibility in change control than construction documents that are part of the formal contract documents. The project baseline is defined by those documents which describe the physical elements and layout, the performance, budgetary, schedule, environmental, and operational attributes of the project. Typical baseline documents include technical and environmental studies, specifications, design plans, contract documents, design criteria, schedules, and similar documents. All baseline documents are controlled documents and subject to configuration management; however, not all controlled documents are subject to configuration management. The configuration control processes will: • Identify the project baseline through approved and controlled documentation • Ensure baseline documents are modified only as authorized • Prevent incorporation of unauthorized changes to the project baseline • Ensure impacted parties provide input into the development and revision of baseline

documents • Identify and quantify the impacts of proposed changes on the project • Require that revisions to baseline documents are subject to the same level of review as

the original document • Notify project staff of the current revision of baseline documents • Track and document the current status of baseline documents • Document the review and approval at designated design milestones • Assist in identifying possible interface issues

MDOT is responsible for determining which documents require baseline management. The design consultant and the CE&I consultant, when necessary, will work in conjunction with the MDOT, to prepare the baseline procedures needed for approval. Baseline procedures will establish the process by which specific documents that are critical to the final design and/or

DRAFT


construction of the project are approved. This will need to be on a case-by-case basis as the project progresses. All controlled documents will be numbered and distributed by a special controlled copy procedure which will require an acknowledgement receipt and the return of outdated materials, if required. The MDOT Project Manager maintains the baseline document information. The current approved version of the baseline document and all configuration control documents which track the approved and historical revisions and documents in the review cycle and their status are included in each revision. The Baseline Document Status Log is the summary configuration control document for each revision. MDOT maintains the baseline document with coordination with the City of Troy that lists latest revisions in the native format files as the baseline document and control documents. Changes to all documents designated as baseline documents are subject to a review process by MDOT, and all impacted disciplines prior to approval. Although electronic distribution to baseline documents will minimize the need for hard copy distribution, some hard copies will be required. All hard copy controlled baseline documents will be identified and issued by controlled distribution to the project team; receipt acknowledging receipt and review of the document by the project team members will be required. Any printed version of a baseline document that has not been issued by controlled distribution is considered uncontrolled. Contract documents require the highest level of control and approval, and extensive justification and documentation for revision. The project baseline identifies the configuration of the project. The project baseline includes contract drawings, specifications, plans, master budget, master schedule and other documents which are subject to the change control process to ensure these defining baseline documents are modified and released only in accordance with authorized procedures. The MDOT Project Manager will be required to institute a formal change proposal when a change to the project baseline is being proposed or precipitated by project circumstances.

3.2. Schedule Management

Schedules for the project will be developed by MDOT, the City of Troy, CN, design consultants, CE&I consultant(s) or contractors using Microsoft Project. The Project will be completed by XX. The project schedule begins with award of the grant and the start of the Final Design phase and is will be completed 24 months later. The start and end dates will be adjusted accordingly to match the grant award date and required to meet the FRA allotted grant timeframe of two years and an updated project schedule will be produced at the completion of final design. MDOT, in coordination with CN and the City of Troy, will develop the final design/construction schedule by activity as a guide for planning, scheduling, coordination and control of the project. MDOT and [CN] project management will be ongoing from the

DRAFT


commencement of final design to construction closeout. The schedule includes sufficient time to complete the FRA-required final closeout related to ARRA HSIPR funding. Project costs will be loaded at the task level and reported on at various project levels. The initial project costs are loaded into the schedule by MDOT’s Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement. The MDOT Project Manager is responsible for the review and approval of the cost-loaded schedule. [CN] and each design consultant and construction contractor will submit a cost loaded schedule for the associated project for review and acceptance by the MDOT Project Manager. The final design and construction schedules will be incorporated into one schedule to support the FRA funding for the project. Project updates for the final design schedule are the responsibility of the [City of Troy] and/or the design consultant. MDOT’s Project Manager will need to review and approve the final design schedules to ensure that construction project milestones can be met. Progress updates for the construction schedule are the responsibility of the [City of Troy] and/or the construction contractor. The CE&I consultant will verify monthly progress on the contractor schedule and report to MDOT’s Project Manager. Due dates for monthly schedule update submittals will be contingent on the date of the monthly MDOT Program Oversight meeting. The MDOT Project Manager will be responsible for accepting project delays and incorporating the changes into the Master Project schedule. MDOT Project Manager will be responsible for resolving conflicts within the master project schedule. The cost-loaded master project schedule will be distributed internally at MDOT on a [monthly] basis to allow for sufficient time to review and provide updates to meet the submittal deadline for the MDOT Program Oversight meeting. Schedule related information in the monthly report will be drawn from the Microsoft Project schedule. In case of a construction delay, as part of their contractual obligation, the design consultant or the contractor will submit a recovery plan whenever it falls behind the approved schedule, taking into account all granted time extensions. Recovery plans for schedule delays will be submitted to the MDOT Project Manager for review and approval. The recovery plan may become the basis for a revision to the master project schedule. After a delay has been identified and communicated to the MDOT Project Manager and the pertinent facts have been ascertained and analyzed, a decision will be made to either absorb the delay or attempt to accelerate the work element(s) to recover the lost time. Although the FRA will be notified of project delays through the various reports and schedules, if the delay is beyond the control of the MDOT, then MDOT will formally notify FRA.

3.3. Cost Management

Cost control is the responsibility of the MDOT Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement. These responsibilities are for all aspects of the project. MDOT is the only authority which will be able to revise the budget. The MDOT Project Manager will advise the Passenger Rail Planning Manager of any proposed changes to the budget; this

DRAFT


request is then presented to DOT management for review and approval. Budget changes will need to be reviewed with the FRA for concurrence. Cost estimates, when approved by MDOT’s Project Manager, with FRA’s concurrence, are incorporated into the budget. The budget cannot be changed unless approved by MDOT’s Project Manager with FRA concurrence. The major cost support areas are: 1) design costs (MDOT, City of Troy, CN and consultants); and 2) construction costs (MDOT, City of Troy, CN, CE&I consultant). The total estimated cost of the project is $8,485,212, for which the FRA grant will contribute 100% of the total cost, but no more than $8,485,212. Any additional expense required beyond that provided in this grant to complete the project will be obtained through other funding sources by MDOT.

TASK TASK DESCRIPTION COST Task 1 Final Design $1,958,004

Task 2 Construction $6,527,208 TOTAL COST $8,485,212

3.4. Change Management

During final design and construction, approved changes to the scope, schedule, staffing, policy, technology and resources may occur. The source of these changes may be internal or external initiated by MDOT. External changes can also result from other stakeholders, resources availability, and changes in technologies, etc. Whether the effects of changes are positive or negative, managing change is an important factor for success. Managing change requires planning, discipline among the team, customers and stakeholders. As the Change Management Plan is executed, the following should occur: improved relationship with customers; improved financial performance' reduced project delays, improved project teamwork, and improved management of construction project quality. All change orders shall be reviewed by the MDOT Project Manager for approval. The following defines the plan MDOT’s team will use to manage change. Identify source and nature of change

• Determine the type of change (work plan, schedule, technical, etc. • Determine the potential impact and process (formal/informal) • Document origin of change (initiated by, precipitated by) • Identify potential effected entities • Identify individual to lead the analysis/process • Communicate potential to team

Analyze the effects of change

• How does it related to purpose/project?

DRAFT


• Compare change against current process • Quantify the change (how much, how long, how much risk) • Cause-effect analysis • Brainstorm, analyze and prioritize strategies • Identify impacts against agreed upon requirements • Access profound knowledge

There are several methods of checks and balances that are completed throughout each month to ensure that all month end numbers are correct. Once contracts are printed out from MDOT’s EAPS system, the following checks are done through periodic checks throughout the month by the MDOT Project Manager:

• For each invoice, change order, and budget change entered into Microsoft Project, a check is made to ensure that the contract summary balance on the purchase order page in Microsoft Project matches the total for the accounting line balance on the hard copy purchase order. Once verified, a mark is placed next to the accounting line balance and is then signed and dated by the MDOT Project Manager before filing.

• For each MDOT project ID budget change, a check can be made by the MDOT Project Manager to verify that the adjustment has been approved.

• Periodic checks throughout the month occur by opening a copy of each multi-project

report and reviewing each MDOT project ID to identify any possible discrepancies and adjust if possible. If not possible to change, it is noted and reported to appropriate staff.

• At the month end, there are several checks to verify all numbers match and are correct

before finalizing the Microsoft Project report.

3.5. Grant Accounting

MDOT’s procedures for handling Invoice payments are included in [reference internal documentation of accounting invoice procedures] and available in the following link: [state where this documentation is located- many times this is a web-based resource for public state information]. MDOT does not anticipate any purchase orders or direct payments for this project. MDOT will provide the process for purchase orders and/or direct payments if this changes in the future Funds will be requested on a reimbursement basis on a monthly basis. The [Fill in which office at MDOT will be preparing the 270] will prepare Federal Standard Form 270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement. The federal share of costs incurred will most likely be broken out by major category, such as construction, engineering, land acquisition, and administration as required by the FRA. A detailed financial transactions report covering the

DRAFT


period of the reimbursement request will be attached, showing all costs incurred broken out by cost type (object code). The report is generated from MDOT’s financial system. As required by FRA, a Progress Report covering the period of the reimbursement request will also need be included. The project estimate allows for an unallocated contingency line item that is calculated as the difference between the project estimate and the total project estimate. The unallocated contingency to be allocated if needed and approved for:

• Areas of the budget estimate that have not been fully defined or cost and quantity inaccuracies

• Unforeseen escalation allowances over budgeted inflation increases Under Michigan state law, MDOT has the authority to contract for rail passenger service. MDOT understands the reimbursement nature of federal funding, receiving approximately [$X] million in federal highway funding, [$X] million in federal transit funding, and [$X] million in federal airport funding annually. Thus, MDOT has all of the necessary accounting and financial management processes in place and has already set up those processes for this project. For federally funded projects, MDOT pays invoices with state funds and submits reimbursement requests along with appropriate documentation to the appropriate federal agency for reimbursement of the federal share of the costs. The required documentation and reimbursement schedule vary by federal agency. At any given time, MDOT has sufficient cash balances on hand to pay vendor invoices and other expenses within payment terms. Currently, MDOT’s daily cash balances vary from approximately [$X] million to [$X] million depending on the time of the year with an average daily cash balance of approximately [$X] million. 3.6. Claims Management

During the design phase of the project, MDOT ideas, concepts and project requirements will be transformed into detailed plans and specifications that the railroad and/or contractor will rely upon to construct the project. MDOT, City of Troy, CN and final design consultants, will exercise the utmost care and consideration when making decisions in the final design phase to minimize the impact of any disputes on project progress. MDOT, City of Troy, CN and final design consultants will properly plan and carefully review project plans and specifications to help minimize the likelihood of disputes and provide a basis for timely resolution of any problem that may occur. MDOT will assign an independent contract document reviewer to review the project documents as a whole. The review team will look for ambiguities, inconsistencies and conflicts in the project documents. Individuals not involved in the preparation of the final design but knowledgeable of project requirements will focus on identification of outstanding issues in the documents.

DRAFT


The project schedule is one of the most important considerations in design and construction project management. Schedule control is critical if [MDOT, City of Troy, CN], design consultants, CE&I consultant(s), contractor(s) and all other parties to the contract expect to complete the project on time, within budget and in accordance with the plans and specifications. MDOT will consider including a schedule in the construction bid documents that sets forth the major project milestones. This will enable the contractor(s) to more realistically evaluate the time and phasing requirements of the project and to more accurately assess the lead time needed for the procurement of materials and equipment, to estimate the project staffing and labor requirements, and to anticipate the general weather conditions for different phases of the project. MDOT will require that the design consultant/contractor prepare and submit a design and/or construction schedule in accordance with the scheduling specification in the contract. The design consultant/contractor to be assigned for the duration to each activity shown on its schedule will provide an estimate of the time required to complete the activity. Further, the specification will state the frequency with which the approved project schedule must be updated and describe the method of calculating monthly progress payments. These requirements will put in place a project schedule mechanism that will be a useful management tool. Claims avoidance during construction is directly related to the quality of the MDOT field representatives and the quality of the contract documents. The CE&I consultant(s) will be selected on the basis of qualifications and appropriate related experience, subject to approval of the MDOT Project Manager. MDOT will have the right to remove any CE&I consultant from the work for non-performance. With respect to claims management, the CE&I consultant will:

• Document the work as it progresses using photographs, daily reports, letters and emails , reviewing and verifying the dates in the contractor’s Critical Path Method (CPM) updates prior to processing monthly invoices, RFI log, letter logs, and minutes of all meetings.

• Immediately respond in writing to contractor’s notice of potential claims. • Promptly analyze all claims and recommend in writing a possible course of action. • Support MDOT’s Project Manager in negotiating the claim and preparing any

subsequent change order as necessary. • Mitigate damages and delays by suggesting solutions to the contractor. • Review all documentation in accordance with the time frames set forth in the

contract. • Comply with the procedures for all claims and change orders. • In the event the contractor fails to submit a time and/or cost claim in a timely manner,

MDOT’s Project Manager shall make its own determination based on the facts and issue a decision pursuant to the contract.

DRAFT


Some of these steps could be considered claims review; however, the quick resolution of a minor claim can often minimize a much more serious one. Therefore, some of these actions are also considered prudent claims avoidance. The CP, CE&I consultant, all other consultants and contractors will be subjected to QA audits as outlined in this plan. The goal of the claims resolution process is the prompt settlement of all claims after a careful and fair analysis of the facts. The MOT Project Manager is always better served by quickly resolving claims while the issue is current. The CE&I consultant will be responsible for analyzing the claim and recommending to MDOT Project Manager a strategy in coordination with the [Engineer of Record]. As a part of the claims analysis process, the contractor’s claim will be subjected to an audit. MDOT’s Project Manager will review the CE&I consultant’s analysis prior to the start of negotiations. Any dispute between the contractor and a determination or interpretation by the Engineer shall be resolved in accordance with MDOT’s Claims Process for Unresolved Change. 3.7. Design Management

The design management and coordination effort will be carried out by the design consultants that will report directly to the MDOT Project Manager, which will be involved in coordinating the objectives of the project as defined in the planning and design phases and coordinating with all the project stakeholders, the public at large, and the contractors. The design consultant project managers are responsible for all design and report directly to the MDOT Project Manager. Design coordination meetings are held at a minimum of bi-weekly and attended by MDOT management and when necessary the appropriate railroad agency, municipality, utility, etc. Minutes are kept and distributed to all involved. Action items are included on an issues table which is discussed and updated at the bi-weekly project meetings. MDOT is managing the above activities by means of bi-weekly meetings with the design consultants supplemented by more frequent meetings with smaller groups on specific issues and by design reviews at different times throughout the design process. Coordination will be achieved by joint technical meetings which will resolve conflict issues and a unified approach to problem resolution. 3.8. Reporting

Progress reporting is the process by which the status of the project scope, cost, and schedule is determined based on visual inspection and available cost and schedule data which is organized and analyzed in accordance with MDOT management/scheduling practices. Progress reports will be distributed in a timely manner in order to allow all project management to make their reviews. Progress reporting includes: the Master Project Schedule, the Monthly Progress Report, Quarterly Progress Reports, DBE Program Reports, and regularly scheduled review meetings.

DRAFT


MDOT’s project reporting and tracking system is used to ensure that the project will be completed according to the schedule and budget. The information provided will be used to identify trends and forecasts, significant status issues, and planned actions to mitigate any adverse impacts. [Weekly] status reports are to be completed throughout the construction phase of the project. These status reports will be used to identify project costs, schedules, quality issues, significant status issues and compliance with state and federal requirements. The weekly status reports will also include reports on project metrics and change orders and extra work orders. The MDOT Project Manager will prepare the [Monthly] Progress Report and it will be issued by the MDOT [Passenger Rail Planning Manager]. The report will be distributed to the Oversight Committee on a monthly basis. The report will detail the period and planned accomplishments for the project. Weekly construction reports will be generated by the [City of Troy] and/or the CE&I consultant and reviewed by the MDOT Project Manager. The monthly report will include at a minimum the following items:

• Project budget versus expenditures • Projections of cost to complete and total cost • Progress made to date versus projected progress • Issues and changes • Financial status and projections

3.9. Document Control

Document control is an integral part of the management control process. It involves the storage, retrieval, reproduction and distribution of those documents which reflect the current approved configuration of the system and all correspondence control tasks. All important project management documents will be tracked and documented using MDOT‘s owned computer networks. Status reports will be generated which will track transmittals, submittals, requests for information, correspondence, as-built documents, and all other pertinent documents. Documents will be stored on the MDOT network and backed up at a separate warehouse. All project correspondence letters that require a response will be stored on the MDOT network. Important status information such as: date sent; responsibility; priority; and date responded will be tracked. The MDOT Project Manager will be responsible for generating official MDOT responses to correspondence letters To ensure consistency and in support of total quality management, the MDOT Project Manager will be responsible for the implementation of standard file indexing to help reduce the cost effort and delays associated with logging and filing. All incoming and outgoing correspondence to the City of Troy, CN, consultants, suppliers and contractors will be logged and stored in the document control system.

DRAFT


All drawings submitted by the final design consultant are stored electronically at the 60%, and 100% review stages. An electronic document repository for all design, construction schedules, written documentation, agreements, meeting minutes, major issues and the like will be incorporated and utilized. Storage of these documents will be provided for the life of the project.

3.10. Communications

MDOT will assign a project manager from its Office of High Speed Rail and Innovative Project Advancement to work with the Project Manager from the City of Troy, the lead city on the Project. This MDOT Project Manager will provide management and oversight for the final design and construction tasks as outlined in Task 1 and Task 2 of the Statement of Work. MDOT is responsible to FRA for the implementation of this Project. The City of Troy will be the contracting agency with MDOT for the final design and construction of the Project. The working partnership for the project includes FRA, MDOT, CN and Amtrak. A Project Management Plan, which has been submitted to FRA, includes an organization chart illustrating the working relationships between the organizations and the individuals that are responsible for project management. The City of Troy will have primary responsibility for preparing the final design plans for the project. The City of Troy will be the responsible contracting agency and will be responsible for construction acceptance. The City of Troy will be the primary party in the right of way easement agreement with the Canadian National Railway. The working partnership for the project includes MDOT, City of Troy, CN, and Amtrak. The City of Troy coordinates inspections and permits for commercial buildings and will provide those services for the Intermodal Facility. During the City’s commercial intake process, Commercial Services brings all potentially affected departments together to review and input on the project needs including water, sewerage, building official, fire marshal, city planning, zoning, etcetera. The City of Troy will work closely with the project architects, engineers, construction manager and constructors along with MDOT, CN, Amtrak and the project partners to assure the project stays on track. This will be accomplished through regular project progress monitoring meetings (weekly/bi-weekly) and appropriate adjustments to keep the project on schedule and budget

3.11. Project and Grant Close-Out

Project closeout is used to document closure of the project administratively and contractually, as well as to evaluate the finished product. Typically, project close-out includes activities that relate to administrative and contractual close-out of the project such as: budget reconciliation, submission of final version of schedule, project reports, progress

DRAFT


reports, and drawings, final payment or remittance settlement, and other activities as needed. Administrative closure includes finalizing all project documentation and disseminating information on the completed project. Contractual closure is achieved by settling all contracts, open items or agreements. Following the completion of the project, a project closeout meeting will be conducted to identify the positive and negative experiences of the project that can be used to improve future projects. Sufficient time will be built in the project management plan for MDOT to deliver close-out activities and FRA to review of the final materials. Close out activities span beyond project completion termination date.

DRAFT


4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCUREMENT APPROACH 4.1. Responsibility

The project is a joint effort of FRA, MDOT, the City of Troy, CN and Amtrak and a team of consultants and contractors. The project team structures and lines of communications are illustrated in this plan, under Section 2.2.1. Project Organization Chart. The design and construction team will develop additional reporting, interface and responsibility diagrams as needed for project management purposes during the final design phase. .

4.2. Procurement

MDOT and its consultants adhere to established accounting, documentation, management, procurement policies and procedures, and sound business and technical management practices, especially where decisions are required to respond to changes or unanticipated conditions. The 2009 ARRA HSIPR requirements for procurement and contract management will be adhered to throughout the life of the project. The components of the project to be implemented by MDOT will follow the MDOT procedures for procurement and contract management. All procurements will follow State of Michigan requirements for competitive bidding including those led by CN. 2009 ARRA HSIPR funding requires the use of competitive procedures (FRA HSIPR Part IV, dated June 23, 2009, Appendix 3.3.6-Contracting Provisions) and include Buy America provisions (FRA HSIPR Part, dated June 23, 2009, Appendix 3.4.1). Any contracts between MDOT and other lead agencies involved in the project, including the City of Troy, will include flow-down requirements related to ARRA 2009 HSIPR funding for contract management/administration and reporting.

DRAFT


5. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

MDOT will provide construction management oversight for all construction work. MDOT will contract out the management to a CE&I consultant whose duties will include shop drawing review, inspection, reporting, records documentation and testing, measurement of quantities and as-builts. The CE& I consultant shall interface daily with the contractor and provide weekly reports to MDOT. MDOT will be responsible for construction management for the overall project based on the FRA-approved final design. This includes overall management and administration of the contracts for engineering and inspection and construction. Safety will be a key consideration in the planning and construction of all railroad infrastructure improvements. During the construction project, changes to the scope, schedule, staffing, policy, technology and resources may occur. The source of these changes may be internal or external initiated by MDOT. External changes can also result from other stakeholders, resources availability, and changes in technologies, etc. Whether the effects of changes are positive or negative, managing change is an important factor for success. Managing change requires planning, discipline among the tea, customers and stakeholders. As the Change Management Plan is executed, the following should occur: improved relationship with customers, improved financial performance, reduced project delays, improved project teamwork, and improved management of construction project quality.

5.1. MDOT Construction Project Cost & Schedule Management Responsibilities

MDOT’s Project Manager is responsible for the cost and schedule management. Following are key areas for cost and schedule management:

1. Risk Management. Items that put the construction schedule and budget at risk will be identified weekly and addressed in quarterly/monthly/weekly progress reports. Action items will be assigned with completion dates to mitigate the risks in a timely manner.

2. Scope Management. Scope management is an important factor in the success of the

construction project. Scope issues will be identified within weekly progress reports and during management meetings. Action items will be assigned to address scope issues in a timely manner.

3. Scheduling Software. The schedule for the construction project will be tracked and

monitored using Microsoft Project.

4. Cost Tracking Software. Costs associated with the construction project will be tracked and monitored using Microsoft Project.

DRAFT


5. Construction Project Metrics. The following metrics will be reviewed during quarterly, monthly and/or weekly progress meetings:

• Progress reports • Schedule • Cost to complete • Percent complete • Safety reports • Quality reports

6. New and Innovative Contracting Schedules. New and innovative contracting strategies will not be used for this construction project. 7. Value Engineering, Value Analysis and Constructability. Value engineering, value analysis and constructability studies provide recommendations that include potential design improvements, cost savings, incorporation of new materials and construction techniques, and improvement of standards and policies. The value engineering studies and constructability reviews for this construction will be performed by MDOT staff or by a certified value engineering design consultant if necessary. 8. Contractor Outreach Meetings. New and innovative contracting strategies will not be applied for this construction project. 9. Partnering. Partnering strategies will not be applied for this construction project. 10. Change orders and Extra Work Order Procedures. Tracking pending contract modifications as soon as they are identified and having the railroad, contractor and/or CE&I consultant quantify the cost of such possible changes allows for early analysis of contingency utilization and comparisons to the baseline budget. As pending changes are identified, the CE&I consultant and/or the railroad or contractor work together to identify changes in work execution to possibly mitigate the cost impact and contingency usage. The CE&I consultant prepares an independent estimate of the work and that serves as the basis to evaluate and finalize an acceptable cost within the contract. Microsoft Project, along with Excel spreadsheets are utilized to track, monitor and communicate pending contract modifications and their potential project impacts to MDOT management on a real-time basis. 11. Claims Management Procedure. In the mutual interest of all parties, MDOT vigorously promotes resolution at the most immediate opportunity and advocates timely submission of claims and responses. The purpose of a claim may be to recover extra costs due to changes in scope differing site conditions or delays. These instances should be easily identifiable by both the CE&I and the contractor, so the contractor is required first to request a revision to the contract per Standard Specification 104.2 and Standard Specification 104.3. If a revision is not agreed upon, the contractor may proceed using the claim process.

DRAFT


MDOT Standard Specification 105.13 provides that the contractor must notify the CE&I consultant, in writing, of the intent to file a claim for extra compensation. This notice must be filed before beginning any work that may provide a foundation for the claim. If the contractor does not notify the CE&I consultant in this manner, MDOT may deny the claim. Once the CE&I consultant has notice of a claim, the Claim Submittal Form must be filled out and submitted to the Project Manager. For projects subject to federal oversight, MDOT must notify the FRA early during the claims process as well as request concurrence for the settlement amount resulting from

5.2. MDOT Construction Engineering & Inspection (CE&I) Consultant

The day-to-day management of the construction will be governed by the policies and procedures in this Project Management Plan and will be supplemented by the current version of the MDOT Roadway Standards. The CE&I will use experienced, qualified inspectors to perform their duties and shall be under the direct control of the appropriate MDOT Project Manager. MDOT will conduct CE&I consultant for the infrastructure improvements through use of a consultant. CE&I consultant will be ongoing during all contractor work activities. This will include, but not be limited to, participating in construction meetings; responding to contractor requests for information; documenting daily work activities including staffing, equipment and materials; reviewing and approving contractor payments; and complying with all ARRA funding requirements. Safety practices used for on-site construction activities will be monitored.

5.3. Construction Project Documentation

All information developed for the construction project including correspondence, memorandums, reports, phone conversation logs, meeting minutes, calculations, supporting data and drawings is filed and stored in a project recordkeeping system on the DOT network. The system includes provisions for all electronic formats. Also included is the electronic naming convention to be used. These filing procedures will facilitate future referencing. MDOT will store all original and official documents at their offices. All e-mail is filed electronically and all electronic supporting data and drawings are filed on the DOT network.

DRAFT


6. RISK MANAGEMENT

It is imperative to implement strategies for reducing the cost and schedule impacts which risks may have on the project. Risks and mitigation will be discussed and documented at all project meetings by the MDOT Project Manager.

6.1. Organization Responsibilities

Manifestation of major risk items surfaces at a minimum in the monthly report. The following steps are taken in the risk management process:

• The bi-weekly project meeting whereby project supervisors and managers bring forth issues relating to scope, cost, and schedule. Risk issues brought forth here are discussed at the issues/risk management meeting, if deemed necessary.

• The financial team meeting whereby the liaison to the project manager discusses issues raised at the project management meeting. Availability of future funding, budget constraints, and cost allocations present a number of potential risk items given strictly mandated funding levels and expectations.

• Oversight Committee meetings whereby DOT management discusses overall program risk. The monthly report is discussed at Oversight Committee meetings.

At each stage in this process, the DOT takes proactive action in mitigating risk. Issues requiring further discussion outside of small group discussion are elevated. Usage of document control and accompanying issue management ensures that all issues are logged, tracked, and that solutions are found by a given date.

6.2. Major Sources of Risk

Major sources of risk for the project can be grouped into the following categories: • Design risks • Construction risks • Financing and economic risks • External political and social risks

While some risks may not impact the project with the same intensity as others, all must be considered in order to reduce the likelihood of cost and schedule overruns. Program level risks will be developed at the task level with the FRA input for each PS&E package or Request for Proposal (RFP) submittal. These will be included in an overall risk management section of the State’s project report. 6.3. Risk Management Process

Items that put the design and construction schedule and/or budget at risk will be identified and addressed in quarterly/monthly/bi-weekly progress reports, as necessary. Action items

DRAFT


will be documented and assigned with completion dates to mitigate the risks in a timely manner. Risks are assessed during the design process, corresponding to design review milestones and updates for each PS&E package. An estimate of the work is prepared during which each element of the project is reviewed for any uncertainty/risk. Contingency factors are then assigned to the estimate to allow for these uncertainties within the work. Prior to award of construction contracts all aspects which are uncertain are again reviewed in an effort to transfer or share any of the risks. The design consultant will make every effort to reduce or eliminate risks during this phase of the project. In order to reduce these risks a comprehensive review process is made. Items looked at include constructability reviews, safety, site assessments for hazards or contamination, quality planning, completion of design prior to award, engineering oversight by differing consultants/MDOT agencies, accurate cost estimates, and other activities as deemed necessary. This process results in a more complete and accurate project as it relates to risks prior to award of construction contracts.

DRAFT


7. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

7.1. Design Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

MDOT recognizes that Quality Assurance (QA) plays a large part in successful project delivery. Before a set of plans is let for bidding, it will go through a rigorous review process. MDOT will review the key components of the plan for constructability, bid-ability, cost effectiveness and ease of maintenance. At the end of the review period, a formal meeting will be held so comments can be presented to the design team. Review comments are shared openly so that issues can be resolved globally. These formal reviews occur at the 30%, 60% and 90% stages of the project or as needed. There are a number of checklists and data logs that will identify and record when and what items have been reviewed. In addition to the reviews that are performed at the regional office level, Central Office staff will review the plan for statewide consistency. QC Plan includes:

• Reviewers will be identified and assigned • The project will be executed in accordance with applicable MDOT and FRA manuals • Communications with team members (may lead to decision documents) • Reviews to be scheduled:

• Monthly status and quarterly reviews will be communicated • Plans will be reviewed to establish consistency in the documentation prior to

advertisement • Scope, schedule and budget will be reviewed periodically for progress • Quarterly review • Status reviews • Milestone reviews • Deliverable reviews • Customer feedback • Process reviews

7.2. Construction QA/QC

A Project Quality Plan (PQP) will be developed for each project to ensure a quality project to MDOT. This requires a commitment from the MDOT’s Project Manager, design consultant(s) and CE&I consultants. The PQP describes the overall approach to quality on the projects, as well as the quality related activities that will take place on the project. The PQP will be comprised of three main elements: 1) Continuous or “built in” Quality, 2) Quality Control and 3) Quality Audit. The MDOT Project Manager will review each contract in advance of the pre-construction conference and identifies specific quality control, monitoring and verification issues. These issues are communicated in advance of preparing and distributing the agenda for the meeting discussion.

DRAFT


The CE&I consultant is directly responsible for monitoring and verifying the contractor’s QC program, materials test results, materials certification and construction procedures. Ultimately, the MDOT Project Manager is responsible for the quality assurance of the materials utilized on their projects. The CE&I consultant is responsible for oversight of the project construction materials quality assurance activities. The CE&I consultant is responsible for independent verification of the sampling and testing procedures for quality control of materials used on the project. MDOT may contract for independent quality assurance at the suppliers’ facilities for items such as structural steel and precast. During project closeout, prior to the MDOT Project Manager finalizing and issuing a punch list, a walk-through is conducted and coordinated with the MDOT Project Manager, CE&I consultant and contractor. This is to confirm that all quality deficiencies and potential maintenance items are included in the punch list.

DRAFT


8. SAFETY AND SECURITY

8.1. Organization Responsibilities

Safety and health is the responsibility of each railroad employee and contractor on the construction site regardless of the level of involvement. Contractors are directly responsible for providing a safe working environment, protecting the work zone and traffic, and taking the necessary corrective actions to address identified safety concerns. Contractors shall comply with Standard Specification 107.1-Laws to be observed. MDOT is responsible for monitoring, evaluating and coordinating safety compliance for the construction projects at State-owned facilities. The [CMR/CN ] is responsible for monitoring, evaluating and coordinating safety compliance for the construction projects at railroad-owned facilities. Railroad worker protection is a high priority of MDOT, FRA and the railroads. Work on this construction project will follow the guidelines and best practices for railroad worker protection and safety, which includes the FRA Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) Final Rule.

8.2. Safety Approach

Safety is a top priority for MDOT. The DOT is dedicated to training and education on proper safety procedures. MDOT recognizes that safety takes precedence over deadlines and services. All work to be completed on railroad property is expected to follow CP safety standards and requirements. [The CMR prohibits construction site visits by anyone other than the railroad forces, contractor’s and subcontractor’s employees, FRA, MDOT, and the CE&I consultant staff and their designated technical advisers and public safety and emergency response personnel. All others are excluded from the construction site, except when escorted as official visitors, wearing the required personal protective equipment and having been first briefed by MDOT staff on safety. Because the rail corridor will remain operational during construction, the construction site will be clearly defined as off limits to non-authorized personnel. The CMR requires all personnel working on railroad property be properly trained and certified in through the following programs:

• Roadway Worker Protection • E-RAILSAFE

Personnel working on railroad property are required to carry their Roadway Worker Protection and E-RAILSAFE certifications cards. Personal protective equipment will be worn by all personnel (including railroad forces and contractors) working on railroad property to include, but not limited to, hard hat, railroad-approved safety vest, steel-toed work boots, safety glasses, gloves and ear protection if necessary. In the event of an accident, incident or near miss on accidents, accident reports are to be prepared and submitted to MDOT. Accident reports may result in changes in procedures that can be made to prevent future incidents.

DRAFT


8.3. Security Approach

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a component of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for security of the nation’s transportation systems. TSA has taken several steps to manage risk and strengthen our nation’s rail and transit systems by: providing funding to state and local partners; training and deploying manpower and assets for high risk areas; developing and testing new technologies; and performing security assessments of systems across the country. The construction contractor will be responsible for the security of the site during construction including, but not limited to, securing the jobsite against: disruption of on-site material, vandalism, trespassers, and terrorist attack. For work on railroad property by railroad forces, The CMR and CN will be responsible for the security of the site during construction, including but not limited to, securing the jobsite against: disruption of on-site material, vandalism, trespassers and terrorist attack.

DRAFT


9. APPENDIX A: Project Map 10. APPENDIX B: Project Organization Chart

APPROVED

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

DATE

SHEET TITLE

HRC JOB NO.

DATE

SCALE

ADDITIONS AND/OR REVISIONS

PROJECT TITLE

SHEET

NO.

LOGO

OF

CITY OF TROY

555 HULET DRIVEBLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH.

P.O. BOX 82448303 - 0824

PHONE: (248) 454-6300

WEB SITE: http: / / www.hrc-engr.com

FAX (1st. Floor): (248) 454-6312FAX (2nd. Floor): (248) 338-2592

HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK, INCConsulting Engineers

INTERMODALTRANSIT FACILITY

KEY PLAN

APPROVED

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

DATE

SHEET TITLE

HRC JOB NO.

DATE

SCALE


PROJECT TITLE

SHEET

NO.

LOGO

OF

CITY OF TROY


P.O. BOX 82448303 - 0824

PHONE: (248) 454-6300





KEY PLAN

APPROVED

CHECKED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

DATE

SHEET TITLE

HRC JOB NO.

DATE

SCALE


PROJECT TITLE

SHEET

NO.

LOGO

OF

CITY OF TROY


P.O. BOX 82448303 - 0824

PHONE: (248) 454-6300





KEY PLAN