CHANGE ORDER NO 4 W KIMBERLY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES.PDF

CONSULTANT GHANGE ORDER - BOS APPROVAL
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Ghange Order Number: 4
Date: 711212016 Amount:| $ 328,263.83 Agenda Item No,| G64144225
Contract No:| 2013-043 | Work Order No:| = TT814
Consultant Name:| Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project Name:|_ MC 85: 107th Avenue to 95th Avenue
initial Amount} $761,107.26 Contract Award Date:| 4/23/2014 Total Prior Change Orders: $1,342,092.48
By mutual agreement of the parties, the following contract change(s) are incorporated into the above-identified contract. All other contract terms and conditions
remain unchanged.
Change Order No. 4 shall increase the contract amount an additional $328,263.83. Approval of this Change Order establishes a new contract
amount of $2,431,463.57 and allows the consultant fo prepare design updates to address utility conflicts, including developer coordination, which
required updates to drainage scuppers and basins, traffic signals, street lighting, curbs, driveway locations, [TS facilities, and coordinate additional
meetings. Also, this change order shall extend the contract performance period an additional 180 calendar days,
By reason of this change 180 days extension of time will be allowed.
With inclusion of this change, this contract has a revised cumulative performance period of 1275 days.
The contract completion date is: November 2, 2017.
The following financial information is submitted:
Initial Contract Amount = $ 761,107.26
Amended Contract Amount w/ previous change orders = fi 2,103,199.74
Current Change Order Request $ 328,263.83
Amended Contract Amount w/ current change order $ __ 2,431, 463.57
We, the undersigned Consultant, do hereby agree that upon execution of this Change Order that we will perform all work as identified above, and as may be described in
attachment(s} and will accept the above specified amount(s) as full payment thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have executed this Contract Change Order:
Principal (Signature) Federal Tax ID Nurnber:
Printed Name
Title:
Date:
CITY of XXXXXXXXXX APPROVAL
i certify that this change is required for this contract.
Project Manager. Date:
MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
! certify that this change is required for this contract
Halle Wirz ffl
iT” Date * Daté
H] ty] Be
GIP Cash Flow Manager - Ghuck Williams Date Date !
t certify that thls change Is within the limits authorized by the Maricopa County
Progfrement Code
Welle
Contract SerVices 7 bate
COUNTY APPROVAL
RE! ACCEPTED AND APPROVED:
Stee
ol
oS zo
Date
5	1	78	1	9	3	1312	2502	125	26	64.979286	Chairman,
5	1	78	1	9	4	1450	2504	71	22	96.878838	Board
5	1	78	1	9	5	1530	2504	23	22	96.878838	of
5	1	78	1	9	6	1560	2504	146	28	95.111176	Supervisors
5	1	78	1	9	7	1984	2508	56	21	96.492294	Date
4	1	78	1	10	0	240	2551	496	35	-1	
5	1	78	1	10	1	240	2551	84	35	96.691063	Transp
5	1	78	1	10	2	381	2555	36	21	0.000000	t6n
5	1	78	1	10	3	427	2555	191	27	90.741867	Director/County
5	1	78	1	10	4	628	2556	108	26	96.440979	Engineer
4	1	78	1	11	0	1311	2615	114	21	-1	
5	1	78	1	11	1	1311	2615	114	21	89.303574	ATTEST:
3	1	78	2	0	0	240	2645	207	22	-1	
4	1	78	2	1	0	240	2645	207	22	-1	
5	1	78	2	1	1	240	2645	90	22	95.962463	LEGAL
5	1	78	2	1	2	340	2645	107	21	95.750252	REVIEW
3	1	78	3	0	0	270	2681	921	30	-1	
4	1	78	3	1	0	270	2681	921	30	-1	
5	1	78	3	1	1	270	2681	119	27	96.777344	Approved
5	1	78	3	1	2	399	2687	29	15	96.961128	as
5	1	78	3	1	3	436	2682	22	20	95.336571	to
5	1	78	3	1	4	465	2682	54	21	95.336571	form
5	1	78	3	1	5	529	2682	47	21	96.324234	and
5	1	78	3	1	6	583	2682	70	21	96.324234	within
5	1	78	3	1	7	661	2682	38	21	96.848991	the
5	1	78	3	1	8	708	2688	86	21	96.324226	powers
5	1	78	3	1	9	804	2682	45	23	96.446503	and
5	1	78	3	1	10	858	2682	105	29	96.773666	authority
5	1	78	3	1	11	972	2684	93	27	96.985771	granted
5	1	78	3	1	12	1075	2685	70	21	96.647629	under
5	1	78	3	1	13	1152	2685	39	21	96.647629	the
3	1	78	4	0	0	271	2714	1766	44	-1	
4	1	78	4	1	0	271	2714	1766	44	-1	
5	1	78	4	1	1	271	2714	53	24	84.525215	laws
5	1	78	4	1	2	333	2715	24	23	94.832039	of
5	1	78	4	1	3	364	2715	38	23	94.832039	the
5	1	78	4	1	4	411	2715	63	23	94.125061	State
5	1	78	4	1	5	483	2717	24	21	96.986603	of
5	1	78	4	1	6	512	2717	95	22	96.405502	Arizona
5	1	78	4	1	7	616	2717	22	21	96.895828	to
5	1	78	4	1	8	646	2717	38	22	94.999405	the
5	1	78	4	1	9	693	2717	113	28	95.687973	Maricopa
5	1	78	4	1	10	814	2718	87	27	96.926910	County
5	1	78	4	1	11	910	2718	145	27	94.770317	Department
5	1	78	4	1	12	1062	2720	24	22	94.770317	of
5	1	78	4	1	13	1093	2720	184	27	94.331894	Transportation.
5	1	78	4	1	14	1311	2727	63	23	3.287115	“Clerk
5	1	78	4	1	15	1381	2729	25	21	96.998123	of
5	1	78	4	1	16	1411	2729	41	21	96.942673	the
5	1	78	4	1	17	1461	2729	71	22	95.993805	Board
5	1	78	4	1	18	1981	2719	56	39	96.987434	Date
2	1	79	0	0	0	229	2813	886	14	-1	
3	1	79	1	0	0	229	2813	886	14	-1	
4	1	79	1	1	0	229	2813	886	14	-1	
5	1	79	1	1	1	229	2813	886	14	95.000000	 
2	1	80	0	0	0	240	2828	812	27	-1	
3	1	80	1	0	0	240	2828	812	27	-1	
4	1	80	1	1	0	240	2828	812	27	-1	
5	1	80	1	1	1	240	2828	83	27	96.452827	Deputy
5	1	80	1	1	2	331	2828	89	25	96.118454	County
5	1	80	1	1	3	427	2828	97	21	96.323364	Counsel
5	1	80	1	1	4	996	2832	56	21	96.553665	Date
2	1	81	0	0	0	220	321	56	2562	-1	
3	1	81	1	0	0	220	321	56	2562	-1	
4	1	81	1	1	0	220	321	56	2562	-1	
5	1	81	1	1	1	220	321	56	2562	95.000000	 
2	1	82	0	0	0	2239	336	66	2558	-1	
3	1	82	1	0	0	2239	336	66	2558	-1	
4	1	82	1	1	0	2239	336	66	2558	-1	
5	1	82	1	1	1	2239	336	66	2558	95.000000	 
2	1	83	0	0	0	229	2869	2026	29	-1	
3	1	83	1	0	0	229	2869	2026	29	-1	
4	1	83	1	1	0	229	2869	2026	29	-1	
5	1	83	1	1	1	229	2869	2026	29	95.000000	 
2	1	84	0	0	0	237	2885	1398	31	-1	
3	1	84	1	0	0	237	2885	1398	31	-1	
4	1	84	1	1	0	237	2885	1398	31	-1	
5	1	84	1	1	1	237	2885	129	21	66.339279	Distribution:
5	1	84	1	1	2	381	2885	98	24	91.320023	Originals
5	1	84	1	1	3	486	2897	8	3	93.265343	-
5	1	84	1	1	4	502	2885	125	24	78.813904	Consultant,
5	1	84	1	1	5	636	2886	105	21	93.353966	Contracts
5	1	84	1	1	6	748	2886	85	24	95.914307	Branch,
5	1	84	1	1	7	843	2886	59	21	84.430954	Clerk
5	1	84	1	1	8	907	2888	23	19	96.975891	of
5	1	84	1	1	9	936	2888	33	19	95.800476	the
5	1	84	1	1	10	976	2888	67	21	96.977097	Board
5	1	84	1	1	11	1327	2889	77	26	81.452621	Copies
5	1	84	1	1	12	1411	2901	10	3	92.729858	-
5	1	84	1	1	13	1428	2891	93	24	93.271080	Finance,
5	1	84	1	1	14	1530	2891	78	25	91.449043	Praject
5	1	84	1	1	15	1629	2892	6	7	92.640594	M
2	1	85	0	0	0	1726	2894	286	25	-1	
3	1	85	1	0	0	1726	2894	286	25	-1	
4	1	85	1	1	0	1726	2894	286	25	-1	
5	1	85	1	1	1	1726	2894	44	24	96.393394	City
5	1	85	1	1	2	1777	2894	83	21	85.334129	Partner
5	1	85	1	1	3	1866	2894	21	25	95.760994	(if
5	1	85	1	1	4	1893	2894	119	25	62.572113	applicable)
2	1	86	0	0	0	231	2902	2021	29	-1	
3	1	86	1	0	0	231	2902	2021	29	-1	
4	1	86	1	1	0	231	2902	2021	29	-1	
5	1	86	1	1	1	231	2902	2021	29	95.000000	 
2	1	87	0	0	0	2053	3156	214	23	-1	
3	1	87	1	0	0	2053	3156	214	23	-1	
4	1	87	1	1	0	2053	3156	214	23	-1	
5	1	87	1	1	1	2053	3156	95	23	95.980003	Revised
5	1	87	1	1	2	2155	3156	112	21	74.651894	7/12/2016
2	1	88	0	0	0	2520	17	30	3279	-1	
3	1	88	1	0	0	2520	17	30	3279	-1	
4	1	88	1	1	0	2520	17	30	3279	-1	
5	1	88	1	1	1	2520	17	30	3279	95.000000
eed

CONTRACT SERVICES - CHANGE ORDER REQUEST FORM
Initial Contract Amount $ 761,107.26
Total Prior Change Order Amounts $ 1,342,092.48
Amended Contract Amount with Previous Change Orders $ 2,103,199.74
Current Change Order Request $ 328,263.83
Amended Contract Amount with Current Change Order $ 2,431,463.57
Current Change Order Request includes a contract increase of 15.6 %., -
Including this Change Order, the total amount of this contract has increased 319.5 %
By reason of this change 180 days extension of time will be allowed.
With inclusion of this change, this contract has a revised cumulative performance period of _1275_ days.
The new contract completion date is: 11/2/2017
|
Brief Descri ption of Change Order Justification: (Attachments: Fee Proposal and Scope of Work)
Additional meetings and design updates to address utility conflicts, including developer coordination, which
required updates to drainage scuppers and basins, traffic signals, street lighting, curbs, driveway locations,
and ITS facilities.
Project Manager has compared Change Order Fees with Contract Fee Proposal? XtYes
Be. MeL
Project Manager Signature:
Branch Manager Approval:
Division Manager Approval:
V/A
de change
Project Manager has received funding approval Order?
TIP/OPS Manager Signature:
1 of 1

Kimley»Horn
June 14, 2016
Mr. Ben Markert, P.E.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Project Management — Branch
Manager
2901 West Durango Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85009-6357
Re: Contract No.: 2013-043
Amendment 4, Rev 7
Project Name: MC 85 — 107" Avenue to 75" Avenue
Project No. = TT345/TT511
x ;
Dear Mr. Markert:
We submit herewith our proposal for a contract amendment to include the additional work items you
have requested. The revised scope of services and derivation of the fees is attached.
All rates are in accordance with the contract.
We-trust that you will find our submittal in order. Should you have any questions, please contact me
at (602) 906-1328/
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ahmad Omais, P.E.
Senior Vice President
AAO/dr
Enc
Mkimiey-homcom | 7740N. 16th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85020

Scope of Services — Project
Specific
Final Design
MC 85 ~ 107 AVENUE TO 75™ AVENUE
Amendment 4
Additional Tasks
Project number: TT345/TTS11
Contract No.: 2013-043
Maricopa County
Department of Transportation
2901 W. Durango Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
June 14, 2016

Scope of Services
_
Project Specific — A4
Table of Contents
SCOPE OF SERVICES — PROJECT SPECIFIC — A4
SECTION 100 PROJECT MANAGEMENT -®
SECTION 500 UTILITIES AND RAILROAD ©
SECTION 900 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE ©
SECTION 1200 SUBMITTALS 24
KAPHX Roadway\191850000-MC 85\Contract\S - Contract Amendments\CA 4 Final Design - Additional tasks\TT345_Scope-
Project_Specific_CA4.docx
Project No.: TT345/TTS511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 3 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
SCOPE OF SERVICES — PROJECT SPECIFIC — A4
Project Overview/Background
The purpose of this contract amendment is to add tasks that were not included in the original scope and
previous contract amendment which were requested by MCDOT. Only sections with added scope have
been included within this contract amendment. The original scope of services was executed in four parts
shown below and was originally estimated with the understanding that the documents produced were
beyond the 90% design level as referenced on page 3 of 10 in the original contract noted below.
This is the first contract amendment that adds or modifies scope from the original contract (preliminary
design) and amendments (final design) scope.
Original Contract - Design and Plan Update (Roll Plot & 95% Plans), 107" Ave to 75™ Ave
Executed: 04/23/14
Amendment 1 - Phase 1, 91° to 75" Ave Final Design
Executed: 05/1/15
Amendment 2 - Phase 1 extended limits, 95" to 91° Ave Final Design
Executed: 08/10/15
Amendment 3 - Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95™ Ave Final Design
Executed: 09/28/15
Length of Services
The consultant will produce final deliverables for TT345 and TTS11 based on the current schedule as
outlined below including the items noted within this contract amendment. To accommodate these
schedules Kimley-Horn is requesting that all previous contracts and amendments for both TT345 and
TT511 be extended through 3/31/18.
Note: Post design services are not currently included in Kimley-Horn’s contracts and amendments for
TT345 and TT511. A future contract amendment will be necessary for post design services which will
include an additional contract duration extension.
SECTION 100 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
100.3.9.3 Checking Procedures
Scope: As a part of the QA/QC process, the Consultant shall ensure that all designs and documents
revised for the additional scope of work requested within this contract amendment including but not
limited to plans, reports, calculations, specifications, special provisions, estimates, and schedules are
thoroughly checked by an individual equally competent to the originator of the document to verify
accuracy.
Justification: The additional scope as outlined within this contract amendment requires additional
checking of plans, reports, calculations, specifications, special provisions, estimates and schedules.
100.6.1 Progress Meetings
Additional Scope: The table below illustrates the number of meetings that were originally in the contract
and the number of meetings held and anticipated additional meetings.
.. Project No.: TT345/TT511 . Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
“Revised: 6/14/2016 : ‘ - . Page 4 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific ~ A4
Progress Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 5
Phase 1 — TT345 3 12 ~2
Phase 2—TT511 2
Additional meetings needed 5 -5
Total Meetings needed 10 17 ~7
Note: Includes Kick-Off Meetings
Due to the complexity of this project and extended durations of design, additional progress meetings are
necessary to keep all stakeholders updated and informed as the final design progresses to completion.
Utility Coordination Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings No of Meetings Difference
in Conttact Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 4
Phase 1 —TT345 2 6 +2
|
Phase 2 —TT511 2
Additional meetings needed 2 -2
Total Meetings needed 8 0
Individual Utility Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 2
Phase 1 — TT345 6 23 -9
Phase 2—TTS11 6
Additional meetings needed 4 ~-4
Total Meetings needed 14 27 -13
Note: Individual Utility Meetings include ITS, Traffic Signals and Lighting Meetings
Additional individual utility meetings have been necessary to keep each private utility moving toward a
permit plan set. As utilities have developed their permit drawings they have created additional conflicts
with their designs which were not anticipated. This generated additional designs from the private utility
companies which requires additional coordination. Fee associated with these additional meetings is
included under section 500.3.1,
Project No.: TT345/TT511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 5 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — Ad
Stakeholder/Developer Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings | No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 12
Phase 1 ~TT345 3 16 +2
Phase 2 ~TTS11 3
Additional meetings needed 4 -4
Total Meetings needed 18 20 -2
Note: Includes Meetings with MCDOT Management
As the design has progressed more developers have moved forward or have constructed improvements
that need to be incorporated into Kimley-Horn’s MC 85 design requiring more coordination meetings.
Fee associated with these additional meetings is included under section 400.1.
Comment Resolution Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings | No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 0
Phase 1 —TT345 1 2 0
Phase 2—TTS11 I
Additional meetings needed 2 -2
Total Meetings needed 2 4 -2
Only one comment resolution meeting was included in the previous scopes of work when in fact we have
two major submittals for each phase of the project. Coordinating comment responses requires additional
one on one time with the reviewers to make sure all parties are on the same page. Previous MCDOT
Branch Manager requested that comment resolution meetings be removed from the original scope of work.
Fee associated with these additional meetings and coordination is included under section 1200.7.
Drainage Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings | No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 3
Phase | — TT345 0 3 0
Phase 2 —TTS11 0
Additional meetings needed 1 -1
Total Meetings needed 3 4 -l
With the addition of the 107" Avenue overtopping, one additional meeting is necessary for coordinating
an adequate solution. Fee associated with this additional meeting is included under section 900.1.4.3.5.
Project No.: TT345/TTS 11 Contract No.: 2013-043.—A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 ~~~

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
R/W Coordination Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings | No of Meetings Difference
in Contract. Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 0
Phase 1 — TT345 4 ‘S +3
Phase 2—TT511 4
Additional meetings needed 3 3
Total Meetings needed 8 8 0
Railroad Coordination Meetings
Project Phase No of Meetings '| No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 0
Phase 1 —TT345 0 0 | 43
Phase 2—TTS11 3
Additional meetings needed 3 3
Total Meetings needed 3 3 0
SUMMARY
Project Phase No of Meetings No of Meetings Difference
in Contract Held or needed
Design and Plan Update 26
Phase 1 ~ TT345 19 67 -I
Phase 2 —TT511 21
Additional meetings needed 24 -24
Total Meetings needed 66 91 -25
Justification: Coordination meetings are ongoing for all aspects of the project. Additional meetings are
anticipated through the duration of the project as outlined above.
100.10 — Project Administration
N
Scope: The Consultant will continue to provide project administration services. This task includes the
administrative and coordination tasks required for coordinating the work of the team members with
MCDOT staff and other project stakeholders. This task coordinates and administers the day-to-day
operations of the project, including organizing and filing project data and communication files, responding
to project correspondence including emails, preparation of regular monthly progress reports, performance
of monthly budgets, and schedule monitoring. ;
Project No.: TT345/TT511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 7 of 21

Scope of Services
—
Project Specific — A4
Justification: Additional scope as outlined within this contract amendment will require additional
coordination with MCDOT staff, schedule maintenance and day-to-day management of the project.
SECTION 500 UTILITIES AND RAILROAD
500.3.1 Utility Meetings
Scope: The Consultant will hold an additional 13 individual utility meetings to coordinate utility
conflicts and relocations. The Consultant will review arid coordinate based on meeting minutes from
additional meetings held by MCDOT without Kimley Horn’s attendance.
Justification: The original scope included 14 individual utility coordination meetings as noted in 100.6.1.
The complexity of the project from a utility coordination perspective will require additional coordination
and meetings beyond what was originally assumed.
500.3.4.3 Utility Relocations Review
Scope: The Consultant will review utility permit plans submitted and provide comments to MCDOT.
Justification: 17 reviews were completed and 13 additional reviews are anticipated as shown below.
Coordination and review time averages about 6 hours for each which includes checking each submittal
for conflicts and preparing comments to distribute back to the utilities. The original scope of services
and contract amendments as summarized below did not account for the utility plan review to the extent
that was necessary to date:
The Design and Plan Update Scope (Roll Plot & 95% Plans) — 24 hours of review were
included within the original contract which assumed four permit reviews were to be completed as
part of the original scope.
Amendment 1 Scope (Phase 1, 91%* to 75" Ave Final Design) — 28 hours of review were
included within the original contract which assumed five permit reviews were to be completed as
part of the original scope.
Amendment 2 Scope (Phase 1, 95" to 91% Ave Final Design) — No utility plan reviews were
included with this scope of work or fee estimate.
Amendment 3 Scope (Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95™ Ave Final Design) — 28 hours of review was
included within the original contract which assumed five permit reviews were to be completed as
part of the original scope.
Combined: Combining the original contract with the approved amendments equates to 14
reviews scoped compared to 17 that were completed with an additional 13 reviews anticipated.
This equates to 16 reviews unaccounted for in the original scope and approved amendments.
Reviews to date:
9/11/14 —SRPI plans (not for permit, but design provided which we review)
NM 10/1/14 — CenturyLink permit plans
YB 10/24/14 — CenturyLink permit plans
Aw _
® 11/14/14 —SWG permit plans
11/21/14 —SRPI plans (not for permit, but design provided which we review)
1/12/15 — CenturyLink permit plans
Project No.: TT345/TTS51H Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 — , —_ ; Page 8 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
7. 5/4/15 — CenturyLink permit plans
6/15/15 — Received SRP] as-built plans from 75th to 79th that needed to be updated in our base
files and reviewed for conflict with proposed improvements.
9. 6/15/15 —SWG permit plans
10. 6/17/15 — ITS as-built plans that needed to be updated in our base files and reviewed for conflict
with proposed improvements.
11. 6/18/15 —SRPPD for 83rd Ave underground conversion plan review
12. W16/15 — AT&T permit plans
13. 10/16/15 — SRPI Irrigation revisions review
14, 10/28/15 — CenturyLink permit plans
15. 10/28/15 — SWG potholing work permit plans
16. 3/4/16 — SRPI plans for 83rd Avenue revisions review
17. 3/31/16 -SWG plan review (west of 83rd Avenue)
Anticipated reviews:
1 SWG for the revisions needed west of 83rd Avenue for the mainline
2 SWG for relocations of the smaller diameter lines for Phase |
3. SWG for relocations of the smaller diameter lines for Phase 2
4 SRPP Distribution for relocations Phase 1— this will be major relocations so multiple reviews
anticipated
tan SRPP Distribution for relocations Phase 2 — this will be major relocations so multiple reviews
anticipated.
6 AT&T for work at 91st Avenue
7. CenturyLink for work throughout both phases
8 Level 3 for their localized relocations for both phases
9 SRPP Transmission for Phase 1 — pole relocation
10. SRPP Transmission for Phase 2 — 107th Avenue relocation
11. SRPI for Phase 2 relocations - this will be major relocations so multiple reviews anticipated
12. Cox Phase 1 relocations
13. Cox Phase 2 relocations
SECTION 900 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE
900.1.4.2 Roadway
A. Pavement Structural Section Coordination and Revisions
Scope: The Consultant will update the pavement structural section from what was previously submitted
as 7.5 inches AC, 8 inches ABC, and 10 inches import material to 7 inches AC, 6 inches ABC and 8
Project No.: TT345/TT511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 9 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
inches of lime/cement treatment. This update will be carried through plans, cross sections, earthwork
report and estimates. ’
Justification: As part of the original scope it was assumed that the structural section was set through the
previous consultant’s coordination efforts and that it would not change. However, after the roll plot
review submittal 8/8/2014, the cross section and plan submittal 12/17/2014, and after the Pre-Final Phase
1 submittal 8/25/15, it was determined by MCDOT (through conversations with John Shi regarding the
soil stabilization limits and methods used) that the structural section for MC 85 would change from the
previous submittals to provide the most cost effective construction method for the structural section that
is used, Conversations on the topic began in late November 2015 and a final decision was communicated
in December of 2015 resulting in the update for lime-cement stabilization.
To model the project 50 different templates throughout the project corridor were created to account for
all variations in end conditions and for all tie-in locations as well as for driveway tie-ins. With the update
of the structural section each template had to be individually updated and verified. Since the method of
construction for the structural section changed multiple components, each template required adjustment
and/or creation or deletion. This task also includes updating the template drops with the new template and
generating the dtm as well as verification of the final dtm surface. Updating 50 roadway templates and
updating model controls throughout project limits accounts for half of the hours where model analysis
and revisions accounts for the other half.
Cross-sections Hours Includes:
@ Generating digital Cross-sections and updating them
@ Cross-section graphical Annotation and updates
@ Creating the PDF for 235 Cross section sheets
¢e@ Cross section analysis for component conflicts and callout conflicts
s TT345 — 136 Cross Sections Sheets with 3 sections per sheet and TT511 —99 Cross Section
Sheets with 3 Sections per sheet = 705 section updates.
B. Power poles clearance around sidewalk updates
Scope: The Consultant will update the plans to revise sidewalk layouts to accommodate this request
where feasible and coordinate any locations where it is not practical with MCDOT and SRPP.
Justification: This adjustment to the design was requested after the Pre-Final Submittal. As part of the
original scope it was assumed that the sidewalk alignment was finalized as part of the previous consultants
90% submittal. SRPP (Keith Pellien) requested at a utility coordination meeting that sidewalks be at least
one foot from power poles on 12/2/15. This is a new requirement from SRPP and was not in any of the
previous comments or requirements.’ Because this direction was received after the original contract and
amendments were written this could not have been assumed as part of the current scope of work. In
addition, the previous consultant’s submittals showed poles located within sidewalks and no comments
were provided related to those conditions.
C, Concrete Slab surface analysis for conflicts with revised structural section
Scope: The Consultant will reanalyze the existing underground concrete slab to determine if removal is
required to construct the roadway after the structural section changed. The Consultant will recreate the
slab based on new data and assumptions in the geotechnical report.
The Consultant will analyze the areas of slab removal and associated quantities to accommodate the
revised structural section.
Justification: As part of the original scope, it was assumed that all existing elements including the
concreate slab would be included in the topo files and designed with enough detail to easily locate
Project No,: TT345/TTS511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 ~ _* Page 10 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
conflicts. It was not assumed that the data for the concrete slab. The ground penetrating radar data that
was provided was found to be inaccurate up to 1-foot in depth requiring additional evaluation time.
Additional potholes were required to complete the analysis and determine the location of the slab more
accurately as verified with Wade Ansell in September of 2014 based on the notes from the progress
meetings at that time.
After the slab was initially modeled and the initial conflict/removal areas were identified, the structural
section was changed to lime treated subgrade. Since the method of compacting the subbase changed
(relating to the change in structural section), areas of removing the existing buried concrete slab also
changed and required additional analysis and plan updates to reduce the potential of damage to the teeth
of the pulverizing machine for the new method of stabilizing the subbase during construction.
D. Previously designed walis and removal for Cost to Cure items
Scope: The Consultant will update the plans to remove cost to cure items that were previously considered
part of design.
Justification: The 90% stage plans developed by the previous consultant showed items on private
property such as walls and gates being relocated as part of this project construction. Kimley-Horn
proceeded with updating and detailing these relocations however it was determined during the
development of TT345 final submittal that many of the items that were previously part of the construction
plans should be cost to cure items. Kimley-Horn was directed by Robert Sachs (MCDOT) on September
25 to update the design accordingly. To revise the drawings to remove construction notes, update
quantities and quantity summary sheets, extra effort and rework was necessary.
E, 107th Ave SRPP-D required grading and updates
Scope: The Consultant will update the plans to account for a new 30 foot flat easement setup area,
associated grading, show related easements required and evaluate and mitigate the effects on the adjacent
basin. This update will be carried through plans, cross sections, earthwork report and estimates.
Justification: Keith Pellien SRPP requested a 30 foot flat continuous easement setup area on the east side
along 107 Ave for the overhead power poles on 4/18/16 via email. Between September and December
of 2015 the design of this area had been finalized based on the previous consultants approach. Since the
design of this area was complete the design needed to be revised to reflect the 30 foot flat easement setup
area requested by SRPP. :
The setup areas were mentioned in the previous consultants SOC but there was no direction in the SOC
to understand the impacts of showing the setup areas.
“Setup areas will be shown along 107th Avenue for 69kV poles that are anticipated to remain in
place. Several of the 69kV poles are expected to be relocated so the design for the relocation will
be needed to determine where the setup areas will be located.”
In addition, the 90% plans from the previous consultant did not show this requirement and showed normal
cut and fill lines per the typical section for the project. This reflects a substantial change to the grading
within this area of the project and it is significantly more than a typical design adjustment in contrast to
revising, a roadway profile to provide sufficient clearance over an existing utility. A number of minor
adjustments are common and included in the scope/fee. However, the grading required for the 107th
Avenue SRP Power Transmission is a substantially greater effort than these smaller design
adjustments. Kimley-Horn had already finalized the design using the previous consultants detailing of
this location which did not account for SRP setup areas. Since the design was completed, additional effort
was necessary to revise 107" Avenue to accommodate thé 30’ flat easement setup area on the east side.
Project No.: TT345/TTS11 . Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 : Page 11 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
Additional refinements to the drainage design also had to be made to extend finalized culvert designs that
outfall into the basin and a Flood Plain Use Permit needs to be prepared.
F. Developer updates
Scope: The Consultant will coordinate and update the plans, specs, and estimates to facilitate seamless
integration between this project developer projects and schedules. The work is limited to the following
and
developers:
e Phoenix Logistics Center LLC ¢
o Phase 1 has COP permitting but they are waiting on MCDOT permit. Phase 2 has not
been submitted for permitting.
03/16/2016.
o T1345 Final Plans were submitted to Traver Jones on
o Kimley-Horn reviewed the latest Phoenix Logistics plans and provided a list of required
. coordination items.
e Wentworth Property Co, LLC/West 80
o Submitted permit request to MCDOT. They are also in the process of submitting to
‘
COP.
o Kimley-Horn reviewed the latest West 80 developer plans and provided a list of
required coordination items.
The following developers will require additional coordination, analysis and review. An eight hour total
per developer is included for this coordination effort but hours for plan changes are omitted from this
contract amendment:
e Swift Transportation Co Inc. Phase 2
o Swift Transportation Phase 2, we currently have the latest developer plans from 06/15.
The developer believes he is 6 months away from construction.
« F-Star Buckeye Rd LLC
o Wereceived plans on 09/09/2014. Per last coordination they were not sure if they
wanted to develop yet.
e Ryan Nortis
o Inquired about MC 85 development and timeline thinking of beginning development
soon.
¢ § Midfirst Bank
o Wants to develop the corner parcel, but the owner has truck operations on all four
parcels.
e Sunland Beef Co Inc.
o No development plans have been coordinated with us.
Justification: During negotiations of the original contract, Tricia Brown (MCDOT) requested Kimley-
Horn to remove the design scope associated with modifying plans to accommodate developers but allowed
scope for coordinating with developers. The plans were not to be modified on MC 85 to accommodate
developers until developer plans were submitted for permitting. Kimley-Horn reviewed the developer
plans when submitted for permitting. The comments generated either needed to be addressed by the
developer or by modifying the TT345 & TT511 Plans. MCDOT directed that these modifications be added
to the scope when needed. These Developer improvements to MC 85 were not accounted for in the original
scope. Analysis and coordination was needed between projects and schedules.
Project No.: TT345/TT511- Contract No.: 2013-043.=A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 ~ ’ Page 12 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
The original scope of services and contract amendments as summarized below did not account for the
updates to the plans necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Due to the necessary
coordination, plan changes to match developer plans, exhibits needed, developer maps generated, and
back up documentation, additional hours are needed for developer related activities and plan changes.
The Design and Plan Update Scope (Roll Plot & 95% Plans) — A total of ten developer
meetings are anticipated for the duration of the project. In addition to the developer meetings the
Consultant shall review up to ten developer submittals for coordination with the project.
Amendment 1 Scope (Phase 1, 91° to 75 Ave Final Design) — A total of three developer
meetings are anticipated for this segment of the project. Update MC 85 roadway design to
preserve current developer half street improvements along the south side of MC 85 from 75th
Avenue to 79th Avenue. Update 83°! Avenue roadway design to preserve current developer half
street improvements along the west side of 83" Avenue south of MC 85.
Note: Updates noted above for Amendment 1 were not in the vicinity of West 80 or Phoenix
Logistics.
Amendment 2 Scope (Phase 1, 95 to 91%' Ave Final Design) — Scope was not included for
developer coordination.
Amendment 3 Scope (Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95 Ave Final Design) — A total of three developer
meetings are anticipated for this segment of the project.
Fee associated with additional developer meetings is included under section 400.1. Scope and fee
associated with updates to drainage, signing and marking, and lighting designs are included within
Sections 900.1.4.3, 900.1.4.4.3.A and 900,1.4.4.8.C respectively.
G. Landscape Irrigation Pipe Sleeves
Scope: The Consultant will update the paving plans to provide pipe sleeves under sidewalks and
driveways. Pipe sleeves will also be added to median islands from the landscape parkways. The pipe
sleeves will facilitate the construction of future landscape irrigation.
Justification: The original design received from the previous consultant did not include landscaping or
provisions for future Jandscaping. Since landscaping was not included in the original scope of services
and no comments were received during the initial roll plot submittal or previous prefinal and final
submittals to include landscape irrigation sleeves, Kimley-Horn assumed that sleeves were not necessary
based on previous coordination. However, per the final IGA with the City of Phoenix received on 4/21/16,
the project is to be designed to City of Phoenix standards except for traffic signals and drainage basins.
The City of Phoenix Planning & Development Landscape Plan Checklist requires landscape sleeves to be
added to gain approval for permit per email sent to Ben Markert on 4/22/16. Ben Markert subsequently
requested the sleeves to be added into the project to comply with the City of Phoenix requirements on
4/26/16.
900.1.4.3 Drainage
Scope: The Consultant will update the drainage plans to resolve conflicts and accommodate the design
from Phoenix Logistics and West 80 Developments.
Justification: This effort was not included in the original scope as outlined under 900.1.4.2 H. Only
coordination was assumed which did not include updating the design to accommodate developer plans.
Since the design for the drainage features bounded by these developments is completed, basins will need
to be removed from the plans, scupper locations will need to be relocated, utility conflicts need to be
Project No.: TT345/TT511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 13 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
reanalyzed, drainage calculations need to be updated and the exhibits, maps and drainage report will need
to be updated as mentioned in Section 900.1.4.2 H of this contract amendment.
900.1.4.3.5 Retention/Detention Basin Plans
Scope: According to previously completed hydrology and hydraulics models, the existing retention basin
on the east side of 107" Avenue overtops the roadway during the 100-year storm event by depths more
than accepted by the County. The retention basin does not have an outfall. After the roadway is
overtopped it reaches the’ existing channel on the west side of 107" Avenue. The Consultant provided
an evaluation of alternatives for an improved 107" Avenue crossing. The Consultant used the following
design criteria:
Reference Section
Drainage Policies and Standards for
Maximum Outlet Velocity 15 feet per second (fps) Maricopa County, Arizona, Table
. 6.7
The hydrology prepared in the Durango Area Drainage Master Plan (ADMP) was used for the analysis of
the improved crossing. The stage-storage curve developed from the Durango ADMP was used for the
basin east of 107 Avenue. The Consultant evaluated the existing retention basin for the 2-, 10-, 50- and
100-year storm events. The Consultant evaluated two alternatives for the improved crossing. The two
alternatives were a new box culvert to convey runoff to the existing channel on the west side of 107"
Avenue and enlarging the existing retention basin to store the 100-year storm event. The alternative
evaluation included utility conflict research. The goal is a crossing that meets County requirements and
does not impact downstream properties with construction of the roadway improvements in 107" Avenue.
This scope is limited the above analysis and does not included the development of plans and quantities as
the decision to include this work in the project has yet to be made.
Justification: It was assumed that the 90% level plans provided to Kimley-Horn would have identified
such a significant issue. The overtopping of 107" Avenue was not identified in the previous consultants’
scope of work and was not part of Kimley-Horn’s scope of work under the original contract and
amendments. The previous consultants’ scope of work mentioned that the water surface elevation in the
basin required bolt down manhole lids but did not account for any overtopping of 107" Avenue. As
shown in Table 7.1 below from the previous consultants' drainage report, the report did not show
overtopping at 107" Avenue and stated the offsite flows within 107" Avenue to be substantially less than
the overtopping that actually exists.
Table 7.1: Summary of Peak Off-Site Flows
Off-Site Flows Off-Site Peak Flow
Location
entering MC 85 within Storm Drain
75" Avenue 0 cfs 0 cfs
Project No.: TT345/FF511 Contract No.: 2013-043.-A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 ~~ =~ Page 14 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
Off-Site Flows Off-Site Peak Flow
Location
entering MC 85 . within Storm Drain
83" Avenue 20 cfs 20 cfs
91 Avenue — 0 cfs 20 cfs
99" Avenue - 7 cfs 7 cfs
107" Avenue 4 cfs 11 cis
Kimley-Horn found this discrepancy in the previous consultants’ report after SRPP-D required additional
grading and updates for a 30-foot maintenance bench as mentioned in 900.1.4.2.G. Based on this request
the impact to the storage of the basin needed to be evaluated prompting the request for the County’s
models which were not provided with the previous consultants design package given to Kimley-Horn.
Since the previous consultant had the Flood Insurance Rate Map in their report showing the floodplain
over 107" Avenue and used the existing water surface elevation of the basin to determine bolt down
manhole lids were needed, it would have been assumed that their analysis would have picked up the
significant overtopping of 107 Avenue and addressed it as part of the 90% submittal. Since it was not
addressed in their report and project plans, Kimley-Horn did not scope this analysis or the design of the
crossing as part of the original contract and/or amendments.
The County has requested an evaluation of the existing crossing to evaluate the construction of an
improved crossing. At the 3/7/16 progress meeting, Bassem Naba and Ben Markert (MCDOT) requested
Kimley Horn to analyze the existing condition and provide modeling information to MCDOT in order for
MCDOT to evaluate potential alternatives for an improved crossing. Coordination with Bassem has been
ongoing since the initial request. Additionally, Bassem Naba (MCDOT) requested models for the multiple
storm events in a phone call and email on 4/22/16.
900.1.4.4 Traffic
900.1.4.4.3 Signing and Marking Plans
A. Standards updates
Scope: The Consultant shall prepare final design plans for signing and marking plans in conformance
with the requirement of the MUTCD, including the Arizona Supplement and draft City of Phoenix
standards as of March 2015. Signing and marking plans shall be prepared at 1” = 40° scale and shall
include the minimum:
« Sign Summary Sheets for MCDOT, City of Tolleson, and City of Avondale Signs
e § Signing and Marking Plan Sheets for MCDOT, City of Tolleson, and City of Avondale Signs
and Pavement Marking
e Signing and Marking Plan Sheets Formatted to City of Phoenix Standards
The following assumptions were made for the signing and marking design:
® City of Phoenix:
o Signing and marking will follow City of Phoenix standards as noted above.
o Signing and pavement marking that resides in City of Phoenix right of way will be
procured and installed by City of Phoenix crews.
o These plans will be for “informational purposes only” and will not be for construction
by the contractor.
Project No.: TT345/TTS511 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 15 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
e MCDOT, City of Tolleson, and City of Avondale:
o Signing on signals will be designed to MCDOT standards. Marking and signing 150
feet beyond the curb return will be per MCDOT standards
o ‘The contractor will procure and install all signing equipment and pavement markings
for MCDOT, City of Tolleson, and City of Avondale only
o The signing and pavement marking plans will be designed to MCDOT standards and
formats.
o Sign summary sheets will be provided for MCDOT, City of Tolleson, and City of
Avondale signs only. ;
o Quantities will be revised to breakout which signs and pavement marking are owned
and maintained by a particular agency.
o The bid schedule will only include items constructed by the contractor.
Justification: The original scope required the signing and marking plans to be prepared using MCDOT
standards and built by the contractor as previously depicted in the previous design consultants 90%
submittal. Scott Logan with the City of Phoenix confirmed via email on December 11, 2015 that the
signing and pavement marking within the City’s jurisdiction will be constructed by City forces and in
result-Ben Markert with MCDOT requested that the configuration of the signing and marking plans as
follows:
¢ COP will construct the signing and marking within the city limits except for those signs that are
on MCDOT maintained signals.
* The plans should be revised to meet COP formats and presentation requirements.
¢ Separate quantities will be needed to differentiate between COP and MCDOT items.
e Areas outside COP such as Tolleson, the plans will need to follow MCDOT formats.
The original scope of services and contract amendments as summarized below did not account for the
updates to the signing and marking plans to the extent that was necessary to date:
The Design and Plan Update Scope (Roll Plot & 95% Plans) — Per MCDOT’s direction, the
signing and marking plans would be developed at a later stage by contract modification. No
signing and marking plans were developed as part of this phase of the project.
Amendment 1 Scope (Phase 1, 91* to 75" Ave Final Design) — Prepare signing and marking
plans in conformance with the requirement of the MUTCD, including the Arizona Supplement
and draft City of Phoenix standards as of March 2015. The contractor will procure and install all
signing equipment and pavement markings.
Amendment 2 Scope (Phase 1, 95" to 91** Ave Final Design) — Prepare signing and marking
plans in conformance with the requirement of the MUTCD, including the Arizona Supplement
and draft City of Phoenix standards as of March 2015. The contractor will procure and install all
signing equipment and pavement markings.
Amendment 3 Scope (Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95" Ave Final Design) — Prepare signing and
marking plans in conformance with the requixement of the MUTCD, including the Arizona
Supplement and draft City of Phoenix standards as of March 2015. The contractor will procure
and install all signing equipment and pavement markings.
As the signing and marking plans were finalized before this direction, the hours provided in the fee
estimate of this contract amendment account for extra effort required to modify the plans to comply with
the new requirements outlined above. The signing and pavement marking coordination meeting was held
Project No.: TT345/TT511 Contract No.: 2013-043 ~A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 _ Page 16 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
on November 18, 2015. Attendees included Randy Dunsey, Nicolaas Swart, Scott Logan (COP), Heide
Young (COP), Myesha Harris (COP), Kim Carroll (€HA), and Ahmad Omais (SHA).
B. Signing and Marking Developer Updates
Scope: Coordination, review and possible plan updates will be required for Phoenix Logistics Center LLC
and Wentworth Property Co, LLC/West 80 developer impacts. These updates would require updating the
signing and pavement marking plans along MC 85 only for TT345.
The Consultant will coordinate and update the plans, specs, and estimates between projects and
;
schedules.
Justification: Only coordination was included within the original scope of services for each phase of this
project. The effort to update the plans was not included in the original scope as explained above under
developer updates.
900.1.4.4.5 Traffic Signal Plans
A. 83rd Ave and Sherman Street and 99th Ave and Tonto Street signal modifications
Scope: The Consultant shall prepare final design plans for the traffic signal located at 83rd Avenue and
Sherman Street. Traffic signal plans shall be prepared at 1”=20" scale and shall include traffic signal plan,
conduit quantities, and pull box station and offsets.
Additional design and coordination will be required for the traffic signal located at the intersection of 99th
Avenue and Tonto Street. ADA requirements will be reviewed across all corners of the intersection.
Coordination will be required with the City of Tolleson to finalize the design.
Justification: The original scope did not include the signal at 83" Ave and Sherman Street. The previous
consultants’ plans did not account for lane tapers at major intersections correctly. As such, the design
needed to extend beyond the limits shown on the previous consultants’ plans. The extended limits of the
iapers impacted the signal at 99" Ave and Tonto Street.
The original scope of services and contract amendments as summarized below did not account for the
updates to the traffic signal plans to the extent that was necessary to date:
The Design and Plan Update Scope (Roll Plot & 95% Plans) ~ Traffic signal plans will be
developed at a later stage by contract modification. No traffic signal plans will be developed as
part of this phase of the project.
Amendment 1 Scope (Phase 1, 91° to 75 Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall prepare
final design plans for the traffic signal located at MC 85 and 91° and 83" Avenues.
Amendment 2 Scope (Phase 1, 95" to 91* Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall prepare
final design plans for the future traffic signals located at MC 85 and 79™ and 87" Avenues.
Amendment 3 Scope (Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95" Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall
prepare final design plans for the traffic signal located at MC 85 and 107" and 99" Avenues.
Project No.: TT345/TTSI1 Contract No.: 2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 17 of 21

Scope of Services
Project Specific — A4
900.1.4.4.8 Lighting Plans
A. Lighting redesign and conflict review to address SRP conflicts and COP revisions
Scope: The Consultant will update the lighting plans to address SRPP conflicts and COP/MCDOT clear
distance related revisions.
Justification: The assumption per the original scope was that SRPP’s overhead facilities would be
undergrounded throughout the project. This was decided after the City of Phoenix determined that the
modified pole design is not acceptable (See meeting notes from the City of Phoenix sent to Wade on
August 26, 2014 and discussed at the meeting on September 10, 2014). The original scope also assumed
that the COP clear distance criteria would be adequate to locate the light poles as shown in the previous
consultants’ plans. Since the light pole design had been completed based on the originally assumed
criteria, updates to the design were necessary, including reanalyzing utility conflicts, to accommodate the
overhead power lines and the MCDOT clear distance requirements.
In addition, during the design development it was found that the standard light pole would create several
conflicts with SRPP lines. Kimley-Horn provided a report which stated that in order to avoid these
conflicts, either the SRPP lines were required to be underground or a custom pole would be required since
the City of Phoenix standard poles would not allow for the required clearance to the overhead power lines.
To avoid these conflicts, a custom light pole needed to be developed and implemented. Kimley-Horn
coordinated with MCDOT and the COP to use the modified pole. As indicated earlier, the COP initially
rejected the use of the modified pole on 10/20/14 at a meeting with Jason Fernandez and Diane Gomez
and the team decided that undergrounding the SRPP lines would be the solution to alleviate the conflict.
This decision was made and documented in the progress meeting notes from the September 9, 2014
progress meeting. Kimley-horn proceeded with the lighting design based on this assumption.
Subsequently the use of the custom light pole was further discussed with the COP and the COP agreed
that the use of the custom light pole is acceptable resulting in additional revisions to re-implement the
custom light pole detail. This was confirmed by Kelly Roy (MCDOT) on 2/2/16 via email.
The original scope of services and contract amendments as summarized below did not account for the
updates to the lighting plans to the extent that was necessary to date:
The Design and Plan Update Scope (Roll Plot & 95% Plans) — The Consultant shall identify
conflicting utilities with proposed roadway lighting prior to the development of the final 95%
plans. The Consultant will review the possibility of locating the lighting on the south side of
MC 85 to avoid utility conflicts. Revisions to the 90% lighting design and layout will be
coordinated with MCDOT and the City of Phoenix.
Amendment 1 Scope (Phase 1, 91% to 75" Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall update
and provide final design lighting plans based on the December 2014 design, City of Phoenix
standards dated March 2013 with typical spacing. The fixture and pole foundation shall remain
per City of Phoenix standards for major arterial roadways. Coordination for pull box locations
will be completed.
Amendment 2 Scope (Phase 1, 95" to 91° Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall update
and provide final design lighting plans based on the December 2014 design, City of Phoenix
standards dated March 2013 with typical spacing. The fixture and pole foundation shall remain
per City of Phoenix standards for major arterial roadways. Coordination for pull box locations
will be completed.
Amendment 3 Scope (Phase 2, 107" Ave to 95" Ave Final Design) — The Consultant shall
update and provide final design lighting plans based on the December 2014 design, City of
Phoenix standards dated March 2013 with typical spacing. The fixture and pole foundation shall
remain per City of Phoenix standards for major arterial roadways. Coordination for pull box
locations will be completed.
Project No.: TT345/TTLS11 Contract No.:.2013-043 — A4
Revised: 6/14/2016 Page 18 of 21