Consulting Services for Feasibility Study for Bridge Replacements With Conduit Crossings (Road Crossings)

The Consultant shall develop a Feasibility Study to include a detailed review and analysis of existing Caltrans bridge inspection reports for all bridges that ICDPW operates and/or maintains over Imperial Irrigation District canals and drain system. The Consultant shall evaluate the work recommendations in the reports; determine if the bridge(s) need major repairs or replacement and approximately when replacement is needed. The Consultant shall categorize bridge replacements into short, mid, and long-term candidates. The Feasibility Study may be divided into the following basic elements: 1. The Consultant shall focus on the County's timber bridges, due to the typical older age of the facilities. However, any other types that are determined to require replacement within the long-term shall be included in the replacement list. The scope does NOT include separate engineering bridge inspections; however, the Consultant is expected to conduct a field review of the bridges expected for replacement, and take representative photos of these bridges for basic identification purposes only. Primary reliance upon Caltrans' inspection reports is the basis for this Feasibility Study. 2. The Consultant shall evaluate bridge inspection reports to categorize bridge replacement candidates for short-term, mid-term and long-term needs, for 5, 10 and 20-year County capital improvement program. Additionally, meeting and engaging with both, ICDPW engineering division and field operations division is necessary during the process. This will ensure the ICDPW narrative is included, which may augment pragmatic information that is not captured in the Caltrans bridge reports. The bridges within each category shall also be prioritized in order of highest to lowest. 3. The Consultant shall provide a cursory review of bridge inspection reports for those bridges only recommending repairs and make a determination, based on the work recommended by Caltrans, as a candidate for replacement and add to the list of bridges for replacement in the appropriate priority category. 4. The Consultant shall prepare a matrix with various County criteria for each candidate bridge replacement. Key elements can include bridge width, road width, bridge length, facility crossed, facility owner, physical environment, road ADT & year (bridge report and/or verify with ICDPW), road use and purpose, road classification, and/or other factors. 5. The Consultant shall provide high-level bridge removal and replacement cost estimate strategies to include preliminary design, environmental, construction, and construction engineering (incl. material testing & inspection). High-level bridge replacement estimates shall consider replacement with typical reinforced concrete structures, steel structures, and clear spans and/ or road conduits where economically viable. 6. The Consultant shall consider a 100-year minimum life cycle for bridge replacements, and include anticipated high-level maintenance costs of a bridge and conduits, along with a cost benefit report for each replacement bridge. 7. The Consultant shall coordinate with IID, Bard Water District and USBR respectively to add their facility characteristics of the existing bridge crossing, including historic peak flow volume for canals, and any historic drain peak flow from available canal or drain metering, or other available records.Additional items of interest includes the physical environment, flow concerns, bank road access and other factors that may currently impact their respective underlying facility operation and maintenance activities due to the existing bridge. 8. The Consultant shall also detail a separate narrative of IID, Bard Water District and USBR criteria that each agency considers in their own review process of whether bridge replacement with a conduit crossing with pipes or culvert is possible. This may include consideration of flow, velocity, upstream or downstream location in their system, size and classification of the canal or drain facility, etc. For canals, whether subject to routine canal outages and how often, etc. The narrative shall also include a discussion regarding environmental constraints and provide potential, general environmental considerations and/or mitigation to allow for conduits to be installed. All permitting authority and/or agencies shall also be identified for each potential conduit crossing. 9. The Consultant shall document IID, Bard Water District, and USBR operational and maintenance needs if the bridge is replaced in the future with a conduit crossing. This may consider flow restrictions, customer needs, and safe access for operations and maintenance without conflicting with public road transportation. The environmental settings can include whether the facility is lined, unlined, small, medium or large facility, if at the beginning or end of the respective system. Insight into the respective agency preferences and possible acceptance of the particular bridge crossing for replacement with a conduit crossing shall be provided in the Feasibility Study, if this information is available. 10. Since IID performs their own design and construction on their system, any high-level estimates for conduit crossings, if needed, shall be developed by IID. The intention is for the Consultant to obtain this information, from IID. However, due to scheduling and timing, this could become a task for ICDPW to complete with separate, independent coordination. It is possible that the Feasibility Study may primarily provide results for bridge replacement only, and it will be a County task to obtain IID review and subsequent coordination with the IID as to which bridges may be able to be replaced with a conduit crossing. Similarly, the Consultant shall coordinate with Bard Water District and USBR for their respective requirements for new conduit crossings. The Consultant will provide their estimated high-level costs for design and construction on Bard Water District and/or USBR facilities as appropriate. 11. Consultant shall meet with and provide initial draft to ICDPW for first review comments to address County bridge needs. Consultant shall coordinate and meet with ICDPW to discuss the recommended bridges. 12. After initial draft comments from County are received and addressed, the Consultant shall initiate several meetings with ICDPW, and IID, Bard Water District and USBR as appropriate during the development of the Feasibility Study. 13. The Consultant shall provide a draft schedule indicating key tasks for the Feasibility Study in the proposal.