Board of Directors Third Floor Conference Room Carson City ...

Department of Transportation Board of Directors Notice of Public Meeting 1263 South Stewart Street Third Floor Conference Room Carson City, Nevada September 10, 2018 – 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Receive Director’s Report – Informational item only. 2. Public Comment – limited to no more than three (3) minutes. The public may comment on

Agenda items prior to action by submitting a request to speak to the Chairman before the Meeting begins. Informational item only.

3. Approval of the August 13, 2018 Nevada Department of Transportation Board of

Directors Meeting Minutes – For possible action.

4. Possible Approval of Agreement for 800 MHz Radio Replacement – the Department will present to the Board the details of a negotiated agreement with Harris Corporation for the Nevada Statewide Radio System (NSRS) for the Board’s consideration to enter into such agreement. – For possible action.

5. Approval of Agreements over $300,000 (See Attachment A) – For possible action. 6. Contracts, Agreements, and Settlements – Pursuant to NRS 408.131 the Board may

delegate authority to the Director which the Director may exercise pursuant to NRS 408.205. These items and matters have been delegated to the Director by the Board by resolutions in April 1990 and July 2011. Informational item only.

7. Direct Sale – For possible action. Disposal of a portion of NDOT right-of-way, a strip of land between IR-580 and US-395A,

north of the Winters Ranch Interchange, in the County of Washoe, State of Nevada (SUR 16-11)

8. Approval of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDOT Work Program and Acceptance of the 2019-

2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – For possible action. 9. Update on the One Nevada Plan – Informational item only. 10. Briefing on the I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis – Informational item only. 11. Old Business

a. Project NEON Quarterly Report – Informational item only. b. Spaghetti Bowl Quarterly Report – Informational item only. c. Pedestrian Safety Quarterly Report – Informational item only. d. Stormwater Program Quarterly Report – Informational item only. e. Report of Outside Counsel Costs on Open Matters – Informational item only. f. Monthly Litigation Report – Informational item only. g. Fatality Report dated August 7, 2018 – Informational item only.

12. Public Comment – limited to no more than three (3) minutes. Informational item only.

13. Adjournment – For possible action.

Notes:

• Items on the agenda may be taken out of order. • The Board may combine two or more agenda items for consideration • The Board may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda

at any time.

• Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate physically handicapped persons desiring to attend the meeting. Requests for auxiliary aids or services to assist individuals with disabilities or limited English proficiency should be made with as much advance notice as possible to the Department of Transportation at (775) 888-7440.

• This meeting is also expected to be available via video-conferencing, but is at least available via teleconferencing, at the Nevada Department of Transportation District One Office located at 123 East Washington, Las Vegas, Nevada in the Conference Room and at the District III Office located at 1951 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada.

• Copies of non-confidential supporting materials provided to the Board are available upon request.

• Request for such supporting materials should be made to Holli Stocks at (775) 888-7440 or [email protected]. Such supporting material is available at 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City, Nevada 89712 and if available on-line, at www.nevadadot.com.

This agenda was posted at www.nevadadot.com and at the following locations: Nevada Dept. of Transportation Nevada Dept. of Transportation Nevada Dept. of Transportation 1263 South Stewart Street 123 East Washington 310 Galletti Way Carson City, Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada Sparks, Nevada Nevada Dept. of Transportation Governor’s Office 1951 Idaho Street Capitol Building Elko, Nevada Carson City, Nevada

Transcript of Nevada Department of Transportation

Board of Directors Meeting

August 13, 2018

1

Governor Brian Sandoval

Frank Martin

Virginia Valentine

Len Savage

BJ Almberg

Rudy Malfabon

Bill Hoffman

Dennis Gallagher

_________________________________________________________________________

Sandoval: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Can you hear us loud and clear in Carson

City?

Savage: Yes, we can.

Sandoval: All right. Thank you, Member Savage. Good morning. I will begin the

Department of Transportation Board of Directors Meeting. We'll commence with

Agenda Item No. 1, which is to receive the Director's Report. Director Malfabon,

good morning.

Malfabon: Good morning, Governor. We have a lot of information to provide to the Board

this morning, so I'll get right into it. First, just to give you an update on

emergency operations, we've had a lot of monsoons in southern Nevada and this

created some flooding issues, and our maintenance forces have been doing an

awesome job maintaining the roads and cleaning up after these monsoon events.

That's just a photo of what's happening on State Route 168 in July up there by

Mount Charleston, and we've also continued assisting firefighters across the state.

This was an incident that occurred on I-80 between Patrick and USA Parkway.

The fire department had run out of water, so we provided two water trucks.

Unfortunately, another driver cut off our truck and caused our driver to roll over.

Our driver, luckily, wasn't seriously injured, but pretty shook up, an unfortunate

event. But I just wanted to make the point that we are continuing to support

firefighters all across the state as they protect life and property with these

wildfires.

A lot to cover on federal update, although it's kind of quiet right now with

Congress being on August recess until early September. We provided an update

last month to the I-11 Caucus. Members of the delegation from Arizona and

Nevada received an update on our efforts for I-11, and the Senate and House are



August 13, 2018

2

very close on their spending levels, their appropriations’ levels for federal fiscal

year '19. So, we're hopeful that they'll settle their differences and we'll have our

funding in place before the start of the next federal fiscal year on October 1st. We

submitted our request for August redistribution of federal funds for unused

obligation authority, so anything that's not used up gets redistributed to the state

DOTs across the nation, and hopefully, we'll be as lucky as we have been in the

past in getting a substantial amount of money, that will basically result in more

reimbursement from the feds and result in more funding in the state highway fund

for other projects in the future. Federal Transit Administration had their auditors

here to do a state management review of our transit program. We received an out

briefing, but the formal report will be coming with findings in September, and

we'll work on those corrections that we need to do in our transit program.

One interesting event, House Transportation & Infrastructure Chairman Shuster

unveiled his infrastructure plan, and it was really great to see that he was

addressing the rescission that's built into the FAST Act, in the last year of the

FAST Act. It's a five-year transportation bill, but in 2020, they had a $7.6 billion

approximately rescission, so a takeback of federal funding anticipated unless they

fix that before that federal fiscal year. One of the things that he did was to

propose an increase in federal fuel taxes. As we have mentioned many times, that

the federal fuel taxes have not been raised in decades, and it's something that

they're considering is to address this shortfall in the highway trust fund revenue,

so 15 cents a gallon increase in gasoline and 20 cents a gallon for diesel over a

three-year period phase-in. And it's unlikely to pass this year, and Chairman

Shuster is not coming back next year. He's not running for reelection, so it's

unfortunate, but I think that it was good to lay this out on the table so they could

have the debate and the discussion with some real issues that they have to address

in Congress before the expiration of the FAST Act, so likely to continue into next

year's session of Congress.

Wanted to congratulate the RTC of Southern Nevada for completion of phase two

of I-11. We had a great event out there. Member Valentine and Member Savage

were out there with us to celebrate, and I wanted to—I appreciated the fact that

they gave recognition to the partnership between RTC of Southern Nevada and

NDOT in delivering this section of I-11 from Railroad Pass all the way out to near

the Hoover Dam. And as you can see on that plaque, it recognizes the NDOT

Board of Directors, Governor Sandoval, you as Chair, and the other members and

me as Director. I was very proud to see that recognition, and it was a great event,

well-attended, had the high school band from Boulder City. And the folks from



August 13, 2018

3

the Golden Knights were kind of the cheerleaders. I can't remember what their

terminology was, but they were out there kind of—we didn't need any kind of pep

talk, but we were—it was great to see just the community come together there.

And a lot of the elected officials kind of had the podium to speak about the

importance of I-11 and just wanted to repeat again congratulations to RTC of

Southern Nevada for a great project. It was an amazing view from that area

where they held the event, a view of Lake Mead, a national recreation area, and

NDOT will eventually take over maintenance of this stretch of I-11 that the RTC's

contractor, Las Vegas Paving, constructed, but there's still a few more months of

work to do, and then they'll go through the punch list and final acceptance

process. But eventually, we'll take that over.

And that event was held August 9th, but we also had a public information meeting

in Las Vegas for the—it's the second round. It wrapped up the second round of

public information meetings for the northern Nevada alternatives’ analysis of I-

11. So, we know that we have to look to different alternatives for I-11 as a

corridor through the state all the way up to—along 95 and up to Interstate 80 here

in northern Nevada, and the idea of the planning and environmental linkages was

to look at these alternative corridors and really look at certain criteria, economic

development, the infrastructure that's currently out there, freight movement, and

try to whittle down the list of corridors that we should look at in the next phase of

environmental clearance. So, that finished the last of the meetings in Vegas on

that same day that we had the I-11 opening. So, it was a great day down there

thanks to our team and our consultants that did a lot of work going across the state

to get that public input. We anticipate a draft report in September on the

recommendations and then formal approval for adoption by the Board in October.

So, you'll see two—the next two months with Agenda items for I-11 for the

alternatives’ analysis presentation.

I have a lot of information to update the Board on Spaghetti Bowl Express

project. We had the request for qualifications review completed, and these are the

four teams that have been shortlisted. They're in alphabetical order by the name

of the design-build lead. So, Ames and Q&D Constructors with Horrocks as their

engineering partner, Granite Construction Company with Parsons, Kiewit

Infrastructure West Company with Atkins, Las Vegas Paving Corporation with

CA Group. So, these four teams will go forward. As we develop and release the

request for proposals, they'll have input on the RFP, and we'll finalize that RFP

eventually.



August 13, 2018

4

To remind the Board—next slide—of the scope of the project, this will basically

address the issues that we see at Wells Avenue with the merges on eastbound I-

80, a lot of safety issues there with crashes as people want to get out of that lane

coming up from Wells Avenue to either get on I-80 eastbound or to go to 395 or

580 along with the I-80 traffic that's already heading eastbound that wants to take

those same movements. We'll widen the east to south ramp to two lanes. Right

now, it chokes down to one lane over the tracks and the river, and we'll restore the

third southbound lane at I-80 and address the lane balance issues between I-80

and Villanova exit. So, we'll be doing some widening on southbound, basically,

and rebuilding some bridges there over the railroad tracks and the river to add

capacity.

So, we always like to show our design-build process, where we're at in following

our methods, and we're at the point where we're going to have the request for

proposals issued, and then we'll have that industry feedback from those teams as

we develop the final RFP. But we're moving along rapidly with this project.

And this gives you a better sense of the schedule. So, we're at the—we've

completed the SOQ review, short list of those four teams. We'll have the request

for proposals released, and then eventually, in the summer of next year, we'll have

the recommendation on the construction team and in the fall of next year,

construction can commence. And then we think that it's going to take about three

years to build these improvements.

To address the budget issues, as I've mentioned before, it's about $150 million

project. That gives you the range of the contract value. We established a

$250,000 STIPend to unsuccessful teams, and the funding source is bonding for

this project. There's probably a little bit of pay as you go for the initial acquisition

of right of way for some of the initial efforts with engineering, but the good news

is the RTC of Washoe County is also looking at how much they can contribute

locally. So, it's subject to their Board approval, but it's good to see that they're

willing to put in for this funding of this project using some of their revenues.

Big news, recently, we received an unsolicited proposal August 1st. This was for

I-80 corridor. I don't have a lot of information because I'm being very sensitive to

the confidentiality of the process, but I wanted to provide the Board some

information about this unsolicited proposal. This is not the first unsolicited

proposal that the Department has received. We have NRS regulations that define

how we go about doing this, but we have also had the Pioneer Program process

that we're following. So, we have an advisory committee review to conduct. The



August 13, 2018

5

documents that have been provided have been housed confidentially in admin

services so that we develop—follow our Pioneer Program process. We have our

team members that are going to be signing confidentiality agreements, basically

statements that they'll keep the information confidential until it's appropriate to

present the more detailed information to our Transportation Board Members as

they consider this.

This gives you a graphic that depicts what they're proposing to do, add another

lane each direction on I-80, so widening from four lanes to six lanes. It includes

retaining walls, earthwork, pavement, drainage, signs, and other improvements.

But it—you can see from this graphic also it depicts you're kind of in a canyon

area and the river is on the other side of the eastbound direction. So, it's a very

tight corridor. NDOT actually has a feasibility study that's more in depth that's

currently going on. Even before we received the unsolicited proposal, we were

looking at this corridor for future widening needs.

So, what the proposal includes is widening, as I mentioned, for about 13 miles

from Vista Boulevard to USA Parkway and then routine maintenance—operations

and maintenance, basically, from USA Parkway to Nevada Pacific Parkway. So,

it's about a 30-mile project with 13 miles of widening and 17 miles of operations

and maintenance. So, one of the things that the proposer has asked is that we

expedite the review. We didn't make any obligations to that or commitments, but

just wanted to give the sense to the Board of what's being requested by the

developer of this proposal, and typically, we would go through the due diligence,

the evaluation, make our determination, and then receive Board approval and

negotiate on the financial documents, the financial aspects of this deal, which is a

P3. With a reasonable process, we believe that it normally would have taken us

17 months. So, we've just started. We received the documents. We've assembled

a team. We have Ernst & Young on board under the Pioneer Program to do the

financial due diligence, and we also have the technical aspects being reviewed.

We were in the midst of updating our Pioneer Program procedures, and we're

using that consultant with an amendment to help us with the technical review of

the proposal. So, a lot of work still to do, technically and financially. We're not

making any decisions without that due diligence. So, I just wanted to present to

the Board. I didn't want to present costs or names of firms or anything. I just

wanted to give you an overview of what we're looking at here, and it is a

substantial effort, though. We're just going to follow our normal process and try

to expedite this while we can. As I've given examples of, where we had

consultants on board or had the ability to hire consultants quickly for financial



August 13, 2018

6

and technical assistance, we've done that. So, we're doing our part to try to

expedite the review, and we'll be presenting more information in the coming

months to the Board on this unsolicited proposal. By NRS, the Board will have

the option to either accept that—maybe accept it and go competitive procurement,

which would take 20 months, as you see on the bottom portion of that slide, or we

can just reject it. As we did—as the Board saw on Project NEON, we chose to go

with a competitive procurement, and then eventually, we decided, based on the

cost of the P3 versus traditional bonding, to go with a design-build with

traditional bonding on Project NEON. There's been other unsolicited proposals

that we've received in the past that have not developed as much as this one has

been developed at, but we are going forward with our due diligence, and I just

wanted to apprise the Board of that.

Little update on the Nevada shared radio system. Next month, we should have the

negotiations with Harris wrapped up. We'll have that final number. I don't have

that due to the sensitivity of the negotiations right now, but we will have that

anticipated for presentation to the Board next month for your approval, and we'll

coordinate with the Governor's Finance Office on the cost split between general

fund agencies and that also use the Nevada shared radio system. The Governor's

Finance Office just asked us to look at the most recent usage statistics for these

other agencies and NDOT so they could have a reasonable split between highway

fund and general fund, but the bulk of the funding will come from the highway

fund, obviously. Eventually, we'll take that also to the interim finance committee

of the legislature for approval of the budget for the expenditures in this current

state fiscal year, and then we're building in that number of the budget expenses

into our biennial budget request for the 2021 state fiscal year.

Recently, we had an issue with only one bid being received on a contract for scour

mitigation on a bridge near Nixon on State Route 447. Our estimate was a low $1

million range, and the bid was about three times that estimate. We felt that it was

low risk to reject the bids and to look at other countermeasures that we can do.

We were surprised by the expense, but the fact that there was only one bidder and

it was substantially more than the estimate caused us to reflect on that, look into

it. We feel that we could actually replace that bridge for just a little bit more cost

than the bid for the scour mitigation contract. So, we're going to go back to the

drawing board on this one, but wanted to inform the Board that we did formally

reject the bid on this project. And as I mentioned, we felt it was a low risk to

reject the bid, because we—although we had a lot of storm events in the last

couple years, we didn't see as much scour as we thought we might see at this



August 13, 2018

7

bridge location. So, we think it's a low risk to go back to the drawing board and

consider our options for this bridge out by Nixon.

We recently opened up the—or completed the $34 million widening of I-15 by

the Speedway Interchange there of Craig Road to Speedway, and I wanted to also

thank the sculptors Simi Dabah, who gave us 14 sculptures. And I kind of

showed some depictions there of photos of some of the sculptures that this artist

donated. It's pretty cool. Some of these are like 20 feet tall. They were spread

out through that project, and it was great to incorporate some artwork that was

donated for free by that artist and fit in well with the landscape and aesthetics for

that stretch of I-15.

As I mentioned before, our team is working out the environmental issues and

looking at the HOV plan update in southern Nevada due to the MGM and the

stadium developer informing us about concerns with the Hacienda HOV ramp

location. We're updating that HOV plan with our consultant, and we're also

looking at that City Parkway HOV concept at the 515 Expressway in downtown

Las Vegas, and then we'll finish out the environmental clearance for the

Tropicana Interchange. We're also looking at a feasibility study of what we call

the gap, the I-15 gap from Sahara, the southern boundary of Project NEON, and

Flamingo. So, Tropicana Interchange Project was covering kind of the Harmon to

Hacienda area, and if we address this gap, we can look at what some of the needs

are for future widening of I-15. It's not going to be as soon as possible type of

thing for the widening of I-15 in that section. We want to give people a breather

from Project NEON, but it's wise to look at the alternatives there and what are

some of the pinch points that are affecting I-15 future widening. The City of Las

Vegas has proposed a concept about Martin Luther King extension to the south all

the way to Desert Inn, and we wanted to understand if that affects some of the

future widening possibilities for I-15, what are we giving up if we look at more of

the local road and that arterial concept for widening and extending Martin Luther

King as an option by the city's concept. Also, we're going to be receiving—go

back—a briefing on Boulder Highway. This is a jointly funded study that we

looked at with RTC of southern Nevada, and it has a lot of interest from the city

of Henderson and from some of the Clark County commissioners that would look

at a complete street approach for Boulder Highway. I've been very cautious about

committing NDOT to construction of this project because of the nature of the

project of complete street. We wanted to look at is it something that other entities

can jointly fund with NDOT. It's basically taking Boulder Highway, which was

the old entrance into Las Vegas back in the day, and it doesn't need as many lanes



August 13, 2018

8

as it has now. We'd be looking at some transit lanes dedicated to buses only and

also looking at the issues with sidewalks, landscape and aesthetics, what's the

future look of Boulder Highway. But I've been hesitant to say that NDOT will

fully fund this project in the timeframes that some of these public officials would

like us to, and I'd also like to discuss the possibility of a road transfer on Boulder

Highway with some of the local agencies down in southern Nevada. As I

mentioned, city of Henderson and Clark County are involved. This study

encompasses all the way up to Fremont Street on the north end of Boulder

Highway with the city of Las Vegas as the entity at that end of the corridor. So,

more to come as far as a presentation on some of these recommendations, but I

wanted to apprise the Board of my position as Director is to be more cautious

about committing the funding to this. I wanted to address some of the choke

points with some of the freeway-to-freeway interchanges. That's what we've been

doing with some of our funding that's available in future years.

I also wanted to thank the efforts of our traffic operations, our district sign crews,

and the headquarters sign shop. They've done a lot to address requests for signage

on some of the highways. I'm showing a picture of the Infinity Highway signs on

USA Parkway. We finally got those up. The Purple Heart depiction there was

one that Nye County had requested and ran into them at the I-11 event, and they

were very grateful for NDOT getting that Purple Heart Town for Pahrump and

Purple Heart County for Nye County, signs up recently. And as you'll see in your

packet today, there's contracts that had—in District II for installation of the new

state park signs that show the Division of State Parks logo on there and larger

signs. And I know, Governor, you've made it a point to kind of visit these sites

and have mentioned that a lot of people don't see these small signs when they're

traveling in rural Nevada, and it's good to draw some attention for tourists that

might not otherwise know of a scenic view or something that's a really nice stop

along the way along our rural highways to visit some state parks that they might

not necessarily be aware of. So, I wanted to just reiterate thanking all the efforts

of our staff that have been helpful in those signage efforts throughout this year.

Governor, I also wanted to recognize Ryan McGinnis. I know that he's mentioned

that Tyler Klimas is going to be taking over a lot of the reins and the—carrying

the—or leading the Governor's Office in Washington D.C. Ryan was very

instrumental in joining with us as we visited our delegation, giving us heads up of

any Congressional issues so that we could address those with our delegation, but

he was a great help for us. I know that he's still going to be working back there in

D.C., but wanted to mention that we really appreciated his efforts as the Director



August 13, 2018

9

of the Nevada Governor's Office in Washington D.C. I don't even know how

many years, but I know he's worked for several governors and just wanted to

thank him for his assistance through the years. He's been very helpful to NDOT.

No settlements at the August Board of Examiners meeting, but we did receive a

lawsuit filed against us for inverse condemnation. That basically is when we

didn't actually acquire the property, but they say that we affected the property

values in a negative way for the property owner. Obviously, we have our position

on this, but we'll have to address this in discussions with the legal team for the

landowner, First Presbyterian Church, and if we have to, we'll have to go to court

to fight this battle on this inverse condemnation claim. It could be substantial.

Millions of dollars is probably what they're going to be requesting, but we feel

that we have a good position on this. We didn't actually take their property for

Project NEON, but we'll keep the Board apprised of the status of that lawsuit.

With that, that concludes the Director's Report. I know I gave you a lot of

information with Spaghetti Bowl Express and that unsolicited proposal. I'm

willing to answer any questions, but in some cases, some of the information is

confidential at this point while we do our due diligence.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Rudy, and I didn't ask questions along the way because I

didn't want to interrupt you. So, that's a good, lengthy report. I'll go through just

a few questions and comments. With regard to that unfortunate accident with the

water truck, I'm glad that our employee is okay, but I would imagine that we're

making a claim against the individual who was driving the car that cut him or her

off.

Malfabon: Yes, Governor. I wanted to check into that to see if that driver was cited, but it

sounded like he cut off our vehicle unsafely. So, I was hopeful that we could file

that insurance claim with his insurance coverage.

Sandoval: Yeah, just having gone through the inventory, I don't know how old that water

truck was, but I know they're not cheap. So, in any event, every little bit helps.

With regard to I-11 and the Boulder City bypass, I apologize that I wasn't in

attendance. It was a great event. It's something that has been literally decades in

the making. I know that there had been an effort in the three sessions of the

legislature to pass legislation that enabled the construction of the project.

Malfabon: Oops. Governor, somebody—oh, there you go.

Sandoval: Yeah, I got it. Backing up, I wanted to congratulate Senator Joe Hardy. We

worked together to get that bill through early on, and frankly, we had a little



August 13, 2018

10

signal where we crossed hands, because we linked it with another piece of

legislation to make sure that it got through, and it literally passed within the last

half-hour of the legislative—of the legislature that year that it passed, but it was

really nice to see all this come to fruition, and it's going to make a massive

difference and, you know, just so well attended, and I was glad to see the federal

delegation along to lend its support as well. On the Spaghetti Bowl Express,

again, thank you for making that a priority. It's going to be, I think, a

transformative project for Washoe County and for what's happening in the

northern part of the state with regard to the growth, and given, I guess, suppose—

juxtaposing it next to Project NEON, we're getting ahead of the—the growth right

now. So, I think it's really going to save a lot of time and effort on behalf of the

citizens up in northern Nevada that we're moving along on that. So,

congratulations on that. Just a question, Rudy, and I understand the sensitivity of

the unsolicited proposal associated with the widening of Interstate 80 and that it is

a proposed P3, but do we have—is there any obligation to—if there are other

entities out there that would like to do the same thing, for them to be able to

compete for this project or do we only work with one entity on this?

Malfabon: So, the Board's options are to accept with the sole—I mean, the company that

proposed it or to accept it and go out for a competitive procurement or to reject it.

So, it's something that the Board can consider. We don't necessarily have to be

committed to just one provider. It's just an option that's available to the Board as

to—if we conduct a price analysis and financially see that it's a good deal for the

state of Nevada, then we can—it's an option available to the Board to accept it as

proposed and after negotiations and financial close. But one thing to point out is

that it is unique in that it has a substantial amount of mileage compared to Project

NEON for the—the P3 operations and maintenance for Project NEON didn't

make as much sense for the state. I think that this team is proposing something

that's more substantial with that amount of miles, but we want to just conduct our

due diligence. But in direct response, Governor, we don't have to accept it, we

can actually go out for kind of a competitive procurement. It's just an option

available.

Sandoval: No, P3 is obviously unprecedented, and I know that we almost—we were almost

at the threshold with regard to Project NEON when we decided to do something

differently. I'm not going to be here to review this. I just don't—I guess my

comment would be, how would we ever know for sure unless we had some other

private entities that if they were interested, had the ability to present a proposal as

well? And so I just would plant that thought with the other Board Members who



August 13, 2018

11

are going to continue on, because it is an absolutely necessary project. P3s,

because it's unprecedented, I want to make sure that we are getting the best deal,

the best price, and the most thorough project, and I don't—again, don't know if we

would ever know that for sure unless some other entities may have an opportunity

to make their own proposals as well. So, just a comment, not a question. Radio

systems, southern Nevada projects look good. Thank you for getting those signs

up.

Malfabon: You're welcome.

Sandoval: I've been—with regard to the state parks, truly, we have—you know, and I have;

I've visited every state park, and they are just treasures. And I can't imagine how

many people would have liked to have visited them if they knew they were there.

I mean, they're in some pretty remote places, but in any event, I saw the signage

coming out of Carson for Washoe, Washoe Lake Park, and they're really nice.

They catch your attention. I know that we've put them up statewide, and I'm

thankful, and I know the rural communities will be the beneficiaries of some of

that rural tourism are thankful as well. I'm sure Mr. Almberg can comment with

regard to the beautiful state parks that are in White Pine County, but in any event,

I know that there was a lot of time and effort put into that as well as the Infinity

Highway sign. I think that's something that's going to catch a lot of people's

attention, and given the potential for development even above and beyond what's

happening right now, it's really going to complement what's going on out there.

I'm really sorry to see Ryan McGinnis go. He's truly been a—provided a lot of

benefits for our state and somebody who's a Nevadan—a native Nevadan and was

educated here and then has gone on to do so many good things for the state. But

as you say, he's still going to be around and working on behalf of Nevada. Final

question on this lawsuit, so is the—and maybe this is for Mr. Gallagher. Are

we—is the theory that we should have tried to take that property, and because we

didn't, we should pay money? I just want to be clear on that.

Gallagher: For the record, Dennis Gallagher, Counsel for the Board. The plaintiffs,

Governor, are alleging that due to the Project NEON construction, the net effect

has been a taking of their property. This particular congregation has indicated

that early on that it wanted the State to assist it in relocating from that location to

a site in the Summerlin area. Obviously, that was not part of Project NEON, and

the Department bent over backwards, if you will, to make sure that no part of that

property was taken for the project. They did some reengineering, and the only

physical affect on the property is, I believe, one of the utilities that had to relocate



August 13, 2018

12

because Project NEON relocated part of the power lines on church property, but

the church would have received fair compensation for that.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Mr. Gallagher. That's all I have. Board Members, any other

questions or comments with regard to the Director's Report?

Martin: I have one, sir. Rudy, on the express short list, how many total firms submitted?

You shortlisted four firms. How many submitted a package on it?

Malfabon: Thank you, Member Martin. I should have mentioned that all four firms were the

four that submitted, and they were qualified.

Martin: Thank you. No further questions.

Sandoval: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Member Valentine.

Valentine: On the unsolicited proposal project, you say that a certain part of that road, they

proposed operation maintenance. What operations are they proposing?

Malfabon: Basically, it would take care of all the maintenance efforts that we currently do, so

any patching. They would build in—since it's a long-term P3, they would build in

resurfacing of that stretch and then a hand back to the Department at the end of

the term of the public-private partnership contract. So, it would be basically what

NDOT does currently on that stretch for operations and maintenance, everything,

basically.

Valentine: For the duration of the project.

Malfabon: For the—yes, for about a 30-year term.

Valentine: How are your conversations going with the Reno Airport on the [inaudible]

action?

Malfabon: I'm going to—Member Valentine, I'm going to let Cole Mortensen respond to that

question.

Mortensen: Good morning, Governor, Members of the Board. For the record, Cole

Mortensen, Assistant Director of Engineering. The last contact that we had with

the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority was when I presented to their Board on June

14th. We're presently looking at the alternatives that they would like to have us

include into the project, and so we're doing the due diligence on that at this point

in time, and we're hopeful that we will be able to work with them and get that

squared away. As part of the draft environmental process, they've been given the



August 13, 2018

13

draft EIS and have the opportunity to comment on it, and then we'll be holding a

public hearing for the DEIS, I believe, in November.

Valentine: Thank you.

Sandoval: Other questions or comments from Board Members? Member Savage.

Savage: Thank you, Governor, and good morning. Two comments. It was a privilege and

an honor to be at the I-11 ribbon-cutting ceremony, representing the Department

and RTC, and Governor, without your leadership over the last seven-and-a-half

years, I don't believe that would have happened. I sincerely and personally thank

you and your people, the NDOT people as well, and it's a lot to look forward to.

Nevada is leading, and you've always led, Governor, and this is a classic example

of we're leading the nation on this new interstate. And God only knows when it's

going to be complete, but the Department is doing the right thing. They're doing

due diligence. So, I thank you, Rudy, as well. Secondly, on the unsolicited

proposal, there's no doubt it's necessary, but the timing and the due diligence are

everything. The Department has a priority right now on Spaghetti Bowl up at the

north, and we have a lot of other work here in the state. We just need to ensure

that both the short-term and long-term value is for the betterment of the state, and

I appreciate the Governor's comments. I appreciate Rudy's composure and

comments for this unsolicited proposal. The Department does have a lot of

experience in the P3, as you mentioned, Governor, with NEON, and the

competitive nature that we had with the NEON has been very successful. So, I

thank you, and that's all I have at this moment.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Member Savage. Rudy, I did think of one more question.

How are we doing on the Electric Highway?

Malfabon: Good question, Governor. So, we've had some meetings with Federal Highway

Administration about the issue of using public lands for a company such as Valley

Electric Association that wanted to install—using the Volkswagen settlement

funds on BLM easement, basically, to the Department. We're making some

progress on that point to—the issue has been can an entity that installs an electric

vehicle charging station be able to assess a fee for usage by a motorist that's

charging their vehicle. We're—it is something that was unanticipated in the

federal regulations, but the Federal Highway Administration is working with us

on this issue. Specifically for Tonopah, we've made some contacts with the utility

companies that were in the way, and I'm keeping the pressure on our folks,

keeping, hopefully, our options open with that contractor that was willing to



August 13, 2018

14

basically—right now, he's still under contract. We were looking at possibly re-

procurement, but I wanted to—I thought it would be easier and more timely if we

kept that contractor on board and negotiated on some of the pricing with the

redesign elements of the retaining wall that was affected by the utilities. So, we're

still hopeful that we want to try to get that, weather permitting, finished this year

in Tonopah, and then we're looking at the other locations such as Amargosa

Valley and the rest stop there. NDOT is willing to help where we can with some

of our resources available and also working with the Governor's Office of Energy

on coordination of other locations along the Electric Highway 95 and other parts

of the state as well.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you, Rudy. I just really, really would like to see that get done, and I

know there's been some unanticipated delays, but hopefully, we can finish it, and

Tonopah has been in the conversation for many years now. So, hopefully, we can

get that done. I guess that's all I have with regard to that.

Malfabon: Thank you.

Sandoval: Board Members, any other questions or comments with regard to the Director's

Report? All right, then we'll move on –

Malfabon: Governor, if I may, I wanted to just add one more thing. You know, school is

back in session in Washoe County. I know they start next week in Carson City. I

just wanted to remind people to drive safely and watch out for those school zones.

Watch out for those kids walking and biking to school, and also, there's a

restriping project that we're having a public information meeting in Henderson for

the interchange between the 515 Expressway and the 215 Beltway there in

Henderson. We're restriping to make some safety improvements, and on

Wednesday, August 22nd, from 4:00 to 7:00 we're going to have—at the

Henderson Convention Center, have a public information meeting about that

project, and that is everything for the Director's update.

Sandoval: Thank you very much. Agenda Item No. 2, Public Comment. Is there anyone

present in Las Vegas that would like to make public comment to the Board?

There is no one coming forward. Move on to Carson City. Is there any individual

present that would like to make public comment to the Board?

Malfabon: Yes, there is, Governor. You can just go ahead and state your name for the

record. Thank you.



August 13, 2018

15

Rodriguez: Good morning. My name is Lori Rodriguez, and I'm a member of the Golden

Valley Property Owners Association, and I hope you all don't mind that I just read

this instead of trying to wing it like I normally do. Three years ago in August, I

came before this Board and asked that the 395 southbound freeway be widened

from the valleys north of Reno. I am amazed at the progress that has been made

in that time. The Lemmon Valley intersection has been reengineered. Ramp

meters have been installed, as well as signs and reader boards that have been set

up. Paving has started to widen the choke points, and prepping has begun to

restripe the existing roadway into three lanes. Maintenance has been done with

the crack-filler, and the more troublesome potholes are being monitored. Several

traffic studies have been completed with the result of plans extending to the year

20—pardon me—2040, and the plans are everything we could have hoped for,

four lanes going both ways as far as Lemmon Valley, with three lanes beyond that

until near the state border. With the now close to 22,000 homes that are currently

being built and are in the development stage, as well as the booming warehouse

industry, these added lanes will be more than welcome. In my opinion, this

project is moving at rocket speed. What would normally take 20 years will be

done in eight to ten. All the agencies involved have been doing an outstanding

job of working and communicating not only with each other, but with the

developers who also want to solve the traffic issues. But none of this would have

happened without the support of this Board, and that is why I am here today, to

say thank you. You have all been supportive of this project from day one. When

I talk to people about this project, I always give credit to the people doing the

work at NDOT, RTC, the cities, and the counties, but I always tell them that the

Transportation Board has been behind this 100%, and without that support, this

would not have been possible. I also want to give a special thank you to

Governor Sandoval. Your support has been invaluable. Without it, I think this

project would have been a much longer process, if at all. So, thank you to

everyone from myself and on behalf of current and future residents of the north

valleys. Thank you.

Sandoval: Ms. Rodriguez, thank you, and thank you for your kind words, and it's great to see

you again, and we'll keep it up. Is there any other public comment from Carson

City? I hear and see none. We'll move to Agenda Item No. 3, which is the

approval of the July 9, 2018 Board Meeting Minutes. Have the Members had an

opportunity to review the minutes and are there any changes? If there are none,

the Chair will accept a motion for approval.

Martin: So moved.



August 13, 2018

16

Sandoval: Member Martin has moved for approval. Is there a second?

Almberg: Second.

Sandoval: Second by Member Almberg. Any questions or discussion on the motion? If

there are none, all in favor please say aye. [Ayes around]. Opposed, say no. That

motion passes unanimously. We'll move on to Agenda Item No. 4, Approval of

Contracts over $5 million. I assume, Mr. Nellis, we turn it over to you.

Nellis: Good morning, Governor, Members of the Board. For the record, Robert Nellis,

Assistant Director for Administration. There is one contract that can be found on

page 3 of 18 for the Board's consideration. The project is located on US 95 at

mile post 88 and 215 from Grand Montecito to Tenaya Way in Clark County to

construct northbound US 95 to westbound 215 flyover, southbound US 95 to

eastbound 215 flyover, and eastbound 215 to southbound US 95 ramp. The

Director recommends award to Las Vegas Paving Corporation in the amount of

$61,500,000, and there are several factors our engineers believe account for the

difference in $12.3 million over the Engineer's Estimate. Some of the primary

factors are prices of concrete, plus high resource demand on labor and equipment

and constructing multiple frames and multiple bridges simultaneously with an

aggressive schedule. Additionally, steel escalation, mobilization, and contractor

risk and drilled shaft construction account for the majority of the difference.

And we're sure the Board will have some questions on how several contracts this

month exceed the Engineer's Estimate, so we thought it would be important to put

into context these differences by looking at some historical data. Roadway

Design created a chart for us of all the contracts since October 2014, and I hope

you can see this down in the South. I know there's a lot going on, on this chart,

but I would like to direct your attention to the red dots, if you can see them, with

the solid red line representing the Engineer's Estimate for 139 contracts.

Secondly, the blue dots represent the award price for each of the contracts, and the

dotted blue line is the average award price. As you can see from this chart, notice

how the average award is below the Engineer's Estimate over nearly a four-year

period of time. This translates into a $17 million savings—or I should say $17

million in favor of NDOT between the Engineer's Estimate and the awarded price,

and this accounts for about $1 billion worth of projects that have been put out.

So, on average, NDOT is doing good, even though you see prices shifting month

to month. Some Engineer's Estimates are high. Some are low, but over the past

four years, it looks like we're doing really good, and our engineers are doing just

as great as they can possibly do. So, just wanted to give you that perspective



August 13, 2018

17

before we launch into discussion on the contracts. So, that concludes this Agenda

Item, Governor. Does the Board have any questions regarding this contract?

Sandoval: No, thank you, Mr. Nellis, and I know you would anticipate the questions on

those estimates. Just a couple questions. First, was there only one bidder on this

contract?

Malfabon: Actually, Governor, we have—we provided a short slide show that will hopefully

respond to a lot of—what we anticipated as questions possibly on this contract

award. So, I'm going to defer to Cole Mortensen to cover some of these key

points while we get that loaded up.

Sandoval: Are you waiting on me, Rudy?

Malfabon: Governor, we're just getting the—here it is, the presentation loaded up. So, it will

cover some of the reasons why we felt that award was appropriate and go over

some of the findings that we saw as we looked into this contract.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. Please proceed.

Mortensen: Good morning, Governor, Members of the Board. For the record, Cole

Mortensen, Assistant Director of Engineering. As you can imagine, ending up

with a bid on a project like this that was 25% higher than what our engineers

estimated had caused quite a bit of excitement. So, our group went back to the

drawing board and evaluated what had happened and kind of the scenario that

we're in, I guess. So, what I want to do is kind of step through what we're actually

talking about for this project, the effort that the team made, and again, why we're

still recommending approval of the contract.

So, I think one of the biggest things that we're having—or we had difficulty

anticipating is the cost of falsework. So, the cost of falsework ends up being an

incidental cost to the Class D concrete item. In previous contracts, the Class D

concrete item has been used for reinforced concrete boxes in the ground for

conveyance of drainage and flood waters and that kind of thing. In this situation,

the Class D concrete is being used to bid the large structures that require all the

falsework and the formwork.

Here's just another picture of what that formwork and falsework looked like on

Phase 3A.



August 13, 2018

18

And again, some of the difficulties with constructing concrete up in the air is you

end up having to have pump trucks there to get it up to the level of your falsework

and where that bridge needs to be.

So, quickly, Robert had already kind of gone over some of the improvements.

The improvements that we're talking with 3C are the items listed there in the pink

and shown in the pink, and so you can see the bulk of this project happens to be

those two flyover bridges.

Here is a rendering of those structures, and as I mentioned, you know, concrete in

the ground is a lot less expensive to construct than concrete in the air. The

anticipated height of the southeast connection there is about 35 feet, and the

northwest connection headed southbound on US 95 is about 60 feet. And so as

we looked at the bid, we looked at—we've put an aggressive schedule together for

it, and as a result, in order to minimize traffic impacts, the contractor is required

to construct falsework for both structures at the same time. What that means is

they need to have twice as much falsework and twice as much formwork, and

those all add to the costs of the bid item for the Class D concrete. Of course, the

structure size and complexity when you're building a bridge on a curve, super

elevations, a lot of those things add additional effort and additional cost, and as

always, risks for the drilled shafts are always a consideration.

One of the things that we had found is that the concrete and steel costs had gone

up on us. I mentioned the Class D concrete is kind of difficult to estimate just

because the contractor means and methods, the amount of falsework they have,

how they're planning on stepping through it, and that kind of thing. Right now,

steel has gone up. I understand it went up 11 cents from the time we advertised

the project to the time the bids were due. I've also been told that reinforcing steel

suppliers aren't guaranteeing bids for more than 30 days. We do have the steel

escalation clause in this concrete—or in this contract I believe; however, the

contractor still has to price that risk between when it's advertised and when we

accept their bid.

So, one of the things that I thought I would hit on, too, is that, you know, you may

be questioning why we'd go with this type of structure, and so as always, when we

start off with these projects, we go through a process to evaluate the best structure

type for the situation. For us, generally, the cast-in-place box girder is 20%-25%

less than steel. Right now, as I mentioned, steel presents a risk from a cost

standpoint. As far as an economic benefit, cast-in-place concrete keeps all the

material and labor in the local economy versus out-of-state for providing



August 13, 2018

19

fabrication of steel girders or precast concrete elements. Traffic impacts

associated with falsework aren't necessarily any different than what we'd see for

steel girder erection, because we still have to place the decks on the girders

themselves, and we don't allow pouring of concrete over live traffic. Oh, and then

last, but not least, the cast-in-place concrete bridges actually look much nicer

from an aesthetic perspective, and we actually had an article in the engineering

journal commending us for making the selection of cast-in-place concrete for this

interchange, and so there were a lot of things that went into that consideration.

Also, as you can imagine, knowing we only had one bidder, effort was made to go

out to talk to the other contractors that were involved, and some of the feedback

that we got from them was that, of course, the complicated falsework being

required, the availability of that falsework, no local material pits adjacent to that

interchange. So, there's more mobilization required than maybe what we had

anticipated. One bidder actually said that they didn't think that they could

compete with a 5% preference for the local bid with this project being a federally

funded project. That was not the case. So, that bidder, unfortunately, was

mistaken, and so that was some of the impact—or feedback that we got from the

industry. So, with that, are there any questions?

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Mr. Mortensen. Questions from Board Members? That was

pretty thorough. I guess I have one question. How much time is there between

when we do our Engineer's Estimate and when the bidders—the bid actually

comes in?

Mortensen: It varies from contract to contract. Robert, do you happen to have that right

there? I'll have to look that up and get back to you. Generally, with more

complicated projects, I believe we allow for more time.

Sandoval: All right.

Martin: I have one question.

Sandoval: Member Martin.

Martin: Thank you, Governor. I have a couple of questions. Cole, you mentioned the 11

cents, that you made the statement steel went up 11 cents. I just want to clarify

that's 11 cents per pound; is that correct?

Mortensen: Correct, correct.



August 13, 2018

20

Martin: And there's significant poundage—or significant tonnage in this structure from

what I could see.

Mortensen: That's correct. When you have cast-in-place concrete boxes like this, they're just

packed full of reinforcing steel as well as prestressing steel, and then as I

mentioned, you know, the falsework is steel, too. So, all those things tend to add

to an increase in cost for the project.

Martin: So, I have one question. When the Engineer's Estimate was developed however

long ago, quite some time ago if I recall correctly, was the compressed schedule

of having the falsework for both flyovers anticipated in that Engineer's Estimate

or was the compressed schedule added after the Engineer's Estimate?

Mortensen: The way that we put together our cost estimates doesn't always lend itself to that

understand of having the falsework in both situations. That was—after the fact

when it came back to us, we evaluated that and then kind of understood the effects

that that did end up having on the interchange itself. Yeah, you're right. We

estimated the cost of those components well before we actually advertised. So,

you know, there was obviously some change in the market at that point. When

we had a—I'm sorry. When we had our team come back, the engineers, after

having looked at some of the factors, I believe that they would have preferred to

have had an Engineer's Estimate that was in the $55 to $56 million range based on

their understanding of how it would be constructed and that kind of thing.

Martin: That's why I asked the question about when the schedule component was added

into the equation. From what I've seen in analyzing—in my own little simple

way, analyzing the numbers on your sheet, it appears that most all of the

[inaudible] have to do with that falsework issue and the steel issue from what

analysis I could do.

Mortensen: Correct.

Martin: No further questions. Thank you.

Sandoval: Thank you. Anyone else have questions on this? Member Almberg.

Almberg: This is not a CMAR project.

Mortensen: Correct.



August 13, 2018

21

Almberg: Okay. I just—it said CMAR on the description here in the background, but I see

it does say "our." So, I just want to make sure that this wasn't actually low bid.

That's all.

Sandoval: Okay. Member Savage.

Savage: Thank you, Governor, just one comment. I do notice that in documents, the

estimate range on page 8 of 18 was $49 million to $59 million. And so that

reassures me, along with the BRAT team's review and the analysis of this

contractor's bid, that we're doing the right thing as far as what staff recommends,

because as a vertical contractor, and I believe Member Martin can agree with this,

it doesn't do anybody any good to go out and rebid a job, because all the numbers

are exposed, and it's really discouraging to not only the contractors, but shows

concern with the Department. So, with that being said, I'd approve the contract,

ensuring the best value to the Department that this contractor is giving without

hesitation. Thank you, Governor.

Sandoval: Thank you, Member Savage. Other questions or comments? Cole, I don't know

if you can answer this question. Is this dramatic increase in steel prices have to

do with tariffs, supply and demand, or both?

Mortensen: Governor, I'd love to be able to intelligently answer that question, but that's way

out of my ballpark of expertise. I would assume that with the tariffs, that that's

been a contributing factor.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you.

Martin: I might be able to—through AGC, I get information on material prices, and so on.

It's a demand issue. There's a tremendous amount of steel in demand right now.

It's also the tariff. The tariff is actually—or the demand issue is overshadowing

the tariff from what I've seen in some of the local publications. There's one other

factor I want to bring up, too, Cole, that most people—I live in that area, like,

half-a-mile away from there. You got this little bitty high pressure gas line that's

probably, what, 36 inches in diameter running through there by the Kern River

people?

Mortensen: That's correct, and that was another concern that may have caused some

contractors to shy away from wanting to work in the area. From what I

understand, it functions more like a service—or a storage facility than a service

facility. So, you can imagine the amount of gas that's there.



August 13, 2018

22

Sandoval: All right. Any other questions or comments on this Agenda item? And Cole, I

appreciate your—and everyone else associated with this Agenda item, your hard

work, because I think what's important, I think we as Members of the Board of

Directors understand these issues, but it's important to make a thorough record as

to why we're going to—we would take the action that we do so that anyone else

who looks back at this can understand why the final contract amount was $12

million more than what the estimate was. So, if there are no further questions or

comments, the—or Mr. Nellis, I'm sorry, I wanted to give you an opportunity. Is

there anything else that you wanted to present, Mr. Nellis?

Nellis: No, sir, that concludes this Agenda item.

Sandoval: All right, thank you. So, if there are no further questions or comments, the Chair

will accept a motion to approve the contract for $61,500,000 with Las Vegas

Paving associated with the project described in Agenda Item No. 4.

Martin: So moved.

Sandoval: Member Martin has moved for approval. Is there a second?

Savage: I'll second.

Sandoval: Second by Member Savage. Any questions or discussion on the motion? I hear

none. All in favor please say aye. [Ayes around]. Those opposed say no. That

motion passes unanimously. We'll move on to Agenda Item No. 5, which is

approval of agreements over $300,000. Mr. Nellis.

Nellis: Thank you, Governor, Members of the Board. Again, for the record, Robert

Nellis, Assistant Director for Administration. There are five agreements under

Agenda Item No. 5 on page 3 of 94 for the Board's consideration. Line Item No.

1 is with Kimley-Horn & Associates in the amount of $687,240.54. This is

Amendment #2 to increase authority to create two new safety management plans

for Sahara Avenue and Jones Boulevard. Line Item No. 2 is with CDM Smith in

the amount of $709,804 for the Pioneer Program and Alternative Project Delivery

to update the Pioneer Program guidelines and provide support for unsolicited

proposals, project delivery, P3s, the state infrastructure bank, legislation, and

regulations.

Line Item No. 4 is with Atkins North America and Overland Pacific and Cutler,

LLC in the amount of $10 million. This is for Right-of-Way support services

including surveying, title research, appraisal, acquisitions, relocations, and



August 13, 2018

23

training. Line Item No. 5 is with HDR Engineering, Incorporated in the amount

of $673,805. This is for design and construction support services including

signals, lighting, permanent signing, and intelligent transportation system. And

the last item has a special presentation by Assistant Director Thor Dyson.

Malfabon: We're getting this presentation loaded, Governor.

Dyson: So, Governor, Board Members, this is Thor Dyson, Assistant Director of

Operations. Last month, we came before the Board on this particular item. While

it's not a lot of money, like the project that Assistant Director Cole Mortensen had

talked about, it's still, in principle, a fair amount of money, and you recommended

after questioning to bring this back to you and for the explanation of this

Boschung anti-icing system. With me in the audience back here available for

support and questions are Mr. Mike Fuess, Assistant Director—Assistant District

Engineer for Maintenance, and the Supervisor for the roadway, Mr. Steve Cordle,

and then we also have a representative from Boschung anti-icing system here also

available for questions.

So, the system, real quick system description, it's a proactive approach to provide

an increase in the road safety, improve the traffic flow, savings on anti-icing

solution, and reduce the environmental impact from our normal anti-icing salt

brine operations. We have four sites, as I had mentioned last month, Galena

Forest structure, Steamboat Hills structure, Galena Creek structure, and the

Browns Creek structure. And basically, this is in an area between north end of

Washoe Valley all the way to the Mount Rose Highway. The two structures that

are the largest are the Galena Forest structure, meaning the longest spans, and the

Galena Creek structure. The system also involves a local computerized control at

each site for the automatic activation as needed, and then it also has included the

proprietary computer software to visualize and monitor the site activity.

So, a real quick schematic, what we have on the left there is the software.

Moving towards the right, you've got the road weather information system known

as RWIS, which they're on each structure, and they can take atmospheric readings

as well as the deck readings. If you see the blue color down there, those are the

sensors in the roadway. We can tell if the road has—the structure has moisture on

it and if it's going to freeze and can also determine the chemical content. As you

move to the right, you also see the processors. So, they're taking information

from the atmospherics and also from the roadway or structure information, and

they'll process when we need to spray the chemical on the roadway. So, you'll

have—as you move further right on the diagram, you'll see up there two large



August 13, 2018

24

tanks of material and then below that the valves, and then in red you'll notice the

devices on the structure schematically put out there showing the spray, and we

spray in the direction of traffic. On the far right we have one of the buildings that

each structure, each of the four structures have. Those buildings house the

chemical—the valves, the pumps, and the tanks.

The system benefits, and there are some real good benefits with this system,

having an anti-icing system on the structure. It's proactive pavement surface

treatment. So, it's immediate, it's proactive, it's ahead of the formation of snow or

ice or bonded snow. It's automated. There's no human interaction. It's

completely automated. It's timely. There's no human interaction, and we use

potassium acetate. It's far less corrosive for the steel and concrete that are

involved in those structures, and we use potassium acetate because it has a

significantly lower freezing point than sodium chloride or the salt brine that we

use, and that's a huge plus.

Here's some of the states that Boschung clients—that Boschung has, Alaska DOT,

as you can see, Caltrans, Colorado, including NDOT. I also want to state here at

this time, too, that Boschung provides equipment and resources also for many

airports in the United States and in North America, and maybe some of you have

seen some of their Boschung equipment on the runways providing safe runways

for airplanes to land or take off.

So, some of the system stats, or statistics, in its entirety, there's 14,000 gallons

that are housed in all the tanks in all four structures. So, basically, the two large

structures that I had mentioned, they hold 5,000 gallons. Each tank there is 5,000

gallons, and then the other two smaller structures, the Browns Creek structure and

Steamboat structure house 2,000 gallons. They also hold—each structure holds

2,000 gallons of water. So, those pumphouses that you saw, those buildings,

they'll either hold 5,000 gallons of potassium and 2,000 gallons of water or they'll

hold 2,000 gallons of potassium acetate and 2,000 gallons of water. And it

fires—the systems fire as needed, and it's based on the environmental conditions

of the structure and the atmosphere. It performs—the system, on all four

structures, will perform maintenance sprays every three days if it hasn't been

exercised based on real time environmental conditions.

So, 2015 is where we really came online with this system, and you'll see that that

fiscal year, basically, from July 1 of 2014 to June 30th of 2015, we used under

5,000 gallons of potassium acetate. That was a very—if you remember, and it

wasn't too long ago, it was a very severe drought. That winter was one of the



August 13, 2018

25

worst. In 2016, we used a fair amount more, and one of the reasons was it was a

very cold winter with significant ice, but very little snow. Fiscal year 2017 was

very close to my mind, not more than a year-and-a-half ago. We were in the

throes of massive amounts of moisture and snow, but it was warm, and the

structures were below the snow line, and so we had a lot more warmer events.

So, that's why we used less chemical, and then 2018—fiscal year 2018 was a

warm winter as well, but we did have some cold spells again in the season, and

particularly in late February, March, and early April, the system fired off a fair

amount of potassium acetate.

So—did I skip one here? Let's see. So, the proposed contract with Boschung,

basically, what we're asking for, this agreement for $500,000, which we don't

anticipate to use the whole $500,000, but it's for two years, and we believe that—

well, we know—if you look back on the staff report, the fall season switch overs,

roughly around $12,000, and the spring seasonal switch is about $12,000. We

have to switch in the fall to the potassium acetate, and then in the spring, we want

to switch everything to water. And it also includes $2,100 for remote tech

support, and that's just a flat fee, and we can use them as much as needed. We

can Skype with them. We can Facetime with them, and then also, Boschung has a

representative that will check in to the system remotely and try to anticipate

problems by just—from their office back in Pennsylvania, they can take a look,

and that's part of this remote tech support to anticipate problems and get ahead of

the curve. Unscheduled call out for regular time, $120 an hour. If there's an

emergency and an unscheduled call out for overtime at $180, and then this

training, certified operator training, it's a flat fee, and they're going to come out—

we haven't determined at what point, but they're going to come out and train a

number of our key staff that we feel that needs to be—and has the fortitude and

attitude to be trained and get better and better on operating this equipment so we

can have more success with it. And then this agreement also includes the parts

procurement, and those prices are listed in the staff report and in the contract.

Can you get to next slide, DJ? So, sole source, I know that's, you know, not a real

favorite buzzword around here, and we understand that, and we like things to be

competitive as well, but this particular system is one that NDOT has, and really

only Boschung can work on this specialty equipment, electronics. It's got

European components, as I mentioned last month. It's sophisticated. It's

proprietary. They're the expert resource for helping out NDOT to maintain it and

to make it reliable while minimizing the downtime, and that's critical to safety.



August 13, 2018

26

So, one of the questions last month was Boschung's response time, and we—you

know, we've talked to them at length. They're here, available for questions if you

need to ask them. They're going to be responding immediately during their

business hours to our phone calls requesting support. They're available, and

we've done this already previously with Facetime and Skype. If we can

troubleshoot it quickly, we will, and then they have committed to responding in

person for unscheduled service within seven business days between us and

Boschung.

A key point here is Boschung anti-icing system is one of NDOT's key strategies

for NDOT Zero Fatalities Program. So, I'm proud to say that with this anti-icing

system, to date, on those structures, during the winter weather events, on those

four structures, there have been zero fatalities using the Boschung anti-icing

system. Is that luck? Is that the pieces of equipment that we have up there? I

believe it's a combination of NDOT maintenance personnel, the Boschung

system, and being successful and staying on top of tricky and icky and awful

winter ice events that can cause havoc on those structures. So, I do want to say

that, you know, there's been zero fatalities using the anti-icing systems. Where

they've worked, we've had none occurring.

So, alternatives, we recommend, as we did last month, that the Board accepts the

proposed on-call contract with Boschung. We don't feel we're going to be using

the entire $500,000, but it's a number that we've put there in anticipation if we

have parts break down. Considered, but what we didn't recommend was negotiate

a sole source agreement on an as-needed basis for required service. Another

option, but we don't recommend, is to abandon the entire system. We don't feel

comfortable doing that, and then the third option, alternative, is to do nothing and

then repair Boschung's systems as failure occurs, and there's pros and cons with

each of those.

So, that pretty much concludes my discussion for this particular item. This photo

here was provided up by our supervisor, Mr. Steve Cordal. This was last year I

believe, and it's not on the structure. As you—this is a photo looking towards the

northeast. Around that curve as you're actually heading towards Reno, truck

coming at Steve is the southbound lanes towards Washoe Valley and Carson, but

if you look, you can actually see the NDOT plows behind the white truck there.

But around the curve is the Galena structure, and it has the anti-icing system there

working.



August 13, 2018

27

So, with that, I have here—I'm willing to entertain any questions as well, and

also, I have Mr. Chris—it's pronounced Vitek from Boschung, and he's available

to answer questions, and so am I. So, thank you very much.

Sandoval: Thank you, Mr. Dyson. And I suppose my question is this. I'm reading through

the minutes from last month, and you seem a lot more bullish on this contract than

you did last month. The issue, why we're here again, at least in my opinion, is

that there were questions with regard to the reliability of this system. It says—

your response was, "Yes, it does work, but it's worked intermittently." And so

that was the question, was the reliability of the system, and that's something that

you haven't talked about today. I get that they're here, and I get that when it does

work, it works well, but the question was how often does it work.

Dyson: So, Governor, Thor Dyson. Yes, it works more often than not. How's that sound?

It works when it needs to. We've had some problems. It's a mechanical system.

The roadway is a harsh environment, and we're adding this chemical to be there

sprayed through the nozzles on the concrete. And I'm confident that if we, the

next couple years, get a handle on this and a better familiarity, we're going to have

it operating—I can't say 100% reliability, but with enough reliability that I will be

pleased to have it and use it and consider it part of our normal operations,

particularly when we have a lot of vacancy rates. Last year—last March,

Governor, we were in a situation where that particular crew has 14 people, and we

had, I believe, six vacancies, and we were in 24-hour mode. So, we had eight

people total, four for the night, four during the day, and this system helped us. I

really believe that it kept accidents from occurring when—on those areas that it

was working, it worked. So, I know—I looked through the minutes as well, and I

was reading, and I can see how your confidence in what I was saying to you last

month wasn't quite there. It was shaken a little bit, but I believe that we will get it

in a manner that will be long-term and very successful, such as other high-tech

systems that we have, like the avalanche control system on Mount Rose, ramp

metering, DMS signs, all the ITS stuff that—devices that we use.

Sandoval: Right, and again, I'm looking at the minutes, and I said it then, and I'll say it

again; I feel like I'm cross-examining you, and I'm not. I'm just trying to get the

information so that I can feel good about voting for this contract. So, when you

say we want to get it to a point that it works almost 100% of the time, what

percent of the time does it work now?

Dyson: I would say easily 75%.



August 13, 2018

28

Sandoval: Will you say that again, Thor? The microphone wasn't on.

Dyson: 80% of the time. I believe it works at least 80% of the time. The real crux of this

agreement is so that we have expertise on the switchovers, fall and spring, and

also, some of these parts, if we need to replace them, we want to be able to

replace them. Because it's a sole source, it's proprietary, and some of these parts,

if they go down, we want to be able to buy them and buy them quickly.

Sandoval: Okay. Well, that makes me feel better when you use the word—or use the

number 80%. Probably wouldn't be here if I had heard that before, but in any

event—I mean, at the end of the day, what matters to me is that it works more

than most of the time, because as you say, it could be the difference between life

and death. I'm really pleased about that stretch of highway compared to the

number of fatalities that occurred below before it opened. So, in any event, if

you're saying that it's 80% of the time, and I know you're on the front lines, then

I'm going to accept your word on that. I'm going to ask if any of the other Board

Members have any questions, and I was going to ask Mr. Vitek to come up. So,

Board Members, any questions with regard to this contract for Mr. Dyson?

Martin: No, sir.

Sandoval: Member Savage, any questions?

Savage: Yes, Governor, I do, a couple comments. First of all, Thor, thank you for the

very, very thorough presentation. I do have more confidence as we sit here today,

and I'm glad that a Boschung representative is here as well, because what triggers

everything is the comment zero fatalities, and it's about the safety and the

mobility of the traveling public. That's number one, and that's been proven, and

it's yet to be decided on where we move forward, but from a business standpoint,

the $4.5 million investment that we currently have with this is what we have.

And I think it's important, as discussed last month and this month, that Boschung

be very timely and accountable to the Department of Transportation on this

system, but it doesn't make anybody feel good when it's a sole source contract or

vendor holding somebody hostage, and I'm not saying you're doing that. Please

don't misunderstand me, but we need to feel like we're winners. I know the four-

year warranty is out. It's unfortunate. We had a couple winters that were very

mild. I'm hoping that Boschung can really work with the Department in good

faith in proving themselves over and over again as to what we can do—what we

can do together moving forward, but please understand that we have to be made



August 13, 2018

29

believers, have to be made believers on this system, and it'll be proven over time.

So, I thank you, Governor.

Vitek: First of all, thank you. For the record, Chris Vitek with Boschung America. I am

the sales manager for Boschung America. Thank you, Mr. Dyson, for that

presentation. I'm just here to answer any questions if anybody has anything for

me, or if not me, one of us can answer those questions.

Sandoval: So, Mr. Vitek, this is the Governor from Las Vegas. So, how do you feel about

the system? Are you happy with it and how it's performed for Nevada?

Vitek: I am. We've had a relationship going on seven years now. I understand the hard

terminology to get to, to say that the system is up and running 100%. It is a very

complex system. It is in a very—can be violent or is very abusive environment,

and we feel that 80% is a good number. I can tell you that number drops

drastically when there's not a maintenance contract in effect. Other DOTs have

experienced that. Other cities and counties have experienced that as well.

Sandoval: And is there a commitment on Boschung's part to adequately train folks at NDOT

so that we can ensure that that maintenance is completed?

Vitek: Yes. There's a line agreement, a price in there. We have that for five or maybe

ten employees to attend yearly training, and we highly, highly, highly encourage

those employees to attend that training.

Sandoval: Okay, and have we had our employees in that training historically?

Vitek: Yes.

Sandoval: Okay. No, and I'm—you know, I'm looking at your clients, and probably most, if

not all of them, probably have some pretty tough winters. You know, I'm here to

talk about Nevada. I just want to—as I said, you know, I don't know if you drove

that road. You probably did if you landed in Reno and drove to Carson this

morning, but the wind whips, and it's up there high on elevation, and they get

some pretty wicked storms up there. So, I just want to make sure that it's working

and that for the safety of the NDOT employees that are charged with the

responsibility of maintaining that road as well as the traveling public, that the

system is going to work and that if it doesn't work, there's somebody there at 1:00

a.m. in the morning that's going to be able to take that phone call.

Vitek: Yeah, I can address that a little bit. Yes, I'll back up a little bit. I did not drive

that this morning, but Steve and I, last time we were out, we spent a good eight



August 13, 2018

30

hours at each site, went in a number of buildings, and have taken a look at it. So,

yes, I have seen them, not today, but we spent a good eight hours touring those

sites.

Sandoval: And then after you toured them, how did you feel about them?

Vitek: I think they're in great condition. I think you guys should approve this contract.

Sandoval: So, I want to repeat that. So, you said good condition?

Vitek: I believe they are, yes. Like I said before, I know that you, you know, would like

a higher number than 80, but we really feel that these are in good shape. We feel

that they're in good shape because we come out twice a year to maintain them.

We feel that they're in good shape because you do have NDOT employees that

know the system and can do some of the work, and that helps. Like I said before,

when municipalities, whoever, does not take care of them, like any complex

system, they don't last.

Sandoval: Okay, but we're not one of those, correct?

Vitek: Not yet.

Sandoval: What do you mean not yet?

Vitek: I think you'll be in good shape approving this contract, and you'll see, you know,

many, many years more out of the system.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. Questions or comments from any other Board Members on this

contract? Okay, none from Las Vegas. Member Savage, do you have any other

questions or comments?

Savage: Yes, Governor, just one for Mr. Vitek. The seven-day response time, a little

concerning due to the extreme weather conditions. Can you do any better than the

seven days?

Vitek: We feel seven days is very—and time. I mean, we need to get some things in

place on our side. So, it's the—not just logistics of getting here. A lot of times

we will do work in-house in Newcastle, Pennsylvania. So, when we come here,

David, our technician, can have these things ready to go. So, when he's here, the

work is being done. It's taking advantage of the time for lane closures and

whatever needed. So, seven is a pretty aggressive number for us.



August 13, 2018

31

Savage: Okay. I'd like to see a little better because of the extreme weather. It's a vital

freeway to us, so we'd appreciate some review on that. That's all I have,

Governor, at this time.

Sandoval: All right, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Vitek.

Mr. Nellis, any further presentation on this Agenda item?

Nellis: No, Governor, that concludes the presentations for Agenda Item No. 5. We'd be

happy to take questions on any of the other agreements if you have any.

Sandoval: Board Members, any questions with regard to the other agreements contained in

Agenda Item No. 5? Member Savage.

Savage: Thank you, Governor. Mr. Nellis, on Agenda Item No. 2 with the CDM Smith

Pioneer Program and project review delivery, I have one question. Does this

company and its subconsultants sign confidentiality and non-disclosure

agreements upon execution of the contract?

Mortensen: Yes.

Savage: Good answer. Thank you very much, Cole. Thank you, Governor.

Sandoval: Thank you, Member Savage. Any other questions with regard to contracts 1

through 5 as presented in Agenda Item No. 5—or 4, excuse—or 5, yeah, that's

right. If there are none, the Chair will accept a motion for approval.

Valentine: So moved.

Sandoval: Member Valentine has moved for approval. Is there a second?

Almberg: Second.

Sandoval: Second by Member Almberg. Any questions or discussion on the motion? All

those in favor say aye. [Ayes around]. Those opposed say no. That motion

passes unanimously. We'll move on to Agenda Item No. 6, contracts, agreements,

and settlements. Mr. Nellis.

Nellis: Thank you, Governor. There are two attachments under Agenda Item No. 6 for

the Board's information and no settlements this month. Beginning with

Attachment A, there are seven contracts that can be found on pages 4 and 5 of 20

in your packet. The first project is located on Primm Road in Clark County for

roadbed modification, drainage, and ADA improvements. There were two bids,



August 13, 2018

32

and the Director awarded the contract to Las Vegas Paving Corporation in the

amount of $1,343,000.

The second project is a bridge replacement on Interstate 80 at Fairview Ditch in

Pershing County. There were three bids, and the Director awarded the contract to

Q&D Construction in the amount of $826,618.35.

The third project is located on Interstate 580 at South Meadows Parkway in

Washoe County. This is to construct landscape and aesthetic improvements.

There were two bids, and the Director awarded the contract to Q&D Construction

in the amount of $1,517,509.60, and there are some factors that may be

contributing to increased costs over the Engineer's Estimate on this project,

including stormwater quality measures to reduce erosion, protect drain inlets, and

the use of native plants, also, improved hydraulics and the removal of noxious

weed infestations to comply with Nevada state law.

The fourth item is a resurfacing project located on State Route 789 in Humboldt

County. There were three bids, and the Director awarded the contract to VSS

International in the amount of $811,120. The fifth project is a two-inch overlay

on State Route 226 in Elko County. There were three bids, and the Director

awarded the contract to Q&D Construction in the amount of $1,499,000, and it's

believed that the low bid exceeds the Engineer's Estimate due to continuing rise in

plant mix pricing and due to the project being in a rural location.

The sixth item is a slurry seal project located on US 95, State Route 340, and

State Route 827 in Lyon County. There were three bids, and the Director

awarded the contract to VSS International in the amount of $349,205.05.

And lastly, the seventh item is a resurfacing project located on US 93 and Elko

County. There were three bids, and the Director awarded the contract to VSS

International in the amount of $1,827,000. And that concludes the presentation

on these contracts. Does the Board have any questions regarding these seven

contracts before I return to Attachment B?

Sandoval: Thank you, Mr. Nellis. Board Members, any questions on these contracts?

Member Almberg.

Almberg: A quick question I have. When you come and add all of these contracts together,

we're awarding contracts in excess of $600,000 over Engineer's Estimate. With

that and the contract we awarded earlier of approximately $12 million, what

projects does this affect in the future?



August 13, 2018

33

Sandoval: I think what Member Almberg is asking is so now we're at about $18 million

over.

Almberg: $12.6 million over in this meeting.

Sandoval: So, does that take money away from any other future projects?

Almberg: Yes.

Malfabon: This is Director Malfabon. In response, it does not affect future projects.

Because of that issue that was shown before, projects come in over or under the

Engineer's Estimate, but ultimately, there is a truing up of our NDOT budget

through the legislative process, through Interim Finance Committee, for these ups

and downs. And another thing that affects the cash flow is when a project starts

or gets completed. Sometimes weather can impact a construction project. So, it

all is addressed eventually through the Interim Finance Committee request to

adjust our budget for capital improvements, but it doesn't take away any projects.

We don't want to have to defer a project and the State Highway Fund has a

healthy balance.

Nellis: And this is Robert Nellis again, and probably the point of the slide I showed

earlier is that over a four-year period, the Engineer's Estimate between the low bid

award price, there was $17 million in the Department's favor. So, as long as that

trend continues, we're still doing good.

Almberg: Okay, and one last question. At what stage of the project is the Engineer's

Estimate created? Is that a part of the budgeting process or is that once the plans

are substantially complete?

Mortensen: For the record, this is Cole Mortensen. We start off with estimates generally at

the planning stage, and as we line out the scoping effort, we'll refine that estimate,

and I believe that the final estimate is put together at 90%, and to answer the

question from earlier, I was told that on the 3C interchange, that Engineer's

Estimate was done two to three months prior to the contract being advertised. So,

the estimate starts very early on and basically gets refined through the process, but

the Engineer's Estimate that you guys see in these documents is generally

produced between 90% and 100%.

Almberg: Okay, perfect. That's all for me, Governor.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. Other questions or comments from Board Members in Las

Vegas? There are none. Member Savage, any questions on the contracts?



August 13, 2018

34

Savage: Yes, Governor, just a comment and a question. Mr. Nellis, on the landscape and

aesthetics designs, we're doing a wonderful job on a lot of the designs that I

noticed on I-11, just absolutely amazing, very, very nice. The recent projects at

the airport up here at the North, Moana, Damonte, Veterans, South Virginia

Street, and now South Meadows. The question is the weeds. I know the

designers can't get rid of the weeds. I know there's less weeds down south than

there are up here. Has the Department ever looked into subcontracting, because I

know our maintenance staff are busy with a lot of different things other than the

weeds. But I think it's very important if we could kind of look into it in the future

to see if we can subcontract possibly some six-month maintenance contracts in

order to eliminate the weeds, because it's absolutely beautiful at the beginning.

Some of the projects just get covered up with the weeds. So, that's the only

question I have at this time.

Dyson: Member Savage, Thor Dyson, Assistant Director of Operations. So, we tackle the

weed problem on multiple fronts. One way that we tackle it is using a budget line

item that we have called Honor Camp, and if we can get Honor Camp, they’re

juveniles or inmates in those areas that are safe to clean up the weeds, we'll do

that, and we do have regular success in getting them to come out and clean up the

weeds, pull them. It involves handwork, but the other thing that we can do, and

then we do this a lot, is we have a statewide weed contract which will spray

proactively rather than reactively to address weeds. And then we also use our

inmate—or excuse me, our maintenance personnel as well, our maintenance

forces, to tackle those weeds. Another thing that we could possibly do is to get—

sponsor a highway or some groups to assist us with weeds. I know that the

Kietzke roundabout—I'm pretty sure the Kietzke roundabout at Neil Road in

Kietzke has a group that maintains those weeds. Right now—maintains the

roundabout weed-free. It has weeds right now, so they need to be contacted, but

that's not our roundabout, by the way, just to be clear. So, we do a multiple attack

on the weeds, and some years are worse than others based on the amount of

moisture we get. So, I don't know if that addresses your question. If we need to

do a weed contract, we're happy to do that. I know at the District level we've got

trash contracts and homeless contracts. So, we could tackle that for sure.

Savage: Thank you, Thor. It does answer the questions, and I just think it's about

perception, the economic development, the new people that are coming to the

state of Nevada, and we have to maintain some of that aesthetics. And so that's

all I have at this time, Governor. Thank you.



August 13, 2018

35

Sandoval: No, thank you, Member Savage, and if I may follow-up, and Thor, I'm glad you

mentioned trash, because that's always an issue. I know that—we can never get

ahead of it, but I know as I traveled this weekend, I saw quite a bit. And as

Member Savage said, I honestly think, you know, it's a reflection of pride in our

state, and when people see that there's trash and weeds, they might have the

perception that, you know, we're not as concerned about it as we should be, but I

also know and appreciate that you guys are on it. And you can go to bed having

everything cleaned up and wake up the next morning and there's a bunch of trash

on the side of the road, but, you know, it's one of those things. I think it's money

well-spent, and if we need to add more money to the trash and weed budget, we

should do so, because it really is truly important. And as I—I agree with Member

Savage with regard to the landscaping and that I'm seeing statewide. It's

remarkable. It's beautiful, and we just saw in the Director's Report some of that

art that was donated, and I appreciate public art, and I appreciate the installations

that have been made statewide, but it really does spoil it when there's weeds and

trash in those grocery plastic bags that hang on and everything else. But if you

need to add more money, add more money, and you can bring it back to the Board

in that regard.

Nellis: Governor, Robert Nellis. We do have—on our Agenda in the next section,

Attachment B, there are three weed abatement agreements that have been

executed. I believe they're Items 14, 15, and 17 for your information.

Sandoval: Okay. Well, let's get them out there. All right. Any other questions or comments

on that portion of Agenda Item No. 6? If there are none, Mr. Nellis, please

proceed.

Nellis: Thank you, Governor. There are 69 agreements under Attachment B on pages 14

through 20 for the Board's information. The agreements are categorized a little

differently this month, starting with pages 14 and 15. These are acquisitions,

facility agreements, a grant, interlocal agreements, and service providers under

$50,000. The next section starts on page 16 and includes 17. These are service

providers over $50,000, and lastly, pages 18 through 20 are the no cost

agreements and amendments. And I'd like to note for the Board that Item No. 61

was erroneously included in the informational reports since this is a task order and

we're not actually amending the agreement itself. And with that, that concludes

Agenda Item No. 6. Does the Board have any questions for us regarding any of

these agreements?



August 13, 2018

36

Sandoval: Thank you, Mr. Nellis. Questions from Board Members on the agreements? No

questions from Southern Nevada. Member Savage, any questions from you?

Savage: Yes, Governor, very quickly. Mr. Nellis, on the reference to Items No. 14, 15,

and 17 for weed abatement, that was Churchill, Douglas, and Nye and White Pine

and Clark Counties did not include Washoe. There's a million dollars' worth of

weed abatements. So, I would like the Department to look into the other areas in

northern Nevada. Thank you. That's all I have, Governor.

Sandoval: All right, thank you. I suppose if I may, Member Savage, and follow-up on the

question, do we have a contractor for weed abatement in Washoe County and

Clark County?

Malfabon: This is Director Malfabon. I don't think that we have a weed abatement contract.

We have the other types of contracts that Assistant Director Dyson mentioned, but

we can work on that to—Anita, correct me if I'm wrong.

Bush: So, this is Anita Bush for the record, Chief Maintenance and Asset Management

Engineer, and these interlocal contracts usually are in rural counties, because we

have—they are working on the adjacent Right-of-Way on their lands. So, they

are just adding the NDOT Right-of-Way to kind of tag along. So, we don't have

to utilize our forces to go out, so it's a lot more cost effective for us. So, in rural

areas, we don't really have adjacent Right-of-Way that much. So, we haven't been

approached to cooperate with them, so that's why we don't have them.

Malfabon: But we will look into that, Governor, given that direction from the Board to look

at the urban areas in Clark and Washoe Counties to supplement our efforts for

weed abatement.

Nellis: Actually, this is Robert Nellis again for the record. Item No. 15 in the notes, it

does allow us to include—it says Carson City, Douglas, and Washoe Counties

within the Right-of-Way. So, it appears we can use this agreement for Washoe

County.

Sandoval: All right. Well, then, you know, let's make sure we have Clark taken care of as

well. I mean, I—I mean, I'm not here all the time. I guess I'd rely on the other

members who reside here in Clark County, things that looked pretty good to me,

but...

Valentine: It's a problem.



August 13, 2018

37

Sandoval: It's a problem. So, in any event, as I said, I think we're at this place now where

we should pay more attention to that issue, because I do believe—and I know

there are a lot of responsibilities, but aesthetics and impressions are really

important, particularly, the position that the State's in right now. All right, Board

Members, any other questions or comments with regard to Agenda Item No. 6?

Let's move on to Agenda Item No. 7, Direct Sale, Director Malfabon.

Malfabon: Yes, Governor, this is an item that the Right-of-Way staff have been addressing

some of the surplus property requests and requests from adjacent owners. This is

one along Interstate 580 and 395A. So, it’s requested that the Board of Directors

or the Department of Transportation dispose of the above referenced Right-of-

Way by direct sale. This is north of Winter's Ranch Interchange in Washoe

County. We completed an appraisal of the surplus property and ran it through the

Surplus Property Committee, and they supported a direct sale. So, fair market

value has been established at $150,000 for this parcel. We will retain a permanent

easement along a stretch of that parcel, but we're just bringing it to the Board for

approval now that was originally requested in 2016 by the owner for development

of their property. They wanted to request a sale of this property to them, and

we've done our appraisal. So, we respectfully request Board approval of this

direct sale.

Sandoval: Okay. Questions from Board Members? Member Valentine.

Valentine: Thank you. I'm wondering since they made this request back in November of

2016—it doesn't say what the date of your appraisal—for the property was, but

we're now 18 months later. I wouldn't assume it's the case in this transaction, but

there are places in the state where 18 months between an appraisal and the actual

sale would maybe substantially impact the value of the land—or the evaluation.

So, I guess my question is are you satisfied that the appraisal is current relative to

the price, and why did it take so long? Is this typical, because you go through this

committee that reviews or evaluates the surplus property.

Malfabon: I don't—is there staff—okay, we have staff from Right-of-Way to respond to that

question.

Biggin: For the record, Jessica Biggin, Deputy Chief Right-of-Way Agent. The appraisal

was just recently completed. I don't have the exact date, but part of the reason

why it takes so long to get to this point is we have to evaluate the property. So,

it's the appraisal process, part of it, and drafting the mapping and the legal

description for the disposal.



August 13, 2018

38

Sandoval: All right, any other questions from Board Members? I have one. Do you recall or

do you have in your notes what we paid for it back in 1989?

Biggin: I do not. I would have to look at our records.

Sandoval: Okay, do you have an estimate? Hopefully, it was a lot less than $150,000.

Biggin: I am not aware. I would have to look at our records.

Sandoval: Okay. Is that something you could check quickly?

Biggin: I believe I can. I can get the answer today.

Sandoval: All right. Well, if you could get it in the next—before the end of the meeting, that

would be real helpful. I might trail this item, because I just wanted that as part of

the record.

Biggin: Yes, I'll get that for you.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. Questions from other Board Members with regard to Agenda

Item No. 7? Member Almberg?

Almberg: In the attached exhibits, it's got a picture. It appears as a structure on this piece of

property. Is that structure ours or is that who's actually requesting this direct sale?

Biggin: Yes, when we purchased the property, it was a total acquisition, and it does have a

house on it.

Sandoval: Is that house occupied?

Biggin: No, it is not. It is vacant.

Sandoval: Okay, is it habitable?

Biggin: There needs to be some significant repairs made to the residence. We've had

some problems with some vagrants. That's why the appraisal addressed those

issues and why it was lower, because it's in as-is condition.

Sandoval: Okay.

Almberg: Okay, thank you.

Sandoval: I think just in the future for these direct sales, it might be helpful to Board

Members if you included the appraisal in our notes so we wouldn't have to ask all

these questions.



August 13, 2018

39

Biggin: Yes, we will do that for all future disposals.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions or comments from Board

Members with regard to Agenda Item No. 7? I'm going to ask that we just trail it

until we get what the initial purchase price was back in—I think you said it was

1989. All right, thank you.

Savage: Governor, I have one question.

Sandoval: Oh, I'm sorry, Member Savage.

Savage: Because I know—the question is water rights and storm drainage, storm water

drainage, because I remember many, many years ago there was a water issue,

water right issue in this area. Is water rights included in the sale, and being it is

between both 580 and the old US 395, are there any easements for storm water

drainage as well, a couple questions.

Biggin: That, I'm not sure of. I would have to check on that. I know when we purchase

property, we try not to purchase water rights. So, I would have to look at the

acquisition documents to see if water rights were purchased.

Savage: It was many years ago. We did have a water right issue, and I know it was in this

area, and I'm not saying it's this property, but I would like the Department to look

into the water rights as well as any risk on the storm water drainage issues for this

piece of property. That's all I have at this time. Thank you, Governor.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Member Savage. Are those—are these questions that can be

answered within the next hour, because if not, we could continue this to the next

regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. In fact—oh, go ahead.

Biggin: I can at least get the purchase price in the next hour. I don't know if I can get the

water rights determined in the next hour.

Malfabon: We could hold it a month, Governor, and bring it back next month so that they

can do their research.

Sandoval: Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest, and in that next meeting for next month,

if you could include the appraisal as part of our Board Packet, that would be

helpful as well.

Biggin: We will do that.



August 13, 2018

40

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. So, if there are no objection, we will continue Agenda Item No.

7 until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. We'll move on to

Agenda Item No. 8, Resolution of Relinquishments. Director...

Malfabon: Governor, Board Members, this is associated with the pedestrian bridges at Las

Vegas Boulevard and Tropicana. Basically, NDOT retained the roadway adjacent

to those pedestrian bridges. So, we retained—although we had transferred Las

Vegas Boulevard, the strip, to the county years ago, we retained this section to

encompass the east-west pedestrian bridges on the north and south of that

intersection. So, this cleans up—and I hope that this is the final action associated

with the pedestrian bridges, but you recall that you recently acted upon the

landings for the staircases and the escalators. This is just the roadway portion of

relinquishment to Clark County.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Director Malfabon. Just a question from me. If we didn't

approve this, would we be responsible for the maintenance on that little section

there?

Malfabon: Correct.

Sandoval: Okay, and what would you estimate the annual maintenance cost is for that

section of road?

Malfabon: Ooh, that would be a tough one, because I know that driving on Las Vegas

Boulevard in that section whenever we go to the airport, it's in really bad shape.

So, it would be significant, but I don't have a dollar amount, Governor.

Sandoval: Okay, and then just “significant” being the key word, which I would probably say

seven figures, and when you say it's in bad shape, was it like what we've done

with some of the other roads within the state? We brought it up to current

standards and now we're turning it over or is it as is?

Malfabon: It's as is. We've made some improvements on Tropicana Avenue, but not

necessarily that portion of Las Vegas Boulevard north of Trop and south of Trop.

Sandoval: And do you know whether—or has the county, Clark County, accepted this? So,

once we approve this, then there's going to be a title exchange and this is done

forever and ever, as you said?

Malfabon: It says that they consented in a resolution in June of last year to accept this. This

cleans up the final actions on this.



August 13, 2018

41

Sandoval: All right. I have no other questions. Board Members, any questions with regard

to Agenda Item No. 8? No questions from Southern Nevada. Member Savage,

any questions on this Agenda Item?

Savage: No, sir.

Sandoval: All right, thank you. So, if there are no further questions, the Chair will accept a

motion to approve the resolution of relinquishment of a portion of state highway

Right-of-Way, which is Attachment No. 2 in Agenda Item No. 8.

Savage: Move to approve.

Sandoval: Member Savage has moved for approval. Is there a second?

Valentine: I second.

Sandoval: Member Valentine has seconded the motion. Any questions or discussion? There

are none. All in favor say aye. [Ayes around]. Opposed say no. That motion

passes unanimously. Agenda Item No. 9, Discussion of the Fiscal Year 2019

NDOT Work Program and the 2019-2022 Draft Statewide Transportation

Improvement Program.

Rosenberg: Sondra Rosenberg, Assistant Director for Planning for the record. It's that time of

year again where we bring to you our work program and our STIP. As you know,

we make changes throughout the year, but once a year we do an official new

document, new approval. This follows meetings throughout the state with many

of the county commissions and getting comments on that as well as working very

closely with our metropolitan planning organization partners. And with that, I'm

going to turn it over to Joe Spencer, our STIP manager.

Spencer: Good morning, Governor, Members of the Transportation Board. For the record,

my name is Joseph Spencer, NDOT STIP Manager. So, we are here today, as

Sandra said, as a part of our annual update and renewal of our STIP and work

program. We do this in accordance with CFR 23 and 49, which are the highway

and transit side of the federal rules as well as NRS 408.203, which requires us to

provide a legislative list of projects to the legislature. We as NDOT get about

$350 million in federal funds. $70 million of that is a portion to the MPOs

through various formulas, leaving about $280 million for the state, and we use

about $165 million in state funds for portions of our work program.

As Sandra said, this is an ongoing and planning process that we do all year long,

but this is the process that we go through when it comes time for the annual



August 13, 2018

42

update for our STIP. We work with partners across the state as well as sections

within NDOT to coordinate a project list, prioritize that list, and then fund that

list. And then through that partnership, we work with various MPOs across the

state to develop what they like to call the RTPs, or the Regional Transportation

Programs, and this is at least a minimum of a 20-year long range transportation

plan that they work on, as well as their short range transportation programs, which

are the TIPs that all fold up into the STIP, and the STIP includes areas of the state

both within the MPO and without of the MPO.

In accordance with the new MAP-21 and now the FAST Act, the State is in the

process of working on a long range plan which will incorporate all of the MPOs,

RTPs, and TIPs as well as some of our long range plans, needs, and wants as a

state for transportation. We are in the process of working on and finalizing what

each one of those performance measures and priorities for each of the sections are

that will then help us better—or better prioritize, be more transparent, and fill up

on our RTPs and MPO TIPs better.

And some project highlights for federal fiscal year '19 you can see. This year, the

work program consists of about 500 transportation projects while the STIP

compares with 266 projects. The difference in that is we include a lot of the

individual betterment projects for the districts, which range anywhere from a few

thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars of state gas tax. But you can

see that our major project this year is the 15-215 system to system down in Las

Vegas at a current Engineer's Estimate of $93 million. As this project continues

through the process, as Cole mentioned, we will update the Engineer's Estimate

through the process. We have a couple of projects in the Washoe County which

include some PE and Right-of-Way for the Spaghetti Bowl Express, significant

overlay at I-80's and Grey's Creek out in Elko County as well as some projects in

White Pine, Nye, and Eureka County.

Come over here, and at this time, I'm going to take you over to our electronic

website for some quick reminders of the cool eSTIP that we have that is still

nationally recognized, and people are still requesting Joe to give presentations on

this. So, I consider that a win. You can see here that this is our draft

Transportation Improvement Program, which consists of the 266 projects, as I

have mentioned. At the top, there are various different filters that we can use to

figure out projects in their specific area, whether it be by lead agency, accounting,

or even by project type. We have an advanced...



August 13, 2018

43

Sandoval: Let me interrupt you for a sec. We're not seeing anything in Southern Nevada. Is

there a presentation up on the board?

Spencer: It appears that Mr. Menzel has been kicked out, and he's reconnecting.

Sandoval: Okay, thank you. There we go. All right. Thank you. If you'd start over again,

that'd be great.

Spencer: Absolutely. So, this is the landing page for the draft STIP. At the top of this page

are the different tabs that we associate with our electronic STIP. We have these

search filters at the very top just to quickly coordinate you or orientate you

through the webpage so you can look at a specific MPO, for example, and just see

the projects within that MPO. This one happens to be Clark County, and we can

see that the Clark County has 81 transportation projects associated in that MPO.

We have an advanced search feature where you can go and key in by key words,

location, county. This is a new feature since last year. We have narrowed it

down that you can look at state senate districts as well as state assembly districts.

So, during the legislature, if anybody likes to see what's going on in their area,

they are able to do so.

We have the fiscal report tab, which I know the Transportation Board likes to see

this feature every now and then. This is where we can generate those pie charts

for you that everybody seems to like, and you can see that this first pie chart

shows all of the federal funds for 2019, state funds for 2019, other funds which

consist of either third party or local funds, and then the total funds for 2019. You

can see that for 2019, Clark County has 56.7% of all funds for this year. Each one

of these counties is clickable so you can drill down further, and you can actually

see a project list.

And probably one of the better features that we have is our interactive map where

you can zoom into different portions of the state and see projects and then be able

to click on that project and specifically see what that project is and how much it's

going for and the years that that project is in. So, that is my brief overview of our

STIP, the process. We're presently out for public comment at this time. We have

received, to date, a record number of public comments at 11 compared to our

previous record of eight. The public comment period ends on August 30th. We

will bring it back to the September Transportation Board for approval, and at this

time, I will be more than happy to answer any questions that you may have.



August 13, 2018

44

Sandoval: All right, thank you. No, that is a remarkable website. So, I want to compliment

you on that, because even I can click on there and get into the part of the state that

I need to get. So, I want to compliment you on that.

Spencer: Thank you.

Sandoval: So, Board Members, any questions with regard to Agenda Item No. 9? And then

just for—oh, Member Almberg, please proceed.

Almberg: Just a comment. I always come back, and I apologize for always commenting

very similar things at times. One of the stuff that come through the STIP from the

county that I am from, I believe all the counties in my district, is a lot of passing

lanes. I had a great conversation with Tracy last month when I was in Carson

City. I did pass on a white paper that I had received through NDOT a year or two

ago, and it was on some rural passing lanes. I do believe that some of those

things that are incorporated in that white paper from Oregon are very important. I

think that we should be discussing them and possibly including them in our future

STIPs and our future plans for some of our highways. It's very important to these

rural areas to get this traffic up and down our highways. As I had come down the

highway yesterday, coming into Las Vegas, passing lane is a humungous issue. I

don't notice it so much traveling back and forth to Carson City for these meetings,

because our traffic along Highway 50 isn't our big freight traffic. North, south,

yesterday, coming down through here, there was portions on the highway

where—I don't believe I'm exaggerating, where—there was one portion of the

highway. I was coming in heading south. There was approximately three freight

vehicles and had ten cars backed up behind them, and it was about 30 miles

before I got through all the freight vehicles through there. And so due to the

varying terrain, the ups and the downs, the curves, the different things that you're

going through in those areas, I think passing lanes are extremely important. I

think that's where we get in trouble with potential accidents and safety issues, is

when those frustrated drivers that are stuck behind them start making foolish

decisions while they're driving. And so I just want to reiterate the very

importance of some of these passing lanes and possibly looking at that white

paper that I passed on to Tracy to look at to improve our passing lanes in these

rural areas. That's all for me, Governor. Thank you.

Sandoval: Thank you, Member Almberg. Any comment from Member Almberg's

observation?



August 13, 2018

45

Rosenberg: This is Sondra Rosenberg, again, Assistant Director for Planning. US 93 in

particular, we understand that there's an issue both because it is a fairly narrow

road, two lanes most of the way, as well as a well-traveled freight route. So, we

have been looking at that corridor in a couple of different ways, one with the I-15

corridor system master plan and I-15 mobility alliance. We did a study that

completed probably about a year ago looking at that as—it's also important

because it is an alternative to I-15 when there's an issue like the Moapa flooding.

So, we looked at some strategic improvements along that corridor as well as 95

south of Las Vegas. So, I can send that to you, Member Almberg, and then we're

also including a critical corridor plan for I-15 and 93 as part of the One Nevada

plan, and we'll be presenting that study next month. So, we can send you a little

bit more information on that. That doesn't go so far as assigning funding to it, but

we're trying to highlight that corridor because of those issues that you bring up. If

you just look at, you know, vehicles, miles traveled, it doesn't—you know, it

doesn't necessarily raise the importance of it until you start looking at that

corridor being really critical to the state as both an alternate as well as a truck

route. So, we're trying to raise the awareness of that a little bit and start to

identify some of those projects such as passing lanes, intersection improvements

that will then be going through our One Nevada plan prioritization process. So,

we haven't quite finished that yet, but we are aware of those issues, and we could

send you the work that we've done so far.

Almberg: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you.

Sandoval: Board Members, any other questions or comments with regard to Agenda Item

No. 9? Member Savage.

Savage: Thank you, Governor, and my compliments to Joseph Spencer. I don't know if

you could see it from Las Vegas, but there was not one note on that presentation.

Everything was off the cuff. He's a brilliant man. We're very fortunate to have

him at the Department, along with many other people under Joseph and Sondra,

because this STIP is the foundation and the nucleus of our Department of

Transportation, and it's how we begin and how we end. And I'm very confident

with the team that we have and mapping out the future as well as the fiduciary

responsibility that we have to the people of Nevada. So, I sincerely thank you,

Joseph and Sandra, and true compliments.

Spencer: Thank you, sir.

Savage: Thank you. Thank you, Governor.



August 13, 2018

46

Sandoval: Thank you, Member Savage, well said, and I agree. So, just a quick question for

purposes of the Agenda. At least looking within our packet, it says informational

item, but this is marked as for possible action. So, Mr. Spencer, were you seeking

action or approval on this or was this an informational item?

Spencer: No, sir, this is just information to bring during our public comment period to kind

of demonstrate the eSTIP system as well as provide you with information. We

will be bringing this back to you in September for the initial acceptance of the

STIP and approval of the work program.

Sandoval: Wonderful. All right, thank you. Any other questions or comments on Agenda

Item No. 9? There are none. So, thank you very much. We'll move on to

Agenda Item No. 10, which is to present Executive Audit Findings on Non-

Construction Contracts. Director Malfabon.

Malfabon: Thank you, Governor. Robert Nellis and I will present this item. Robert is going

to kind of kick it off first, and then I'll take over the presentation, but I wanted to

just make some opening comments, that we did undergo an audit from the

Division of Internal Audits from the Governor's Finance Office. So, an Executive

Branch Audit Committee hearing was held, and we're going to kind of go over

those findings and have some discussion. This is an informational item, and we

assumed that we would have to bring this back, but based on Board consideration

today, it's going to kind of lead us in what direction to go when we bring it back.

Robert?

Nellis: Thank you, Director Malfabon. Governor, Members of the Board, for the record,

Robert Nellis, Assistant Director for Administration. Can you see our

presentation down there in Las Vegas?

Sandoval: Yes.

Nellis: Thank you. Okay, just a quick background on the Executive Audit. It was

initiated at the request of the Governor's Finance Office on February 2018. It was

conducted on NDOT's administrative contracts, which the terminology we use

here is agreements. So, that's what we're talking about, our informational

agreements, and that was conducted between March and May 2018. The Division

of Internal Audits presented their findings to the Executive Branch Audit

Committee on June 14th, 2018, and there were six audit recommendations.

First is to submit administrative contracts and amendments of $50,000 and above

to NDOT's Board for approval. Second was to submit sole source contracts to the



August 13, 2018

47

purchasing Division Administrator for approval, third, renew the Director's

contract approval limit when there is a new Governor, four, ensure all relevant

contract information is provided to the Transportation Board for informational

items, and five, comply with state and federal guidelines, and lastly, six, report all

informational items to the NDOT Board. And for the Board's reference in your

packet, findings 5 and 6 are actually combined on page Roman numeral II of the

executive summary. So, if that's a little confusing, that's why.

NDOT agreed to an implementation timeline for these items beginning with

submitting this to the Board as an informational item this month, which we're

doing for Recommendation No. 1. All the others have an implementation time

period mostly by the end of this calendar year except for Recommendation No. 3,

which is to review the contract approval limit when there's a new Governor, and

we'll do that soon after the new Governor is sworn in.

So, we'd like to start with Recommendations 2 through 6 since Recommendation

No. 1 involves action by the Board. So, Recommendation 2 through 6 are

something we can implement on our own, and I'll just go through those very

quickly and then turn over Recommendation No. 1 to Director Malfabon.

Recommendation No. 2, to submit sole source contracts to the Purchasing

Division Administrator for approval. The audit concluded that this is to ensure

compliance with regulations and statewide consistency when approving sole

source contracts. NDOT accepted this recommendation and will work with the

Purchasing Administrator to submit any sole source contracts to that division

except those that are accepted from NRS 333.700, emergency contracts, those

issued pursuant to NRS 408.323, and any of those that are not addressed by

Attorney General Opinion 96-31.

Recommendation No. 3, to renew the Director's contract approval limit when

there is a new Governor. The audit concluded that this would ensure consistency

with the new Governor's vision for state administration. NDOT accepted this

recommendation and will meet with the new Governor to review the contract

approval limits; however, any limits must go through the Transportation Board for

approval as an action item.

Recommendation No. 4, to ensure all relevant contract information is provided to

the Transportation Board for informational items. The NDOT—or I'm sorry, the

audit concluded that NDOT could modify our agreement summary sheet to have

the same information as the Budget Division has when they submit their contract

summary sheet to the Board of Examiners. And if you'd like to see an example of



August 13, 2018

48

that, that's in your packet under Appendix A and B in the Audit Report. NDOT

accepts this recommendation, and we'll begin working on revising our agreement

summary sheet to provide more detailed information, and we'll notify the Board

that we'll make these agreement summaries available upon request from the Board

Members.

Recommendation No. 5, to comply with state and federal guidelines. The audit

concluded that there were four contract files that were missing documentation

such as certificates of liability, Worker's Compensation Insurance, affidavits,

contract evaluation criteria, as well as disclosure of lobbying activities. NDOT

accepts this finding and has already put a process in place to ensure that there's a

hard stop in the signature process from now on before it goes to the Director for

signature, and we're able to do this through our electronic signature process called

DocuSign.

And Recommendation No. 6, to report informational items to the NDOT Board.

The audit concluded that there was one amendment and two contracts that were

not report to the Board. So, NDOT, of course, accepts this finding, and as you

know, we process a lot of contracts and agreements monthly. And if we ever find

one that for some reason slips making the Board Agenda, we will bring that back

to the next meeting and submit that to the Board and note the error for

transparency purposes. In the future, this shouldn't be a problem, because the

informational report now pulls data from our electronic advantage system where

every agreement is entered. So, we don't see this being an issue moving forward.

And then Recommendation No. 1, to submit administrative contracts and

amendments of $50,000 and above to the Transportation Board for approval. The

audit concluded that this would ensure consistency with the approval levels

required by the State Administrative Manual that other state agencies follow, and

NDOT accepted this recommendation, but with the caveat that we have to get

approval from the NDOT Board to make any changes to the delegated approval

limits to the Director. And with that, I'll turn the rest of the presentation over to

Director Malfabon.

Malfabon: Thank you, Robert. So, within the Board Packet, you have the audit, which

included NDOT's response and also an Attachment B that has the language from

Nevada Revised Statutes 408.131, the duties of the Director of the Department of

Transportation, and 408.205, the powers of Director. So, it covers the legal

language that controls what the Director can do under the direction of the

Transportation Board. In accordance with NRS 408.131, the Board considered



August 13, 2018

49

back in July of 2011 what was the appropriate level of authority and delegated

agreement approval to the Director up to $300,000. Since that time, agreements

under that amount are signed by the Director as authorized by the Board, and

they're submitted as informational items monthly at the Board Meetings, and we

respond to any questions that arise from that listing in the informational items.

So, one of the things that was brought up was in the audit, they felt that the—the

auditors felt that the NDOT Board and the State Board of Examiners should be

consistent on that level of contract authority, and they're going off of the State

Administrative Manual, Chapter 322. There you have the audit conclusion. It's

referencing the State Administrative Manual, and you see the exact language from

SAM 0322. Contracts totaling $50,000 or more require the approval of Board of

Examiners. So, this was the basis of the auditors’ finding, but—next slide.

Just to give you some background about what this SAM manual is, it's really the

formal guidance to all the state agencies for administration of Nevada Revised

Statutes, and it has policies, procedures, regulations, information. So, it's really

the Bible of the administrative procedures, but one thing that they are not looking

at is that—next slide—is that there are exceptions.

And specifically, it mentions, as an example, Nevada's system of higher education

is a constitutional agency with broad powers, and it says they're expected—

agencies are expected to follow these regulations when not in conflict with the

constitution, Nevada Revised Statutes, or Board of Regents' regulations. And

what NDOT's position is, is there are very specific statutes governing NDOT in

Chapter 408. As I've mentioned in your attachment, you have the exact language

from NRS 408.131 and 408.205, but you have, as a Transportation Board,

independent statutory authority to delegate contract authority to the Director, and

we're not really required to align with the Board of Examiners' delegated contract

authority limits, because we have specific language under regulations, under NRS

408.

And there is a statutory process that's stipulated in NRS, and if you recall back in

July 2011, some of the Board Members that were here at that time, that the Board

did consider this issue in establishing the current limits of authority delegated to

the Director of NDOT. You were presented back then in July of 2011 with two

options, to either approve all agreements, including amendments, or to approve

agreements over $300,000. And the minutes were provided in the response to the

auditors. So, you'll find that in the Board Packet as well, but it reflected that the

Board didn't want to approve every single agreement. They recognized that there



August 13, 2018

50

would be some impacts on efficiencies. The $300,000 threshold was established

by reviewing other states' practices and working with the Governor's Office. We

discussed acceptable thresholds back then and brought it to the Board for your

eventual approval, and Option 2 was what was passed unanimously. And I can

say that, you know, before July of 2011, NDOT enjoyed a time when the

Directors at that time had a lot of authority, but I think that it was very reasonable

in establishing that $300,000 threshold, and it's worked very well since that was

established back in July of 2011 at that Transportation Board Meeting.

And one of the things—unfortunately, the State Controller and the Lieutenant

Governor aren't present today, but the question was asked—they sit on that

Executive Audit Committee, and the question was asked by Lieutenant

Governors, so were there any kind of findings about why we need to reconsider

this $50,000 limit versus the $300,000 currently established by the Transportation

Board? And the auditor said that there really wasn't. It was just for consistency's

sake, but I think that it misses the point of what the Transportation Board

deliberated back in July of 2011 and specifically the impacts to efficiency. So, we

definitely said that we were concerned with the potential for loss of efficiencies

by lowering the delegated authority, and I can go into some specifics with that.

So, the Board, when you deliberated this back in July of 2011 for the Members

that were present, there was a lot of consideration about the impacts of what is the

proper level of authority to delegate to the Director. There was significant

discussion about, you know—concern with delaying projects, although these are

agreements—often with service providers that provide design services, those do

impact construction, or at least the timing of a construction project. So, if it takes

longer to approve design agreements and contracts, then that can delay

construction and impact the construction schedule. And being in a state like

Nevada, especially in northern Nevada where the construction season is relatively

short, we were concerned with that, and the Board did consider that in

establishing the proper level of authority, I believe. And there's a lot of other

reasons. There's additional staff time and effort required to—when we get it to an

item that's up for Board approval, we typically have the staff do a lot more effort.

When it's delegated to the Director, I, by no means, don't just rubber stamp

everything that comes across my desk. I do ask questions of staff, but I'm

definitely more informed about what contracts we're working on and why we

need—working with my Assistant Directors and Deputies and Division Chiefs

and District Engineers that's necessary to find out why we need to contract out

some of these services. But I always feel that it's best to be efficient and move



August 13, 2018

51

things along so that we can be very efficient and effective in delivering our

programs and projects. But when we do have things that are up for Board

approval, because today with the Boschung agreement, we had a lot of staff from

the District and did a lot of prep work for those types of contract approvals. Even

when it's up for Board approval, you might not be aware because you don't ask a

question on something that we provided the information on, but there is a lot of

staff effort and staff—are actually present at Board meetings or on hand to answer

any of your questions should the Assistant Directors or Deputies or Director not

be able to respond to a question during the Board Meetings. We anticipated there

would be a lot more effort and a lot more paperwork if we did lower that amount

and definitely more work on our staff's part to be prepared to take something at

that lower level to the Board for approvals. So, it's not just a change in dollar

amount and threshold of Director authority. It's really a lot more effort by staff

that's anticipated when it's up for Board approval on a monthly basis at

Transportation Board meetings.

So, we—and I appreciate Robert's efforts at looking into comparable western

states. I think that the threshold has worked well at $300,000. He found that

Idaho has $500,000. So, looking at Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

none of them have the threshold at $300,000, but I think that that works

sufficiently for our purposes, and it's worked very well just since it was

implemented in 2011. So, we had two options. We didn't have it for action today

and just wanted to get a sense from the Board. We could present lowering the

threshold as the auditors had recommended to $50,000 just for consistency with

the BOE levels, but I think that that does not address some of the needs that the

Department has and some of the deliberations that the Board already took into

consideration back in July of 2011. Nothing's really changed as far as those

efficiencies that we've gained as far as by establishing that level at $300,000, but

we also feel that Option 2—we agree that we have to look at when a new

Transportation Board, the elected members of the Board will be different in early

next year as the new Governor comes in and takes his place as Chairman of the

Transportation Board. So, it might be acceptable just to leave it as is and then

bring it up at that time with the new Transportation Board and to have that

consideration and presentation of these types of facts and efficiencies gained by

having things at the levels that they're currently authorized at and delegated to the

Director. So, it's not for an action item today. We just thought that we would

cover these points and just kind of take some direction from the Board as far as

would you like us to do some more work and bring it back when the other Board

Members that are missing today also would hopefully be here next month or



August 13, 2018

52

coming months to deliberate this and whether the $300,000 limit should be

lowered to $50,000 or maybe some other limit. And we could take some direction

from the Board as far as this item and then act on it appropriately and bring it

back. I think that that concludes this formal presentation, and we're willing to

answer any questions.

Sandoval: All right, thank you, Director Malfabon, and that was very thorough. I have the

unique position of Chairing the Executive Audit Board as well as this Board. So,

I've heard this for the second time. I will say this, and I appreciate you bringing it

up, is that back in 2011, Member Savage and Member Martin were all here, and

prior to that, I don't know if the Board ever approved any of the agreements. I

think that the Director was omnipotent and had the discretion to approve all

agreements, and this Board just basically was advised of what the Director had

done. If my recollection is correct, the Board only met quarterly, if that,

historically, and we took it upon ourselves to study this issue, and frankly,

Director Malfabon, I will say it has worked extremely well. You know, I'm

completely comfortable with the range that we have set and that I've never felt

since we approved that, that something happened that I regretted in terms of us

not having the discretion to approve something under $300,000. So, I am

comfortable with what we are doing. I mean, obviously, there is a quasi-legal

issue associated with this, because I also sit as the Chairman of the Board of

Examiners that reviews every contract under $50,000, but we've actually changed

some things there, but not with regard to that threshold. But I frankly don't know

how it would improve the operations here to move this from $300,000 to $50,000.

Now, I did see—I'm seeing for the first time these efficiency issues that you've

brought to the attention of this Board, Rudy, what you guys feel or the

Department feels would affect it if we were to reduce it to $50,000. I guess my

question is this. When we see—when we get our packet, what is the difference in

time when we are just basically getting the informational item on the agreements

as we did in Agenda Item No. 6? Do you follow my question?

Malfabon: Yes, Governor, and I might need Robert's help, but we were thinking that it could

add a couple of months. You know, as soon as—it's going to probably add at

least a month with the additional efforts by staff, but it typically would probably

take a couple of months delay, and maybe on the outside, maybe three months.

But I think that it could be significant if we do—because we're so efficient and we

enjoy the level of authority that was given to us by the Board, that it helps us to be

efficient and consider that construction season, because as I mentioned, the design

contracts are what we're most concerned about, not so much the service contracts.



August 13, 2018

53

We can deal with that in many cases. You know, it just puts more burden on

maintenance to cover that gap in time, but it's really the design contracts that

we're concerned about and delivery of programs and projects.

Nellis: Governor, this is—I'm sorry, this is Robert Nellis. Staff informed me that the

minimum delay would be 40 days. So, it could be as long as Director Malfabon

was saying, but at least the minimum would be 40 days.

Sandoval: All right. No, and again, I'm just trying to make a good record here, because this

could be one of those situations where the cure is worse than—if there even is a

sickness, and what I mean by that is, again, I sit on that Executive Audit Board.

I've Chaired it for seven-and-a-half years, and I know that its intentions are in the

right place, but having sat on this Board and chaired this for seven-and-a-half

years, I have a keen awareness and appreciation for how fluid the Department has

to be in order to get its job done, and at the end of the day, we don't want to cost

the taxpayers more money just in the name of trying to line up with SAM or the

Board of Examiners. So, long story short, my recommendation or my opinion is

that we follow Option 2. I mean, this is a pretty big policy decision on behalf of

this Board and that the next Governor coming in could decide if he wants, you

know, to follow this audit recommendation. Frankly, it really—for us—or for me,

it's only going to matter for three months, but there is—all of you, your terms are

going to—are going to continue on, and now you, having been experienced Board

Members, particularly, Frank, who has the distinction of being the longest—

longstanding Member of this Board who knows it as well or better than anybody,

that, as I said, I really don't see it improving things. And to your credit, Rudy,

and to staff's credit, I've never seen your discretion abused with regard to your

authority in approving contracts. Yes, we may have questions like we did today,

but otherwise, I think the system has worked well. So, that's all I have. Board

Members, do any of the rest of you have any questions or comments on Agenda

Item No. 10?

Valentine: I would say I agree. I lost my voice. I agree with what you just said.

Sandoval: Member Valentine, thank you. Member Savage, you were there in July of 2011.

Do you have any questions or comments? You've seen it for the past seven years.

Savage: Yes, Governor, and I'll basically second what you had said. The audits, out of

respect, are very healthy, and it's a good check and balance, and it keeps

everybody on their toes. But again, with your leadership meeting monthly and the

Director's staff and administration response to any of our questions is truly



August 13, 2018

54

transparent. And I believe that the $300,000 threshold is a good threshold for this

Department at this time, and it has been in the last seven-and-a-half years. And

since we do have the independent statutory authority per 408, I would recommend

and agree with the Governor that we leave it at $300,000, because the audit

furthermore contained no findings for a change to improve the efficiency and the

effectiveness of this Department, and that's what it's about. It's about reacting,

getting things done on time, because time is money. So, that's all I have to say,

Governor. Thank you very much.

Sandoval: Thank you, Member Savage. Member Martin.

Martin: When I first got appointed to this Board, one of the first things I questioned was

the approval process, and I had stated in several meeting minutes about you're

asking us to take the fiduciary responsibility of a decision we didn't make, and

that's really what developed. And when this Governor, Governor Sandoval, took

office, he immediately seen that situation, and we got it addressed, as it should

have been many years before. So, I'm—Len, I agree 100%. I think the $300,000

has worked outstanding. The monthly meetings instituted by you, sir, really made

this Board effective and made, I believe, NDOT one of the highest functioning

entities within the state of Nevada's governmental system. So, I'm 100% in

support of leaving it exactly like it is. The new Governor wants to change

something, that's his option, but I'm supportive of you, Rudy, and your entire staff

in leaving the standards the way they are.

Malfabon: Thank you, Member Martin.

Sandoval: So, any other questions or comments?

Almberg: No.

Sandoval: Okay. For Mr. Gallagher, I mean, given the tone of what you have heard, I mean,

do we need to take an official—put this on the Agenda between now and the end

of the year?

Gallagher: For the record, Dennis Gallagher. Governor, in answer to your question, I believe

that the Department postured this as an informational item in order to notify the

Board of the Executive Audit findings, but recognizing that this particular Board

may not wish to take any action at this point in time, but simply maintain the

current status quo until such time as there is a new Governor. So, short answer is

I don't believe the Board needs to take any action and that it'll be incumbent upon

the Department to present it to the new Governor sometime after January.



August 13, 2018

55

Sandoval: Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Board Members, any further questions or comments

on Agenda Item No. 10? We'll move on to Agenda Item No. 11, Old Business.

Malfabon: Thank you, Governor, and Board Members. So, we have our standard Report of

Outside Counsel Costs on Open Matters, Monthly Litigation Report. Dennis, you

might have a pass since the Lieutenant Governor is not present today, and then on

the Fatality Report, we're still below what we were last year. I had the latest

report dated July 31st, and we were six—pardon me—yeah, six fatalities less than

this time last year. We'd love to see it at zero fatalities in our state, but I think

that—I'm sorry, we were six more than last year. So, unfortunately, we had a

really bad July with some of the fatal crashes around the state, but we are making

some inroads and improvements on pedestrian safety, and I mentioned a lot of the

contracts that you've approved for pedestrian flashers and safer crosswalks, but

we definitely have our work cut out for us and continue to do those safety

management plans and make improvements, infrastructure improvements, as well

as working with our law enforcement and educators on safety. I mentioned

school zones earlier in the Director's Update, and it is definitely a challenge, but

we're going to stay on top of it, Governor, and Board Members, to try to drive

these fatality statistics down. Any questions?

Sandoval: Thank you, Director Malfabon. Board Members, any questions with regard to

Agenda Item No. 11?

Martin: I have one.

Sandoval: Member Martin.

Martin: Dennis, you don't get a pass, because Mark called me [laughter]. Not really, not

really.

Sandoval: All right.

Martin: No questions.

Sandoval: A little humor is always good in these NDOT meetings; that's for sure. All right,

if there are no further questions or comments on Agenda Item No. 11, we'll move

to Agenda Item No. 12, Public Comment. Is there any member of the public

present in Las Vegas that would like to provide public comment to the Board? I

hear and see no one coming forward. Any public comment from Carson City?

Malfabon: None here, Governor.



August 13, 2018

56

Sandoval: All right, thank you. We'll move to Agenda Item 13. Is there a motion to

adjourn?

Martin: So moved.

Sandoval: Member Martin has moved to adjourn. Is there a second?

Valentine: I second.

Sandoval: Second by Member Valentine. All those in favor please say aye. [Ayes around].

That motion passes unanimously. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you, ladies

and gentlemen.

__________________________ ___________________________

Secretary to Board Preparer of Minutes

MEMORANDUM

August 1, 2018

TO: Department of Transportation Board of Directors

FROM: Rudy Malfabon, Director

SUBJECT: August 13, 2018, Transportation Board of Directors Meeting

Item #4: Possible Approval of Agreement for 800 MHz Radio Replacement – For

Possible Action

____________________________________________________________________________

Summary: The Transportation Board has been briefed previously on the status of the State’s 800 MHz radio system and NDOT’s efforts to replace it. The Department is ready to enter into an agreement with Harris Corporation as the result of an RFP which advertised in November 2017. The system design was finalized after the vendor selection in February 2018, followed by negotiations between Harris Corporation, NV Energy, Washoe County, and NDOT, which concluded in July 2018. Background: In Phase I, NV Energy, Washoe County, and NDOT accepted the Nevada Statewide Public Safety Radio System – Phase 1 Final Report, prepared by AECOM. This report provided an unbiased and vender-neutral needs assessment study, in addition to an alternatives discussion regarding the migration and transition of the current statewide radio system to a new, next generation P25 Phase 2 radio system platform. Phase 2A utilized consultant services provided by Federal Engineering, in collaboration with NV Energy, Washoe County, NDOT, and NHP to develop the system and user requirements for the new radio system. These requirements were the basis for an RFP used to select the vendor for the replacement radio system. Harris Corporation was selected February 21, 2018 as the preferred vendor. During Phase 2B, Harris Corporation began developing a system design that met the requirements of the RFP and the needs of each of the three infrastructure owners (NDOT, NV Energy and Washoe County). Once the system design was complete, the infrastructure owners began contract negotiations with Harris Corporation. Each owner will enter into a separate agreement with Harris Corporation to install a P25 Phase 2 radio system to replace its portion of the existing EDACS system. Together, the three owners’ portions will be interoperable and provide statewide coverage for all users of the Nevada Shared Radio System (NSRS). The agreement with Harris Corporation for NDOT’s portion of the NSRS is up for approval under this agenda item. The consultants from Phase 2A (Federal Engineering) will continue to oversee the deployment of the new system and ensure the Department’s requirements are met. The Department’s agreement with Federal Engineering was amended in November 2017 to allow for project management support during the implementation phase of the new radio system.

1263 South Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada 89712

Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

We are proceeding in accordance with NAC 333.170 and NRS 333.135 (as identified in the RFP documents), and once an agreement has been successfully negotiated and executed, a Notice of Award will be issued. Until that time, all proposal documents, including evaluation scores and proposed costs will remain confidential. Once the agreement is executed, NDOT will develop and request a work program at the Interim Finance Committee of the Nevada State Legislature to cover FY19 expenditures for system replacement, as well as include system replacement costs in the Department’s FY20-21 biennium budget request. The Governor’s Finance Office will also be briefed on system costs and the radio replacement process. Analysis: This item is being brought to the Transportation Board to provide information regarding the agreement with Harris Corporation. A project timeline and cost schedule will be explained. The radio system provides statewide critical life, safety communications to state and other public agency employees, including law enforcement personnel. List of Attachments:

• Confidential Information – Sent Under Separate Cover to Transportation Board Members Upon execution, the agreement with Harris Corporation and the Negotiation Summary will be posted on the Department’s website. Recommendation for Board Action: Approval of the agreement with Harris Corporation. Prepared by: Denise M. Inda, P.E., Chief Traffic Operations Engineer

MEMORANDUM

August 31, 2018



SUBJECT: September 10, 2018, Transportation Board of Directors Meeting

Item #5: Approval of Agreements Over $300,000 - For Possible Action ___________________________________________________________________________

Summary: The purpose of this item is to provide the Board a list of agreements over $300,000 for discussion and approval following the process approved at the July 11, 2011 Transportation Board meeting. This list consists of any design build contracts and all agreements (and amendments) for non-construction matters, such as consultants, service providers, etc. that obligate total funds of over $300,000, during the period from July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018. Background: The Department contracts for services relating to the development, construction, operation and maintenance of the State’s multi-modal transportation system. The attached agreements constitute new agreements and amendments which take the total agreement above $300,000 during the period from July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018. Analysis: These agreements have been prepared following the Code of Federal Regulations, Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Administrative Code, State Administrative Manual, and/or Department policies and procedures. They represent the necessary support services needed to deliver the State of Nevada’s multi-modal transportation system. List of Attachments:

A) State of Nevada Department of Transportation Agreements for Approval, July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018.

Recommendation for Board Action: Approval of all agreements listed on Attachment A Prepared by: Administrative Services Division


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

Approval of Agreements Over $300,000 Page 1 of 81

Attachment

A


Attachment A

Line No. Agreement No. Amend No. Contractor Purpose Fed Original

Agreement Amount

Amendment Amount Payable Amount Receivable

Amount Start Date End Date Amend Date Agree Type Division Dir. Office Notes

1 01715 02 HIGH DESERT TRAFFIC, LLC.

TRADAS/JACKALOPE MAINTENANCE

N 244,113.00 251,076.00 495,189.00 - 3-Mar-2015 30-Jun-2021 25-Jun-2018 Service Provider

Planning Sondra AMD 2 06-25-18: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 06-30-18 TO 06-30-21 AND INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $251,076.00 FROM $244,113.00 TO $495,189.00 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF UPGRADING FROM THE TRAFFIC DATA SYSTEM (TRADAS) TO THE NEW JACKALOPE PROJECT THAT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY OF TRAFFIC COUNT SCHEDULING, PRODUCE 99% OF THE TRAFFIC REPORTS, AND TRANSFER SOFTWARE AND DATABASE HOSTING RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PROVIDER.AMD 1 02-20-18: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 02-28-18 TO 06-30-18 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, UPGRADE AND HOSTING OF THE TRAFFIC DATA SYSTEM (TRADAS) AND THE JACKALOPE PRODUCT.03-03-15: IMPLEMENTATION AND MIGRATION OF THE TRAFFIC DATA SYSTEM (TRADAS) DATABASE TO THE NEW HIGH DESERT TRAFFIC JACKALOPE PRODUCT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE ACCURACY OF REPORTS GENERATED AND DECISIONS MADE BASED ON THE DATA COLLECTED, CARSON CITY. NV B/L#: NV20131523281

2 11818 00 CA GROUP ENGINEERING SERVICES PHASE 3D/E CENTENNIAL BOWL

Y 904,991.00 - 904,991.00 - 10-Sep-2018 31-Dec-2021 - Service Provider

Project Management

Cole 09-10-18: PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PHASE 3D/E OF THE CENTENNIAL BOWL INTERCHANGE THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH, DECREASE TRAVEL TIMES, CONGESTION, IDLING, VEHICLE EMISSIONS, IMPROVE MOBILITY, AND SAFETY FOR THE PUBLIC. THE CENTENNIAL BOWL IS A PROPOSED SYSTEM-TO-SYSTEM INTERCHANGE BETWEEN US-95 AND CLARK COUNTY 215 (CC 215) IN CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD20081407877-R PROPOSERS: CA GROUP, ICE TEAMS

3 21218 00 ATKINS AUGMENTATION OF CREW 907 FOR US 50 PHASE 2 WIDENING

Y 4,838,312.00 - 4,838,312.00 - 10-Sep-2018 30-Jun-2021 - Service Provider

Construction Thor 09-10-18: PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT ID 60715 (CONTRACT 3745) ON US 50 FROM ROY’S ROAD TO THE JUNCTION WITH US 95A FOR THE WIDENING OF ROADWAY, INSTALL LIGHTING, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND A NEW ROUNDABOUT AT THE JUNCTION OF US 50 AND US 95A, ARE ACCOMPLISHED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ALL OTHER CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. AUGMENTATION IS NECESSARY DUE TO THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND SCOPE OF PROJECTS ANTICIPATED TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE WORKLOAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CREWS, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVF19981347315-R PROPOSERS: ATKINS, DIVERSIFIED, LOUIS BERGER

4 47717 02 ZEN CONSULTANTS, INC. STATEWIDE MAPPING AND CADD STANDARDS

N 557,000.00 900,000.00 1,457,000.00 - 11-Sep-2017 31-Dec-2019 10-Sep-2018 Service Provider

Design Cole AMD 2 09-10-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $900,000.00 FROM $557,000.00 TO $1,457,000.00 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND DOCUMENTATION OF TRAINING MANUALS, CADD STANDARDS MANUAL, CONSULTANT DELIVERABLE GUIDELINES, AS WELL AS ASSESS AND DESIGN WORKFLOWS NEEDED FOR DEVELOPING 3D MODELS FROM BEGINNING TO CONTRACT DELIVERY.AMD 1 04-12-18: CORRECTION OF INSURANCE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE SERVICE PROVIDER'S STATUS AS A SOLE PROPRIETOR AND OBTAIN THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AFFIDAVIT.09-11-17: DEVELOPMENT OF NDOT STATEWIDE MAPPING AND CADD STANDARDS AND SOURCE FILES FOR 3D DESIGN WORKFLOWS. STATEWIDE WORKSHOP PHASE 2 (CADD- 1B) CONSISTS OF HOSTING A STATEWIDE PUBLIC AGENCY WORKSHOP TO UNVEIL AND DISCUSS THE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THE AGENCIES CAN TAKE IN ACHIEVING A STATEWIDE CADD STANDARD, STATEWIDE. NV B/L#:NVF20161177028-S

5 60417 00 LOUIS BERGER U.S., INC. FINAL DESIGN FOR I-515 SOUTHBOUND

N 1,700,000.00 - 1,700,000.00 - 10-Sep-2018 30-Dec-2020 - Service Provider

Project Management

Cole 09-10-18: PROVIDE FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING AND PLAN PREPARATION SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED I-515 SOUTHBOUND IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH DOWNTOWN LAS VEGAS. ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE COORDINATE WITH THE NEPA CONSULTANT AND THE DEPARTMENT DURING DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIADUCT REHABILITATION DESIGN, AND PROVIDE PUBLIC OUTREACH, COST RISK ASSESSMENT, INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATING, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE COMBINED PROJECT. CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVF20161258761-R PROPOSERS: CA GROUP, HDR ENGINEERING, LOUIS BERGER

State of Nevada Department of TransportationAgreements for Approval

July 18, 2018 through August 14, 2018


MEMORANDUM

July 30, 2018

TO: Sondra Rosenberg, Assistant Director FROM: Mark Wooster, Project Manager SUBJECT: Negotiation Summary for P017-15-067Amd2 – High Desert Traffic, LLC

A negotiation meeting was held at NDOT HQ and via Phone Conference in Carson City, Nevada on May 3, 2018, with Catherine Travis, with High Desert Traffic, LLC., Mark Wooster, Holly Smith and Sarah Berdine of the Nevada Department of Transportation (DEPARTMENT) in attendance. The DBE goal for this agreement has been established at 0 percent (0%). This duration of this agreement will be 3 years, ending on June 30, 2021. The scope of services that are to be provided by the SERVICE PROVIDER was reaffirmed by both parties at the outset. The original agreement contained Implementation and migration of the TRADAS database to the new High Desert Traffic Jackalope product and the software maintenance on the new High Desert Traffic Jackalope product.

1. The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to provide the following services:

a. Software maintenance of the SERVICE PROVIDER’s Jackalope product. b. Software maintenance of the SERVICE PROVIDER’s Tradas product through

December 31, 2019. c. Hosting and data management services for the new High Desert Traffic Jackalope

product as defined in Attachment B – Scope of Services 2. The DEPARTMENT’s traffic information data will remain the sole property of the

DEPARTMENT. The SERVICE PROVIDER will provide said data to the DEPARTMENT in a format to be determined by the DEPARTMENT, on a schedule specified by the DEPARTMENT, and at no additional charge to the DEPARTMENT.

The following schedule was agreed to by both parties:

Date Task to be Completed

12/31/2019 End of maintenance for the Tradas traffic data system.

6/25/2018 - 6/30/2021 Maintenance, hosting and support for Jackalope traffic data system.


Phone: (775) 888-7440

Fax: (775) 888-7201

DocuSign Envelope ID: 23D7C029-60FC-4FFA-B739-0D1FE4C5BF3C


Key personnel dedicated to this project are as follows:

Name

Catherine Travis High Desert Traffic, LLC.

There are no sub-consultants being utilized on this Project. The negotiations yielded the following:

FY 2019 $81,760.00 FY 2020 $83,673.00 FY 2021 $85,643.00

The total negotiated Amendment 2 cost for Extend software maintenance and hosting on the Traffic Data System (TRADAS/Jackalope) through June 30, 2021, is $251,076.00, for a total negotiated Agreement cost of is $495,189.00. Reviewed and Approved: Assistant Director

DocuSign Envelope ID: 23D7C029-60FC-4FFA-B739-0D1FE4C5BF3C


Scope of Services: The below services offered by High Desert Traffic will keep the Nevada Department of Transportation’s Traffic Data Processing and Reporting installation operating as per your requirements. Annual costs for multiple year contracts will increase at the rate of 3%. High Desert Traffic Jackalope Analysis Engine Year 1 $63,760 Hosted Server (FY2019) $18,000 High Desert Traffic Jackalope Analysis Engine Year 2 $65,673 Hosted Server (FY2020) $18,000 High Desert Traffic Jackalope Analysis Engine Year 3 $67,643 Hosted Server (FY2021) $18,000 Total: $251,076

• One production instance of the Jackalope software and Oracle SE2 Jackalope database:

• Weekly backup of the entire system, with backup verification and disaster recovery

procedures and testing.

• 99% uptime during business hours. Planned outages will be coordinated with the users

and planned for off-hours, which are usually weekends

• Up to 2 TB of Production Jackalope data tablespace and 2 TB of index tablespace

• One test instance of the Jackalope software and Oracle SE2 Jackalope database.

• Periodic exports of the hosted, production database to a local DEPARTMENT database in a

format and schedule determined by the DEPARTMENT.

• Domain management

• Standard Jackalope authentication and authorization for all non-public data access

• Oracle DBA functions to keep the database tuned and secure

• Dedicated production server host


Request to Solicit Services and Budget Approval (2A) Amendments for time extensions (time only) do not require a form 2a

Initial Budget Request Request for Amendment #: Agreement #:

If Amendment, name of Company:

Project ID #(s):

Type of Services:

Originated by: Division: Date Originated:

Division Head/District Engineer:

Budget Category #: Object #: Organization #:

Estimated Cost: Type of Funding: % of Fund:

Funding Notes: State Fiscal Year(s):

Financial Management:

Approval of this form by the Financial Management Division, Budget Section, provides funding authority for the services described. Actual availability of funds and the monitoring of actual expenditures must be determined by the Division Head.

Project Accounting:

Director:

Requires Transportation Board Presentation

Does not require Transportation Board presentation

Signature Date

Signature Date

Signature Date

DocuSign Envelope ID: A00F8B97-A55D-460E-A603-CC2B28F26A06

Project Mgmt

Nick Johnson

EA 73518

Fed/State 95/5

Jenica Keller

814D

Engineering Services

For Fiscal Year 2019, $465,000. For Fiscal Year 2020, $465,000.

06-BLDG LND IMP

$930,000

B015

X

3/19/2018

2019-2020

118-18-015

3/20/2018

3/20/2018

3/20/2018

X


Attachments:

Budget by Organization Report (Report No. NBDM30) attached here:

If Amendment, attach original Agreement here: Any additional information to attach: Purpose of, and Justification for, Budget Request:

Scope of Services:


Due to the high work load of Crew 926 and the complex nature of the US95NW Phase 3D/E

project, the Project Management Division will be contracting for engineering services

through the RFP process. Historically, these types of services for the Department have

ranged from 0.5% to 1% of the engineer’s estimate. The current engineer’s estimate for

Phase 3D/E is approximately $111M.

The scope of services for this RFP will include constructability reviews, bidability analyses,

QA/QC reviews, construction estimates and schedules for the following:

US-95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl Interchange: Construct westbound CC-215 to northbound

US-95, southbound US-95 to westbound CC-215, eastbound CC-215 to northbound US-95,

widen northbound US-95 to eastbound CC-215 to 2 lanes, construct Sky Pointe interchange

from Centennial Parkway to Azure Drive, realign and widen Oso Blanca Road and connect to

Centennial Center Boulevard, upgrade CC-215 to divided six lane freeway from Tenaya

Way to Grand Montecito Parkway and construct a multi-use path from Sky Pointe Drive to

Grand Montecito Parkway.

Yes

118-18-015


Financial Management Comments:

Project Accounting Comments:

Director Comments:


118-18-015

N/A

.

Transportation Board approval of consultant agreement will be required, however, a formal

presentation is not required. Brief Asst. Director for Engineering prior to the Board meeting date so

he can respond to questions. - RM


MEMORANDUM

August 20, 2018

TO: Cole Mortensen, Assistant Director FROM: Jenica Keller, Senior Project Manager SUBJECT: Negotiation Summary for RFP 118-18-015 Engineering Services for US-95NW Phase 3D/E Centennial Bowl

CA Group provided their original estimate to NDOT via email. To prepare for negotiations, a meeting was held in Crew 904’s office in Las Vegas on August 23, 2018, with Jenica Keller, Abid Sulahria, Michael Taylor and Kim Diegle of the Nevada Department of Transportation (DEPARTMENT) in attendance. Negotiations were then conducted via email. The DBE goal for this agreement has been established at two and five tenths percent (2.5%). This duration of this agreement will be 3 years, ending on December 31, 2021. The scope of services that are to be provided by the CA Group and their sub-consultants was reaffirmed by both parties at the outset. The scope of services includes:

1. Project Management Support a. Constructability Review b. Construction Cost Estimate c. Construction Schedule d. QA/QC Review of Plans, Specifications and Estimates


Item Approximate Date

Task Lead

Submit Intermediate PS&E for Review #1 10/2018 NDOT

Bidability/Constructability Review #1 10/2018 CA Group/HDR

Bidability/Constructability Draft Report 11/2018 CA Group

QA/QC Review #1 10/2018 CA Group/HDR/Stantec/BRG

QA/QC Draft Report #1 11/2018 CA Group

Submit QA PS&E to Specs and CA Group 10/2019 NDOT

Distribute QA PS&E to Team 10/2019 NDOT


Bidability/Constructability Draft Report #2 11/2019 CA Group

Construction Cost Estimate 10/2019 Slater Hanifan

Construction Schedule 10/2019 Rock Solid Solutions



QA Review Meeting 12/2019 NDOT/CA Group


Phone: (775) 888-7592

Fax: (775) 888-7322

DocuSign Envelope ID: FE32BA1D-3052-49CA-AE5E-50581DC27BF6



Name Title

Jim Caviola Project Manager

Shawn Meagher Constructability Review / Construction Cost Estimate / Schedule Lead

Dean Mottram QA/QC Review of Bidding Documents Lead

Sub-consultant information regarding Project Descriptions on active Agreements:

Sub-Consultant Project Description Agreement No.

HDR Full administration 3714 P614-17-040

HDR Service agreement for Planning P706-15-110

HDR Biological compliance monitor P784-15-013

HDR TSEDS P205-18-816

HDR US 95 / CC 215 Interchange P011-10-015

HDR Oversight of LPA projects P635-16-040

HDR On-call services for design P396-17-010

Slater Hanifan Civil engineering services P012-15-030

Slater Hanifan Crew 906 augmentation P561-17-040

Slater Hanifan Independent cost estimator P775-16-015

Stantec Civil engineering/design services P296-17-056

Stantec Statewide bridge inspections P085-16-011

Stantec Landscape architect services P199-17-010

Stantec District 1 maintenance yard improvements P247-16-050

Stantec Biological monitoring P249-17-013

Stantec Landscape architecture design P302-11-010

Stantec Landscape and aesthetics for I-15 P007-15-010

Stantec Landscape and aesthetics for I-580/Damonte interchange P327-15-010

The DEPARTMENT's original estimate was $927,412, including direct labor (3,274 man-hours of work by the SERVICE PROVIDER), overhead rate of 150%, a 11% fee, and direct expenses at $151,522 (including sub-consultant expenses). The SERVICE PROVIDER's original estimate was $1,423,108, including direct labor (3,832 man-hours of work by the SERVICE PROVIDER), overhead rate of 113.99%, a 11% fee, and direct expenses at $713,294 (including sub-consultant expenses). The overhead rate of 113.99% was provided by the Internal Audit Division. The negotiations yielded the following:

1. There will be 2,641 total man-hours allotted to CA Group for this agreement at a direct labor cost of $193,497, including a prorated amount for anticipated raises, which will take effect over the term of the agreement.

2. Based upon the direct labor costs and an overhead rate of 113.99%, the overhead amount will be $220,567.



3. A fee of 11% was agreed to by both parties and will be $45,547 for this agreement based

upon direct labor costs and an overhead rate of 113.99%.

4. The direct expenses agreed to total $445,380 for sub-consultants, reproduction, communication, travel and per diem. There will be no direct compensation for computer time.

5. The total negotiated cost for this agreement is $904,991.

Reviewed and Approved: Assistant Director



Attachment A Scope of Services

1.0 GENERAL The proposed project is the US-95/CC-215 Centennial Bowl Interchange (US-95NW Phase 3D/E) located in Clark County, Nevada. Improvements include the construction of the westbound CC-215 to northbound US-95, southbound US-95 to westbound CC-215, eastbound CC-215 to northbound US-95, widen northbound US-95 to eastbound CC-215 to 2 lanes, construct Sky Pointe interchange from Centennial Parkway to Azure Drive, realign and widen Oso Blanca Road and connect to Centennial Center Boulevard, upgrade CC-215 to divided six lane freeway from Tenaya Way to Grand Montecito Parkway and construct a multi-use path from Sky Pointe Drive to Grand Montecito Parkway. The work consists of assisting the DEPARTMENT’s in-house design team in the following areas:

• Project Management Support • Constructability Review • Construction Cost Estimate • Construction Schedule • QA/QC Review of Plans, Specifications and Estimates


Item Approximate

Date

Task Lead

Submit Intermediate PS&E for Review #1 10/2018 NDOT


Bidability/Constructability Draft Report 11/2018 CA Group



Submit QA PS&E to Specs and CA Group 10/2019 NDOT

Distribute QA PS&E to Team 10/2019 NDOT


Bidability/Constructability Draft Report #2 11/2019 CA Group

Construction Cost Estimate 10/2019 Slater Hanifan

Construction Schedule 10/2019 Rock Solid Solutions



QA Review Meeting 12/2019 NDOT/CA Group

The SERVICE PROVIDER will provide a licensed professional engineer in the State of Nevada as a Project Manager to deliver the services described above.


The DEPARTMENT’s Project Manager will manage the project team (including SERVICE PROVIDER augmentation) and deliver the project. 1.1 Conduct Monthly Invoicing and Project Accounting: SERVICE PROVIDER will provide monthly invoicing and perform project accounting activities consistent with DEPARTMENT requirements. 1.2 Manage and Document Project Correspondence: The SERVICE PROVIDER’s Project Manager shall correspond directly with the DEPARTMENT’s project manager. All correspondence between the SERVICE PROVIDER and the DEPARTMENT shall include notification to the DEPARTMENT’s Project Manager unless directed otherwise by the DEPARTMENT’s Project Manager. Copies of all formal correspondence will be forwarded to the DEPARTMENT’s Project Manager for review prior to sending them out. Deliverables:

• All formal correspondence for review and comment

• All general correspondence to include the DEPARTMENT Project Manager 1.3 Prepare for and Participate in Monthly Team Meetings, including Kick-off Meeting: The DEPARTMENT’s team meetings are held monthly. The team meeting is attended by video conference between the DEPARTMENT’s District I (Las Vegas) and the DEPARTMENT’s headquarters (Carson City). SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare for and attend these meetings in person at either the District I location or at Headquarters. The SERVICE PROVIDER will correspond with all DEPARTMENT Divisions during the team meetings for the success of the project. The DEPARTMENT will arrange and conduct a kickoff meeting with the SERVICE PROVIDER. The meeting will be scheduled within ten (10) business days of the issuance of the Notice to Proceed (NTP). This meeting will review the scope of work, Project schedule, and establish lines of communication. It will inform the SERVICE PROVIDER of project status and scoping to complete critical path items. 2.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT The SERVICE PROVIDER will assist the NDOT Project Manager with PM activities following DEPARTMENT standards for DEPARTMENT Project Management activities including, but not limited to: Preparing Bidability/Constructability/Maintenance Reviews, Construction Cost Estimates, Construction Scheduling, and QA/QC Review. 2.1 Conduct Bidability and Constructability Review and Prepare Bidability and Constructability Report: Conduct an independent and structured review of construction bid documents by construction professionals to make certain that the work requirements are clear, the documents are coordinated, and that the documents assist the contractor in bidding, construction and project administration to result in reduced impacts to the project. The review will focus on constructability issues, sequencing of construction, traffic control, appropriateness of bid items and quantities, and reviewing the plans, special provisions and comparing them to the Standard Specifications for conflicts or omissions. The review will be performed with the objective of improving bidability, constructability, reducing claims, reducing


conflicts between the Contractor and the DEPARTMENT and enhancing the quality of the project within the existing design. The review will utilize the Plans, Special Provisions and other appropriate documents provided by the DEPARTMENT. Assist in the development of the traffic control plans and corresponding specifications (limitations of operations). Assist the designers, as needed, with technical recommendations. Review the project on-site with the designers (DEPARTMENT) and Resident Engineer for key staff to become familiar with the project. Deliverables:

• Bidability and Constructability Report

2.2 Develop and Update Construction Cost Estimate: Provide independent cost estimates advancing through intermediate and final design and into construction. Utilize contractor-style (production-based) methodologies and production-based heavy civil estimating software platforms and assist in line item verification. Provide summary and detailed cost breakdowns, translate production-based estimates into the DEPARTMENT’s unit price estimate format. Utilize DEPARTMENT standards with a demonstrated familiarity of Nevada labor laws and the local labor union environment. Provide assistance to the Project Team with respect to determining cost impacts of risk, labor availability, mobilization, site access, sequence of design and construction, availability and procurement of equipment and materials, and maintainability. Deliverables:

• Cost estimates 2.3 Develop and Update Project Schedule: Develop and maintain a project schedule for the design activities through advertisement of bid documents. Develop and update a project schedule for the construction activities per DEPARTMENT Standard Specifications. Prepare an independent construction schedule identifying the appropriate number of working days, sequence of construction, major tasks and durations, high-risk activities, interdependencies between such tasks, risks, and the critical path. Assist in the development of the limitations of operations to be specified in the contract documents including milestones, marathon weekend work, and special event limitations, as needed. Develop an initial schedule at the 90% design milestone and update as needed until Deliverables:

• Project Schedule for design

• Project Schedule construction

2.4 Preform QA/QC and Prepare QA/QC Report: Provide a QA/QC review at 60%, 90% level of design development, and a complete page turn of the full set at each review. This includes specifications and drawings for the combined set of Phase 3D/E plans designed by NDOT with Atkins designing the Landscape Architectural plans and GCW Engineering designing the multi-use path. Document reviews with a QA/QC Report. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall review the following areas of the construction plans and special provisions for this project:


• Roadway: Review for constructability, adequate construction work areas, construction access, and possibly conflicts with other construction elements, existing structures, and utilities. The plans will be reviewed for consistency of information between the various types of plan sheets such as typical sections, roadway plan and profile sheets and special details. Consistency of information between plans and special provisions will also be reviewed.

• Drainage Elements: Review for constructability, with specific emphasis, on trench depth, adequate construction work areas, construction access, and possible conflicts with existing and other proposed structures. The drainage plans will be reviewed for consistency of information between the drainage sheets and other areas of the construction documents.

• Structures: Review for constructability, with emphasis on traffic control, excavation depth, adequate construction work areas, construction access, possible conflicts with existing structures and other improvements depicted on the plan sheets. Review construction details such as location and constructability of piles, pier footings, and the overall sequence the items of work. Review the completeness and consistency of special details provided. Spot check the bill of materials for consistency and completeness.

• Traffic Control: Review traffic movements through the project where construction activities and/or specified limitations of operations may impede traffic movements. A check will be made to assure that all major construction activities are covered by corresponding traffic control. Review detours for adequacy of construction work areas, signing, sequence of construction, and required traffic switches.

• Detour Construction: Review for adequacy of construction work areas, signing, sequencing of construction, and required traffic switches.

• Landscape Architecture/ITS/Lighting/Signals/Signs: Review for constructability, completeness and consistency of special details provided.

• Specifications and Plans: Review the Special Provisions and Plans for discrepancies or conflicts with the Standard Specifications. Check for the need of additional special details and for the completeness of the special details provided in the review plans. Examine the bid item list contained in the contract documents to assure the bid items are appropriate for the work being performed and to determine that all work is covered by a bid item or is specifically covered by a (no direct payment comment) in the contract documents.

• Special Emphasis: Special emphasis will be placed on identifying potential construction related problems, such as: conflicts between construction items, inadequate room for construction activities, potential drainage and flooding areas, falsework clearance and protection, trench depths, etc.

Deliverables:

• QA/QC Report (design, structures, etc. look good and reasonable) 2.5 Provide Support for Miscellaneous Management Items: Provide miscellaneous support for additional items not described specifically in the scope. Work to be performed as requested by the DEPARTMENT Project Manager.


STATE OF NEVADADEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

For Agreement Services OnlyRequest to Solicit Services and Budget Approval (2A)

Amendments for time extensions (time only) do not require a form 2a



Project ID #(s):

Type of Services:








Project Accounting:

Director:



Signature Date

Signature Date

Signature Date

NDOT Form 2a, 070-041 Rev. 11/15

DocuSign Envelope ID: 782EEEAA-9EF1-44C4-AB06-767293AFA65E



For Agreement Services Only

Attachments:


If Amendment, attach original Agreement here:

Any additional information to attach:

Purpose of, and Justification for, Budget Request:

Scope of Services:

NDOT Form 2a, 070-041 Rev. 11/15

DocuSign Envelope ID: 782EEEAA-9EF1-44C4-AB06-767293AFA65E


of 2 NDOT 070-069 Rev 02/2018

MEMORANDUM

August 24, 2018

TO: Thor Dyson, Assistant Director FROM: Tonia Andree, Project Manager SUBJECT: Negotiation Summary for RFP 212-18-040 Crew 907 Augmentation, US50 Phase 2 Widening

A negotiation meeting was held at NDOT Headquarters in Carson City on August 24, 2018, with Jim Dodson, George Jordy, and Joe Mamola from Atkins and Stephen Lani, Ashley Hurlbut, and Tonia Andree of the Nevada Department of Transportation (DEPARTMENT) in attendance. The DBE goal for this agreement has been established at Two percent (2.0%). The scope of services that are to be provided by the SERVICE PROVIDER was reaffirmed by both parties at the outset.

The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to perform professional and technical engineering services to ensure construction of Project NHP-050-2(016), US 50 Roy’s Road to the Junction with US 95A is accomplished in conformance with the plans, specifications, and all other contract documents.

The following three (3) firms submitted proposals in response to RFP 212-18-040:

Atkins Diversified Consulting Services Louis Berger

Atkins is the prime Consultant and has teamed up with the following subconsultants:

Black Eagle Consulting (Testing Services) Construction Materials Engineers (Inspection Services) Mapca (Survey Services – Certified DBE)

The DEPARTMENT's original estimate was $4,846,344.48 including direct labor and expenses. The SERVICE PROVIDER's original estimate was $4,594,293.00 including direct labor and expenses. The negotiations yielded the following:

1. Adjusted the augmentation staffing durations and increased hours based upon current estimated Advertising, project construction and close out schedule of the two separate construction contracts.

2. Confirmed no changes in proposed personnel or sub-consultants. 3. Increased OT to 10 hours per week for field staff during peak construction season (June,

July, and August).


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1EFCFC3F-D009-4C25-A5D2-259610016730


of 2 NDOT 070-069 Rev 02/2018

4. Overtime will be applied for over 40 hours per work week. 5. Reiterated that hours worked by the Service Provider are as needed to provide sufficient

project oversight and are at the direction of the Resident Engineer. 6. Negotiated an all-inclusive hourly rate. The rates include the company’s overhead, and

profit, trucks, testing equipment as needed, survey equipment as needed, iPads for inspectors, cell phones, PPE, and other safety equipment.

7. Billing time shall begin when staff arrives at the crew office or project site. 8. The final total negotiated cost for this agreement, including labor and direct expenses is

$4,838,312.00. Reviewed and Approved: Assistant Director

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1EFCFC3F-D009-4C25-A5D2-259610016730


Attachment A Scope of Services

The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to perform professional and technical engineering services to ensure that the construction of the following project is accomplished in conformance with the plans, specifications, and all other contract documents: Project ID 60715, Project No. NHP-050-2(016) US 50 Roy’s Road to the Junction with US 95A, widen roadway, lighting, drainage improvements, new Portland cement concrete pavement roundabout at the junction of US 50 and US 95A, in Lyon County.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide up to one (1) Principal Engineer to act as Project Manager, one (1) Assistant Resident Engineer, one (1) CPM Schedule Reviewer, one (1) Office Manager, one (1) fully equipped two-person survey crew, two (2) Inspectors level IV, two (2) Inspectors level III, one (1) Lead Tester, two (2) Testers, three (3) nuclear gauges (including both moisture density and thin lift gauges), vehicles, iPads, cell phones, proper safety equipment and specialized training for all personnel assigned to this project. The Assistant Resident Engineer, Office Person, CPM Schedule Reviewer, and Lead Tester are considered “Key Personnel” for this augmentation. The Lead Tester shall manage and coordinate all testing activities including documentation and oversight. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide incidental equipment as may be required by the DEPARTMENT.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide all personnel assigned to this project the proper safety equipment, including but not limited to, soft caps, hard hats and vests meeting the current DEPARTMENT standards for Work Zone Apparel.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide a principal engineer to act as Project Manager. The Principal Engineer shall be limited to billing no more than eight (8) hours per month, unless prior approval for additional hours is obtained from the DEPARTMENT.

The Principal Engineer shall be certified by the Nevada State Board of Registered Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, in accordance with Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 625, as a licensed Civil Engineer.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide personnel who possess the experience, knowledge and character to adequately perform the requirements of these services, so as not to delay the progress of construction. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall become familiar with the standard practices of the DEPARTMENT and shall ensure all personnel provided to work on the project become familiar with the DEPARTMENT's contract documents, including the plans, specifications, special provisions, and any change orders thereto. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform the procedures for office management, documentation, field inspection, field testing and surveying in accordance with the DEPARTMENT’s specifications, Construction Manual, Field Testing Guide, Field Inspection Guide, Survey Manual and Documentation Manual.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide all personnel assigned to this project any specialized training, including safety training, or equipment necessary to perform the assigned duties, including but not limited to certification as a Water Pollution Control Manager, inspection and implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), certification as ATSSA Traffic Control Technician, certification as ATSSA Traffic Control Supervisor, surveying, testing and inspection. Personnel provided shall be approved by the DEPARTMENT prior to performance of work on this project.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide its own or lease trucks and cell phones for all personnel who need to perform work outside of the office. Vehicles shall be equipped with high intensity flashing yellow strobe lights.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall equip Inspectors with an iPad capable of supporting the Mobile Inspector™ software utilized by the DEPARTMENT for documenting field inspection activities.

The DEPARTMENT crew is utilizing the Leica/Carlson software platform to perform construction staking. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be knowledgeable of software use and provide data collected in a compatible format.


All testing personnel shall meet and be certified under the American Concrete Institute (ACI) as Concrete Field Testing Technician - Grade I; Nevada Alliance for Quality Transportation Construction (NAQTC) guidelines; certification under Western Alliance for Quality Transportation Construction (WAQTC) guidelines will be accepted in lieu of NAQTC. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide all personnel assigned to this project any specialized training or equipment necessary for the use of any hazardous materials required to perform testing on this project.

When nuclear gauges are required, the Service Provider shall have current licenses as required by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Personnel who operate or transport any nuclear density gauge shall have in their possession evidence of current certification pertaining to the nuclear density gauges under their control. The Service Provider shall be responsible to provide their own storage facility and transportation for nuclear density gauges.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall equip office staff that will be utilizing the FieldManager™ program with a Windows-based computer that has Adobe Pro or other PDF-editing/creating software installed.



For Agreement Services OnlyRequest to Solicit Services and Budget Approval (2A)

Amendments for time extensions (time only) do not require a form 2a



Project ID #(s):

Type of Services:






IT Review:



Project Accounting:

Director:



Signature Date

Signature Date

Signature Date

Signature Date

NDOT Form 2a, 070-041 Rev. 11/15

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E848B51-1791-4F89-93E8-942D7819780A



For Agreement Services OnlyAttachments:


If Amendment, attach original Agreement here:

Any additional information to attach:

Purpose of, and Justification for, Budget Request:

Scope of Services:

NDOT Form 2a, 070-041 Rev. 11/15

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E848B51-1791-4F89-93E8-942D7819780A


NDOT 070-069 Rev 09/14

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MEMORANDUM

August 20, 2018 TO: Cole Mortensen, Assistant Director - Engineering FROM: David Fox, Project Manager SUBJECT: Negotiation Summary for Amendment 2 of Agreement P477-17-010 Statewide Mapping and

CADD Standards A negotiation meeting was held by teleconference at NDOT Headquarters in Carson City on June 28, 2018 with Mark Ditko and Kevin Fern of Zen Consultants, Inc. (SERVICE PROVIDER), and David Fox, Pedro Madera, Brian Deaton and Darren Hughes of the Nevada Department of Transportation (DEPARTMENT) in attendance. The DBE goal for this agreement has been established at Zero percent (0%). The scope of services that are to be provided by the SERVICE PROVIDER was reaffirmed by both parties at the outset. Develop necessary manuals and develop workflows for MicroStation CONNECT Edition and OpenRoads Designer CONNECT Edition to comply with newly agreed upon CADD Standards. This involves the development of CADD Standards Drafting, Civil CADD Design, Civil CADD Production, and Consultant Deliverables Guidelines. The following schedule was agreed to by both parties: 9/2018: Begin Standards manuals development. 5/2019: Standard manuals development complete. Key personnel dedicated to this project are as follows: David Fox, P.E. Specifications Engineer Pedro Madera CADD Operations Manager The SERVICE PROVIDER's original lump sum estimate was $1,285,000. To keep within the allotted budget, the original lump sum was reduced to $900,000 by taking out the Survey configuration and documentation piece and some Civil 3D workflow modifications. This estimate and the scope of work for this agreement was developed during the original phase of Agreement P477-17-010, in which the SERVICE PROVIDER and DEPARTMENT worked together to come up with the scope of work and timelines for the development of NDOT Standards manuals and workflows.

The SERVICE PROVIDER’s lump sum estimate is based on an estimated duration of 35 weeks to develop all the Standards manuals. The DEPARTMENT agreed that the timeline and estimate were reasonable for the scope of work. Reviewed and Approved: _________________________________________ Cole Mortensen, Assistant Director - Engineering

DocuSign Envelope ID: 00D1DF1F-DBB3-4A3A-855C-6D8F9FDAB6E8


Attachment B – Scope of Services

1. Project:

1.1 The scope of this project covers the development of DEPARTMENT State-wide Mapping and CADD Standards and Source Files for 3D Design Workflows. The scope of work laid out below was developed during the Assessment Phase 1 and Phase 1A completed in Agreement P774-15-010 and is identified in the DEPARTMENT “State-wide Mapping and CADD Standards Assessment Report” dated June 30, 2017. The State-wide Workshop - Phase 2 (CADD-1b) was completed in December 2017 and MicroStation CONNECT / OpenRoads / AutoCad / Civil3D Digital File Development - Phase 3 (CADD- 1c) was completed in June 2018 under Agreement P477-17-010. This amendment covers work to be completed in Section 1.4 Documentation – Phase 4.

1.2 State-wide Workshop Phase 2 (CADD- 1b) - Completed December 2017

This phase consists of hosting a state-wide public agency workshop to unveil and discuss the assessment report and the recommended approach the agencies can take in achieving a state-wide CADD standard. This project will consist of a 1-day event hosted by DEPARTMENT in either Las Vegas or Carson City with intent to encourage the state-wide project team’s attendance. This phase will address any constructive input to the scopes of work. This phase will consist of a visual presentation and round table discussion format.

1.2.1 Tasks (Activities)

• Conduct a DEPARTMENT, on-site, not to exceed 6-hour, state-wide workshop.

• Provide Project Management.

DEPARTMENT Responsibility

• Schedule and Host a state-wide workshop.

• Provide remote attendance abilities (WebEx, conference call).

• Facilitate attendance scheduling.

Zen Responsibilities

• Conduct a state-wide workshop.

• Document and adjust any changes to the CADD-1c SOW based on this workshop.

1.2.2 Deliverables

Includes

• State-wide roundtable discussions.

• Any modification or changes to the CADD-1c SOW.

Does Not Include

• This phase will not demonstrate the DEPARTMENT CADD environment to be developed.

• Developing CADD standards files for demonstration purposes.

Project Management tasks/hours are included within relative project tasks. This workshop is tentatively scheduled for Q4 2017 and will be the precursor phase for beginning the Development Phase 3 CADD-1c. This phase is subject to change. Any changes that impact scope and schedule will be updated in the revised SOW.

1.3 MicroStation CONNECT / OpenRoads / AutoCad / Civil3D Digital File Development - Phase 3 (CADD- 1c) - Completed June 2018

This task involves the development of MicroStation and AutoCAD objects included in the initial assessment report CADD-1a. This will include parts, subassemblies, templates, styles, cell libraries, parametric objects, and layering standards. All equivalent MicroStation elements, cells, styles, level standards, and templates would need to be developed concurrently to enable this to be a state-wide


standard. Additionally, this phase will involve the development of both OpenRoads Designer components and MicroStation Connect digital file changes. OpenRoads Element Templates, Feature Definitions, ITL modification, MicroStation Connect Item types, Connect Workspace Configurations, Connect Ribbon Interfaces, and title block tag data integration. In addition, this phase will also consist of building a VM environment for future configurations, testing, and piloting. This phase of the SOW may change due to findings discover in the Workflow Analysis Phase 1. At the completion of the development of the digital files, an on-site meeting located at DEPARTMENT will be conducted to present the deliverables and discuss future phases.

1.3.1 Tasks

• Conduct Kickoff meeting conference call with the CADD Standards Project Team.

• Develop new standards to comply with newly agreed upon CADD Standards

• Develop MicroStation CONNECT 10.xxx CADD Standards digital files.

• Develop AutoCAD 2017 CADD Standards digital files.

• Develop OpenRoads Designer 10.xxx CADD Standards digital files.

• Develop Civil 3D 2017 CADD Standards digital files.

• Develop and submit project status reports.

• Provide a spreadsheet name list and description for the digital files delivered.

• Conduct a one-day on-site CADD Standards digital file deliverables meeting.

• Stand-up an “isolated” ProjectWise CONNECT test system for piloting and testing the new environment.

• Provide Project Management. MicroStation

o Develop MicroStation CONNECT configurations to interface with the new DEPARTMENT standards.

o Develop configurations to interface with MicroStation CONNECT and OpenRoads Designer.

o Develop MicroStation CONNECT Item Types. o Develop MicroStation CONNECT GUI Interfaces. o Develop MicroStation CONNECT Titleblock Item Types updates.

OpenRoads Designer o Develop OpenRoads standards to interface with the new DEPARTMENT standards. o Develop OpenRoads Configuration Variables. o Standardize the Interface. o Customize OpenRoads “Command Dialogs”. o Enhance Feature Definitions. o Develop OpenRoads Filters. o Develop Design Stages as needed. o Create Survey Processing Workflow. o Create Superelevation support resources as needed. o Develop new Civil AccuDraw tools as needed. o Create new Civil Cells as needed.


• Provide “last known good” DEPARTMENT MicroStation & InRoads CADD Standard digital files identified for this project to Zen.

• Comment and review any CADD standards digital files in a timely manner.


• Develop, create or update CADD standards digital files as identified in “Includes”.

1.3.2 Deliverables

Includes

• CADD Standards digital file development:

MicroStation / ProjectWise

• One (1) Master DGNLIB level library File conformed to new standard


• One (1) Master DGNLIB Text Styles Library File configured for TTF

• One (1) Master DGNLIB Line Styles Library File configured for TTF

• One (1) Master DGNLIB Dimension Styles Library File configured for TTF

• One (1) Master Color Table File

• One (1) Master DGN Sheet Model Seed File

• One (1) Master DGN Model Seed File

• One (1) Master DGN Model Border File

• One (1) Master MicroStation DGNLIB Print Styles Library File

• One (1) Master MicroStation GUI interface Library File

• One (1) Master MicroStation DGNLIB Element Template Library File

• MicroStation CONNECT Configurations/Workspace changes for external workspace

• ProjectWise CONNECT Configurations/Workspace changes for managed workspace

• Workspaces configuration changes impacted by changes to MicroStation CONNECT and OpenRoads Designer

• MicroStation Item Types impacted by changes to Tag Data

• MicroStation CONNECT and Titleblock Item Type Integration impacted by Tag Data changes

• MicroStation seed files and cell libraries impacted by Item Types and tag data

• MicroStation CONNECT GUI Interface configurations files impacted by changes to MicroStation CONNECT

• Edits to DEPARTMENT’s Menus, tools, and Task Navigation menus to function within the new MicroStation CONNECT software. (see Does NOT Include for more details)

• Edit the current DEPARTMENT Element Template libraries to coincide with the new DEPARTMENT CADD Standards

• Update the existing .csv conversion table for MicroStation and AutoCAD translations.

• Create new Element Template DGNLIB to breakout Element Templates from current GUI Interface DGNLIB libraries.

OpenRoads Designer

• Ensure all new ORD settings correlate with new DEPARTMENT CADD Standards

• InRoads XIN modifications as deemed valuable to Zen Consultants

• One (1) Master ORD settings DGNLIB o Containing Feature Definitions, Feature Symbologies, and Element Templates

• Create any required / needed Feature Definitions o Point / Linear / Alignment o Terrain / Mesh o Corridor (Design Stages) o Linear Template (Design Stages) o Surface Template o Superelevation

• Create any required / needed Feature Symbologies o Point / Linear / Profile / Solid / Surface

• MicroStation Element Templates Expanded to fill the needs of ORD

• Create any required / needed Annotation and Textual items o Annotation Groups / Annotation Definitions

Plan / Profile / Cross Section o Supporting Text Styles o Text Favorites

• Create any required / needed Design Standards o Horizontal o Vertical

• Create any required / needed Terrain Filters

• OpenRoads Designer ITL with appropriate modifications o Update Feature Definitions (Styles) assigned to Template Points o Update Feature Definitions (Styles) assigned to Components


• Civil AccuDraw & applicable Customization / Enhancement

• One (1) Master DGNLIB Civil Cells o Create any required / needed Civil Cells

• MicroStation Seed Files with ORD Settings & Preferences defined

• Expanded MicroStation Configuration Variables defined for ORD

• SUE (utility H & V modeling only, not design) o Feature Definitions as needed to support modeling workflow

Node, Conduit, Drainage Area …and so on o Utility Filters and related configuration as needed to support workflow

• Other Topics: o Applicable configuration to support working with Legacy InRoads data o Essential Intelligent Notes (analogous to InRoads SS2 Drafting Notes) o Survey configuration to support workflow process o Superelevation Resources to support workflow process o Minor Command “Dialog Box” Customization o Minor ORD Ribbon Customization o Assigning of basic materials to key Feature Definitions o Basic configuration needed to support critical quantity take-offs

AutoCAD

• One (1) Master DWT template file including: o Layer Naming convention

• One (1) Master Line type .lin file.

• One (1) Master True Type .ttf font file.

• One (1) Master color book .acb file.

• One (1) Master Dimension Styles .dim file.

• AutoCAD block libraries created from converted DEPARTMENT MicroStation cell libraries

Civil 3D

• Styles - Rename and add supplementary Styles as needed: o Update Styles to match new CADD Standards. o Update any Point Label and Marker Styles as needed. o Update any Label and Table Styles as needed. o Update any Alignment Styles as needed. o Update any Surface Styles as needed. o Update Feature Line Styles as needed. o Update any Utility Styles as needed.

• Assemblies (Templates) o Update and enhance Code Sets as needed. o Update Link Styles as needed. o Update Shape Styles as needed. o Ensure correct Styles are assigned to assemblies and subassemblies.

• Settings o Update template settings to match DEPARTMENT units. (US Survey Feet)

• Survey o Update graphic display of points to match new CAD Standards.

• Other o Modify any existing Civil 3D Profile(s) ensuring that they are tied into the new CADD

Standards. o Modify any existing Civil 3D Drawing Template(s) ensuring that they are tied into the

new CADD Standards. o Modify existing resource files for Civil 3d if needed (Line type files).

• Provide a spreadsheet name list and description of the digital files delivered (Note this is not a “how to” document).

Does Not Include


MicroStation / ProjectWise

• MicroStation, InRoads, OpenRoads Designer, AutoCAD, or Civil 3D digital file deployment throughout the DEPARTMENT organization.

• Changing DEPARTMENT Plot Configuration file .pltcfg

• MDL application updates and recompile (provided in separate SOW)

• MVBA application updates and recompile (provided in separate SOW)

• BAS macros updates and recompile (provided in separate SOW)

• UCM updates (provided in separate SOW)

• Creating new or editing Cell library .csf files

• Cell library updates for scale, sizes, and any DEPARTMENT specific updates

• User preference file updates

• Task Navigation XML updates

• Additional GUIDNLIB icons, tools ribbons or tasks

• Function key .mnu updates

• Updates to the .btnmenu file

• Changing DEPARTMENT DGNLIB level filtering

• Detail Symbols Styles Library

• DGNLIB Print Styles Library File

• Developing CADD Standards Manuals

• Developing new Item Types not related to tag data updates

• Updates to DEPARTMENT Element Templates criteria

• Changing the DEPARTMENT border graphics or layout

• Changing DEPARTMENT Units.def

• Creating True Type symbols from DEPARTMENT FONT.rsc (provided in separate SOW)

• Drafting & Design workflows for the Drafting, Design and Production manuals

• Deployment of CAD standards digital files into the working systems of the DEPARTMENT design staff internal ProjectWise environment.

• Deployment of CADD standards digital files to the DEPARTMENT website.

• File sharing between InRoads, OpenRoads Designer (used at the DOT) and Civil 3D (used at the City level).

• Configuring Standards Checker

• GO-Live Phase 6 ProjectWise Configurations

• GO-Live Phase 6 ProjectWise Server software upgrades

• GO-Live Phase 6 ProjectWise Client software upgrades

• GO-Live Phase 6 vertical applications (i.e. Descartes) and 3rd party (i.e. Axiom) installations

• GO-Live Phase 6 Oracle to SQL Master database migration

• GO-Live Phase 6 SQL Query’s to FMS

• GO-Live Phase 6 deployment/installation to DEPARTMENT users systems

• Zen providing Bentley, Autodesk, Microsoft or 3rd party integration software required for this project.

• Configuring Axiom, TopoDOT, Autodesk VT, Pro600, Descartes, SignCAD, LEAP Bridge, CivilStorm, and StormCAD.

• Configuring ProjectWise Interplot Server (will include in GO Live Phase 6)

• Configuring ProjectWise Iplot Organizer (will include in GO Live Phase 6)

• Configuring DEPARTMENT Menus, Task Navigation, and Tool menus with programming necessary to replace deprecated or removed functions such as tcb variables (provided in separate SOW)

AutoCAD

• Developing AutoCAD block libraries.

• Developing AutoCAD layer name filtering.

• Developing a DWS CAD standard check file.


• Developing AutoCAD pc3 plot configurations.

InRoads / OpenRoads Designer

• InRoads / OpenRoads Designer

• InRoads SS2 XIN Modifications unless deemed valuable by Zen Consultants

• OpenRoads ITL creation of significant new Components or Templates

• Formal naming convention development for Civil data

• MicroStation Configuration Variables

• Instructional documentation / workflow items: (will be in Phase 4, Documentation) o Developing Geometry Layout Guidelines using Design Intent o Utilizing Rule-based layout o Using Design Stages o Nested References and Model Files o OpenRoads DGN file Management o Survey Processing Workflow o DEPARTMENT Best Practices o Superelevation Process o 2D versus 3D Seeds / When to use o Working with Legacy InRoads data o Working with Civil AccuDraw o Utilizing Civil Cells

• SUDA o Feature Definitions (Node, Conduit, Drainage Area) o Utility Filters and related configuration

Civil 3D

• Styles: o Creation of new Styles to improve workflow processes. o Creation of new Point Groups. o Creation of new Label or Annotative styles. o Modifying the existing Style settings (other than those related to graphical CADD

Standards).

• Assemblies (Templates): o Creation of new Assemblies & Subassemblies. o Creation of new Code Sets. o Creation of new Link Styles. o Creation of new Shape Styles.

• Settings o Updating template drawing settings for object layers, units and abbreviations. o Updating command settings.

• Survey o Add additional survey codes. o Expand Description Key file. o Create additional Points Styles and link to Description Key file. o Create Figure (Breakline) Styles including Figure Prefix Database for feature coding.

• Other: o Interface Customization. o Naming convention development for Civil data (alignments, surfaces, corridors and so

on). o Custom Feature Line Style Code Sets. o Updating Criteria Sets, Rule sets, Parts Lists. o Updating Plan Production tools for plan, profile and section sheet creation. o Creating new Civil 3D Profile(s). o Creating new Civil 3D Drawing Template(s). o Plotting Resources.


1.3.3 Project Management

Project Management tasks related to this project are necessary to ensure the project’s tasks and deliverables are completed to the satisfaction of all parties, while scope, schedule, and budget are closely managed and maintained. Zen will administer the project schedule for Zen tasks and activities. DEPARTMENT tasks will be identified in the Zen project schedule only.


• Develop and maintain project schedule.

• Maintain and manage resources and level of effort.

• Maintain project scope.

• Project administration.

• Conduct project status meetings.

Project Management tasks/hours are included within relative project tasks.

CADD-1c will commence at the completion of CADD-1b. The anticipated start date for CADD-1c will be Q3, 2017.

1.4 Documentation - Phase 4 (This Amendment)

This phase involves the development of the 4 DEPARTMENT Standards manuals (CADD Standards Drafting, Civil CADD Design, Civil CADD Production, and Consultant Deliverable Guidelines).

The DEPARTMENT CADD Standards Drafting Manual version 1.0 will be the 1st of the 4 manuals intended to cover the DEPARTMENT CADD standards for drafting purposes.

The second manual to be developed will be the DEPARTMENT Civil CADD Design manual. This manual will document the DEPARTMENT standards from a Design perspective focusing on Roadway, Survey, and DEPARTMENT design standards. The exact content will be defined during this phase after meeting with each of the departments involved in the Civil CADD process. Representative content will likely include, but not limited to:

• MicroStation for the ORD User

• ORD Navigation

• Visualization Overview

• Orientation to ORD & Civil Objects

• Post-processing Survey field data (to be completed in future scope)

• The ORD Terrain Model

• Geometry Layout (Horizontal & Vertical)

• Typical Section Design

• Corridor Modelling

• Superelevation

• Appendix: o ORD versus InRoads o Addressing Specific Design Scenarios

The third manual will consist of the DEPARTMENT Civil CADD Production manual. This manual will consist of documenting standard workflows and procedures for internal DEPARTMENT project delivery. The exact content will be defined during this phase after meeting with each of the departments involved in the Civil CADD process. Representative content will likely include, but not limited to:

• DEPARTMENT specific ORD user-standards

• ORD Drawing Annotation

• ORD Sheet Construction o Plan Sheets o Plan & Profile Sheets o Cross Sections

• ORD Reporting


• ORD Quantity Take-offs

• Appendices: o FAQ o DEPARTMENT Training Agenda / Schedule / Procedures o DEPARTMENT Configuration for CADD Management Support o ORD / Civil 3D Conversion Process (to be completed in future scope) o Survey Collection Guide (to be completed in future scope) o ORD Configuration Enhancement Request Form

The fourth manual will focus on consultant deliverable guidelines and the requirements that consultants will adhere to when delivering projects to DEPARTMENT and will include the ProjectWise document management practices and business processes as part of this material.

1.4.1 Tasks (To Be Completed This Amendment)

• Conduct Kickoff meeting conference call with the CADD Standards Project Team

• Develop a final TOC (Table of Contents) for all 4 manuals

• Complete final documentation for all 4 manuals

• Develop and complete digital data sets for the Design and Production manuals

• Provide a cumulative 10 days of ORD training to the DEPARTMENT CAD support staff

• Coordinate ORD Defect and Change Request Logs with Bentley on DEPARTMENT’s behalf

• ORD Configuration Specific Items: o Finalize Cells, Levels & any Line Styles associated with ORD Civil Objects o Define “unlocked” user-based MS Configuration Variables for ORD

• ORD Workflow Related: o Create ORD Terrain Feature Filters based on established workflows o Create Civil Cells based on established workflows o Create SUE objects based on established workflows o Enhance Civil AccuDraw if required based on established geometry workflows o Adjust any ORD Configuration items (Feature Definitions, Feature Symbologies, Element

Templates) to accommodate any newly established DEPARTMENT Civil Workflows o Make minor “Command Dialog” modifications where deemed important and valuable to

essential DOT workflows o Create any additional Annotation Definitions and Annotation Groups required to support

key departmental workflows

• Re-visit entire ORD configuration based on the latest ORD Bentley issued update

• Provide Project Management


• Provide DEPARTMENT staff availability for documentation workflow process interviews

• Comment and review of any manuals before final deliverables

• Provide sample project data to be used for digital dataset development


• Develop and create 4 documents as detailed above including accompanying digital datasets.

• ORD items as defined under 1.4.1 Tasks and 1.4.3 Deliverables.

1.4.2 Tasks (To Be Completed in Future Scope)

• ORD Configuration Specific Items: o Redefine ORD Survey Feature Definitions based on utilization of field collected Attributes

and ORD enhanced Survey functionality yet to be released by Bentley o Revisit ORD Annotation to include new Survey collection practices & display

• Re-visit Civil 3D based on the latest ORD updates

1.4.3 Deliverables (To Be Completed This Amendment)


Includes

• Development of 4 DEPARTMENT custom manuals as detailed above

• Development of accompanying digital data sets as documented above

• ORD Related: o Updated ORD DGNLIB o Cell Library to support ORD Configuration o 10 cumulative days of ORD training to DEPARTMENT CADD support staff o Updated Civil Cell DGNLIB o Updated SUE DGNLIB o Updated ORD Annotation DGNLIB

CADD Standards Drafting Manual

• Estimated page count of 400 pages

• TOC to document new DEPARTMENT CADD Standards

Civil CADD Design Manual


• Digital data set refinement & enhancement

Civil CADD Production Manual


• Digital data set refinement & enhancement

Consultant Deliverable Guidelines


Does Not Include

• Data set creation for CADD Drafting manual (DEPARTMENT will provide sample data to Zen)

• Data set creation for Consultant Deliverable Guidelines (DEPARTMENT will provide sample data to Zen)

• Data set creation for Civil CADD Design manual (DEPARTMENT will provide sample data to Zen)

• Data set creation for Civil CADD Production manual (DEPARTMENT will provide sample data to Zen)

• Classroom training

• Consultant training and documentation distribution

• SUDA Configuration

• New ITL Templates or Components

• Customized ORD Task Menus

• Significant changes or additions to existing ORD Configuration work

• Updates or modifications of any InRoads SS2 configuration

• Hardcopy prints

• CADD Manager or ProjectWise Administrator content

1.4.4 Deliverables (To Be Completed in Future Scope)

• ORD Related: o Updated ORD DGNLIB (to include Survey) o Updated ORD Annotation DGNLIB (to include Survey) o Updated Civil 3D Configuration Files

1.4.5 Project Management

Project Management tasks related to this project are necessary to ensure the project’s tasks and deliverables are completed to the satisfaction of all parties, while scope, schedule, and budget are closely managed and maintained. Zen will administer the project schedule for Zen tasks and activities. DEPARTMENT tasks will be identified in the Zen project schedule only.

1.4.6 Project Management Tasks


• Develop and maintain project schedule

• Maintain and manage resources and level of effort

• Maintain project scope

• Project administration

• Conduct project status meetings

Project Management tasks/hours are included within relative project tasks. The anticipated start date for Phase 4 will be Q3, September 2018. Any changes that influence scope and schedule will be updated in the revised SOW.

1.5 Training - Phase 5 (To Be Completed In Future Work)

This phase involves the training of the DEPARTMENT design staff on the newly developed DEPARTMENT CADD Standards. Focus will be given to this training based on the users’ discipline as it relates to their DEPARTMENT workflows. In addition to CADD Standards, design and production standards will be part of this training and focused on the workflows associated with DEPARTMENT. A training program will be developed as a precursor to this Phase to outline the details of this phase. This phase has not been fully scoped within this SOW. Final tasks, deliverables, and project scheduling will be scoped during or after the completion of Phase 4.


• Assist in developing an DEPARTMENT training program.

• Conduct DEPARTMENT training based on the Standard developed.

• TBD.

1.6 Deployment Phase 6 (GO Live) (To Be Completed In Future Work)

This phase will focus on the deployment of the CADD drafting, and design standard digital files developed in Phase 3 of this project in addition to the final ProjectWise database migration from Oracle to SQL and relative configurations. This phase will involve digital file deployment internally and to external Nevada State agencies. This phase has not been fully scoped within this SOW. Final tasks, deliverables, and project scheduling will be scoped during or after the completion of Phase 4.


• Assist in the deployment of the DEPARTMENT Standards internally and to external Nevada State agencies.

• TBD.

1.7 Support Phase 7 (To Be Completed In Future Work)

This phase will focus on providing post deployment support for the DEPARTMENT staff. This phase involves supporting the DEPARTMENT CADD Support Unit as well as responding to and fielding questions from DEPARTMENT staff. This support is essential to ensure a successful deployment of the CADD standards developed in earlier phases. This phase has not been fully scoped within this SOW. Final tasks, deliverables, and project scheduling will be scoped during or after the completion of Phase 4.


• Provide technical support to the DEPARTMENT management and design staff.

• TBD.

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

2. PROJECT EXPECTATIONS:


The content of this statement of work and its objectives, written for DEPARTMENT by Zen, have been compiled to specify the roles, responsibilities and deliverables. It is important to identify DEPARTMENT’s expectations at the onset of this project for clarity between the parties involved. It is the goal of Zen to provide the best service possible to DEPARTMENT for this project’s success thus the following is a list of “Includes” and “Does Not Include” expectations.

2.1 INCLUDES

1. Project kickoff meeting. 2. All Include Items. 3. Project management reporting. 4. Conduct on-site deliverable meeting.

2.2 DOES NOT INCLUDE

1. Managing or scheduling DEPARTMENT staff resources. 2. Network systems administration. 3. Phases 5 – 7. 4. Product software licensing procurement. 5. Hardware procurement.

In summary, it is important to note that the deliverables listed are a projected workload for more than one Zen consultant. It should be noted that it is the commitment of Zen to work toward the completion of all tasks identified, and given the authorization and schedule of DEPARTMENT, to make modifications to these tasks.

3. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: 3.1 DEPARTMENT, in cooperation with Zen, shall, at a minimum, meet the following requirements

for this project:

• Assign a Project Sponsor to provide overall project buy-in.

• Assign a Project Manager to provide overall contract management and oversight to the SOW.

• Supply current access to software and licensing relative to this project for all development and tasks of this project, including but not limited to the following:

1. Microsoft Office applications, current version (i.e., Word, Excel, etc.) 2. Windows server and database applications 3. VMWare Software 4. MicroStation 5. MicroStation CONNECT 6. InRoads 7. OpenRoads Designer 8. ProjectWise 9. All Bentley relative software applications needed for this project. 10. AutoCAD 11. Civil3D 12. All Autodesk relative software applications needed for this project.

• Provide access to DEPARTMENT hardware for onsite testing and implementation purposes.

• Provide the Zen team access to the DEPARTMENT facility during normal working hours.

• Provide the Zen team a workspace location on an intermittent basis consisting of an office chair, desk, and utilities, located within the DEPARTMENT project office.

• Provide network access, and user login to the DEPARTMENT Domain (upon approval).

• Provide Zen with all necessary files for this project in a timely manner in order to fulfill this project’s scope.

• Payment of invoices on a timely manner to Zen Consultants.

3.2 Zen Consultants, in cooperation with DEPARTMENT, shall, at a minimum, meet the following requirements for this project:


• Assign One (1) Project Manager to DEPARTMENT for the entirety of the project.

• Assign knowledgeable staff in the delivery of tasks associated with this project.

• Complete work “off-site” from the DEPARTMENT project office.

• Possess knowledge of Bentley and Autodesk products as relevant to this project.

• Schedule and conduct meetings with the DEPARTMENT Project Manager on project progress.

• Zen will utilize DEPARTMENT computers and software for on-site testing and piloting.

• Possess project management experience in the IT field.

• Possess knowledge of project management software.

• Clarify and resolve contract issues between Zen and DEPARTMENT.

• Submittal of invoices in an acceptable timeframe.

• Obedience and compliance with all state and local regulations that effect this contract and SOW.

4. ASSUMPTIONS:

Items listed below are assumption gathered for this phase:

• Future training programs may need to be developed from this projects implementation. Training for DEPARTMENT staff for drafting, design and production will be accomplished by internal DEPARTMENT staff.

• DEPARTMENT staff will require administrative training in order to support the newly implemented system. This task will be addressed in Phase 5 Training and not included in Phase 4.

5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

• If DEPARTMENT modifies the dates of any scheduled delivery, Zen may include travel change and cancellation fees as reimbursable travel expenses to DEPARTMENT if any are incurred.

• Limited Warranty - Zen Consultants, Inc does not warrant that the operation of any software shall be uninterrupted or error free. Any difficulties with the performance or accuracies of the software in use will be referred to the vendor of such software.


604-17-015


MEMORANDUM

August 1, 2018

TO: Cole Mortensen, Assistant Director FROM: Rick Splawinski, Project Manager SUBJECT: Negotiation Summary for RFP 604-17-015 I-515 SB Lane Drop Elimination-Viaduct Rehabilitation

A negotiation meeting was held at NDOT Headquarters in Carson City on July 31, 2018, with Roger Patton/Louis Berger and Todd Stefonowicz/ABAM from the SERVICE PROVIDER and Rick Splawinski and Eric Yount of the Nevada Department of Transportation (DEPARTMENT) in attendance. The duration of this agreement will be 27 months, ending on December 31, 2020. The attached scope of services to be provided by the SERVICE PROVIDER was reaffirmed by both parties at the negotiation meeting. The following schedule was agreed to by both parties:

Date Milestone

Intermediate Design (60%) Submittal January 31, 2019

QA/QC Review (90%) Submittal June 28, 2019

PS&E (100%) Submittal October 31, 2019

Final Plan Submittal November 29,2019


Name Title

Roger Patton – Louis Berger Project Manager

Krishna Kumar – Louis Berger Roadway Lead

Carl Bolgrien – Louis Berger Traffic Lead

Todd Stefonowicz – ABAM Structures Lead

Jerry Pruitt – Jacobs Drainage Lead

Heidi Dexheimer – Atkins Utilities Lead

Eric Christianson – Atkins Survey Lead

Tom Lane – Louis Berger QA/QC Manager


Phone: (775) 888-7440

Fax: (775) 888-7201

DocuSign Envelope ID: 32DF86C0-EB14-4AF9-9312-427A329D8DA6


Active NDOT Agreements for the project subconsultants are as follows:

Subconsultant Project Description Agreement No.

Atkins Commercial Vehicle Investigation Study P521-16-813

I-15 North Phase 4, I-15/CC 215 Design P109-17-015

CC 215 and US 95 Interchange L&A Services P085-11-015

NDOT Utility Relocation Coordination P327-16-030

NDOT RE Academy P373-15-040

Civil Engineering Services On-Call P395-17-010

Traffic/ITS Services On-Call P452-16-016

ROW Services On-Call P247-18-030

Structural Services On-Call P472-17-011

Tropicana Ped Bridge Escalator ICE P395-13-015

NDOT I-2871 Design P091-11-011

Tropicana Avenue ROW Services P634-15-015

Jacobs I-515 Alternatives Development Study P566-14-110

USA Parkway CM Administration/Support P198-11-015

Tropicana Pedestrian Bridges Engineering Services P326-12-101

Project Neon P3 Advisement P091-13-15

SR 28 Engineering Services P069-16-015

Reno Spaghetti Bowl Env Documentation P443-16-015

On-Call L&A Services P198-17-010

On-Call Structural Design Services P473-17-011

Federal Policy Analysis P476-16-008

NDOT AV/CV Policy Implementation P481-17-002

Ninyo & Moore Project Neon Geotechnical Services P001-15-015

I-15 North Phase 4 Geotechnical Services P109-17-015

Starr Interchange Crew Aug. & Material Testing P385-17-040

Independent Quality Assurance Testing Services P348-16-040

The DEPARTMENT's original estimate was $1,611,725, including direct labor (5,661 man-hours of work by the SERVICE PROVIDER), an overhead rate of 143.30%, a 10% fee, and direct expenses at $702,679 (including sub-consultant expenses). The SERVICE PROVIDER's original estimate was $2,464,295, including direct labor (8,220 man-hours of work by the SERVICE PROVIDER), an overhead rate of 143.30%, a 10% fee, and direct expenses at $1,098,316 (including sub-consultant expenses). The overhead rate of 143.30% was provided by the Internal Audit Division. The negotiations yielded the following:

1. There will be 5,981 total man-hours allocated to the prime consultant throughout the course of this agreement at a direct labor cost of $354,928, including a prorated amount for anticipated raises, which will take effect over the term of the agreement.

2. Based upon the direct labor costs and an overhead rate of 143.30%, the overhead amount will be $508,612.



3. A fee of 10.0% was agreed to by both parties, and will be $86,354 for this agreement based upon the direct labor costs and overhead rate of 143.30%.

4. The direct expenses agreed to total $750,106 for sub-consultants, reproduction, communication, travel and per diem. There will be no direct compensation for computer time.

5. The total negotiated cost for this agreement is $1,700,000.

Reviewed and Approved: Assistant Director



of 34

I-515 SOUTHBOUND LANE DROP ELIMINATION AND AUXILIARY LANE PROJECT ATTACHMENT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND PURPOSE The “I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane Project” (PROJECT) is located along 2.8 miles of Interstate 515/US 93/US 95 (I-515) in Clark County, Nevada, from the US 95 southbound gore of the I-15 Northbound off-ramp in the Spaghetti Bowl Interchange to the I-515 southbound gore of the Eastern Avenue Interchange on-ramp. All of the proposed work will be within the existing NDOT right-of-way. The purpose of the PROJECT is to improve the operations and safety of southbound I-515 through Downtown Las Vegas. The PROJECT will eliminate the existing 3-to-2 lane reduction on southbound I-515 at the Spaghetti Bowl Interchange and extend a southbound auxiliary lane on I-515 through Downtown Las Vegas from the I-15 on-ramp at the Spaghetti bowl Interchange to the Eastern Avenue off-ramp. While it is desirable to extend the southbound auxiliary lane all the way to the Eastern Avenue Interchange, the auxiliary lane could be terminated at the Las Vegas Boulevard Interchange, or not constructed at all, depending on the outcome of separate traffic, safety and environmental studies for the project. The decision on the limits of the southbound auxiliary lane will be made during the preliminary engineering and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study in progress by others. During the course of the PROJECT, the DEPARTMENT may elect to reduce the scope of the PROJECT to eliminate or reduce the limits of the southbound auxiliary lane, at which time the scope and fee will be amended. Under a contract with the DEPARTMENT, a consultant is currently performing a load rating analysis for the G-947 Viaduct Structure on I-515 in Downtown Las Vegas. The DEPARTMENT may elect to reduce the scope of the PROJECT if the DEPARTMENT decides to limit possible increased loadings, at which time the scope and fee will be amended. Concurrently, NDOT is designing a Viaduct Rehabilitation Project for the G-947 and I-947 structures within the PROJECT limits along I-515. The Viaduct Rehabilitation work by the DEPARTMENT is not referenced as a separate Project in this scope of services but is included as an element of the PROJECT. 1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

1.2.1 Work Performed by SERVICE PROVIDER The work included in this Scope of Services consists of providing final design, engineering and plan preparation services for the proposed PROJECT improvements, and performing other tasks, documentation, and outreach necessary for the PROJECT execution. The work by the SERVICE PROVIDER includes coordination with concurrent efforts for the Viaduct Rehabilitation design, which the DEPARTMENT is performing with state forces. The PROJECT will incorporate and integrate work by the

DocuSign Envelope ID: 716EBD78-268D-4DB5-809C-990EE6ADA383


of 34

SERVICE PROVIDER for the design of the I-515 Southbound Lane Drop and Auxiliary Lane and work by the DEPARTMENT for the Viaduct Rehabilitation, to be bid and awarded as a single construction contract. Work by the SERVICE PROVIDER will include work by Louis Berger and affiliate BergerABAM as well as by subcontractors Jacobs, Atkins, and Ninyo & Moore. In this scope of services, no distinction is made regarding whether the work will be performed by the prime consultant, affiliate companies, or subconsultants, as the prime consultant is solely responsible for execution of the PROJECT services under the terms of the SERVICE PROVIDER agreement. Conventional Design-Bid-Build contracting will be used to deliver the PROJECT. However, the DEPARTMENT may amend the agreement to include technical support for Design-Build or Construction Manager at Risk delivery methods, if an alternative contracting method is selected in the future. The scope of services for this work shall include the following major tasks:

PROJECT MANAGEMENT QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES MAPPING UTILITIES GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING BID/AWARD ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT

1.2.2 Work Performed by Others 1.2.2.1 NEPA Study and Preliminary Engineering As part of NDOT’s I-515 Alternatives Development Study, the DEPARTMENT has contracted with Jacobs Engineering Group to provide NEPA support services, preliminary engineering, and conceptual plan development for the PROJECT. The outcome of the environmental study is expected to be a NEPA Categorical Exclusion completed by the NDOT Environmental Services Division. The expected completion date of the environmental phase is October 31, 2018. 1.2.2.2 I-515 Viaduct Rehabilitation Final Design Concurrently, NDOT is designing a Viaduct Rehabilitation Project for the G-947 and I-947 structures within the PROJECT limits along I-515. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for incorporating the design by the DEPARTMENT into the drawings, specifications and bid documents, providing supplemental design services for an integrated, constructible design, and coordinating the design with the DEPARTMENT. Drawings and specifications prepared by the DEPARTMENT for the rehabilitation of viaduct structures G-947 and I-947 will be incorporated into the PROJECT by the SERVICE PROVIDER. Appendix “B” provides a



of 34

Final Design Scope of Services Matrix which outlines the responsibilities of the SERVICE PROVIDER and the DEPARTMENT in preparing the design of the PROJECT. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for the design of the I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane. Responsibilities of the SERVICE PROVIDER and the DEPARTMENT in the design of the Viaduct Rehabilitation are shown in the Matrix. Generally, for the Viaduct Rehabilitation, the DEPARTMENT will be responsible for the design of typical sections, general notes, summaries and estimates of quantities, special details, site preparation, bridge plans and structure list. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for the other elements of design required for the Viaduct Rehabilitation and integration of the drawings and special provisions prepared by the DEPARTMENT into the PROJECT plans. The SERVICE Provider will also be responsible for overall PROJECT Administration, conducting meetings for the combined PROJECT, and for performing a cost risk assessment, independent cost estimating, scheduling, constructability reviews, public involvement, landscape and aesthetics, supplemental survey and utilities for the combined PROJECT. DEPARTMENT personnel responsible for the Viaduct Rehabilitation will attend the kick-off meeting, plan review meetings and traffic control meetings, and participate in the cost risk assessment and constructability reviews. 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA The SERVICE PROVIDER shall follow all DEPARTMENT standards and federal, state, and locally adopted and accepted criteria for the PROJECT. Any deviation from these criteria shall be proposed in Design Memoranda prepared by the SERVICE PROVIDER and submitted to the DEPARTMENT for approval. The Design Memo will follow the approved geometric memo with design exceptions, including mitigation strategies. Applicable standards for this PROJECT are contained in the most recent versions of the following references:

NDOT Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction, 2017 NDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2014 NDOT Drainage Manual Clark County Hydrologic Criteria and Drainage Design Manual NDOT Storm Water Quality Manuals NDOT Planning and Design Guide AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 2011 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices / Red Book, 2009 NDOT Road Design Guide, 2010 NDOT Access Management Standards, 2009/2017 NDOT Project Management Guidelines NDOT Scoping Guidelines NDOT Risk Management Guidelines Applicable Codes of Federal Regulations Applicable NDOT and FHWA Policy Documents NDOT Structures Manual NDOT Landscape and Aesthetic Corridor Plans AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and

Traffic Signals NDOT Work Zone Safety and Mobility Implementation Guide



of 34

3.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

3.1 MEETINGS

3.1.1 Kick off Meeting The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend a Kickoff Meeting with the DEPARTMENT and other stakeholders as required within ten (10) days of the issuance of Notice to Proceed. The Kick off Meeting will review the scope of work and PROJECT schedule, and establish lines of communication. The Kick off Meeting will be held in both Las Vegas and Carson City via video conference. SERVICE PROVIDER representatives will be present at both locations to facilitate the meeting. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees

• Meeting agenda • Meeting materials (PowerPoint presentation assistance, drawings, and/or Excel

spreadsheets) to convey to the meeting attendees the pertinent details of the PROJECT

• Participant list or attendance roster • Meeting minutes with the list of post-meeting action items, responsibilities, and due dates

3.1.2 Milestone Plan Review Meetings The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend Milestone Plan Review Meetings, to respond to comments made by the DEPARTMENT following completion of the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal, QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal, and PS&E (100% Plans) Submittal reviews. These meetings will be held in both Las Vegas and Carson City via video conference. SERVICE PROVIDER representatives will be present at both locations to facilitate the meetings. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees




3.1.3 Monthly Progress Meetings The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend twelve (12) Monthly Progress Meetings to report on the progress of the PROJECT. These meetings will be held in both Las Vegas and Carson City via video conference. SERVICE PROVIDER representatives will be present at both locations to facilitate the meetings. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees

• Meeting agenda



of 34

• Meeting materials (PowerPoint presentation assistance, drawings, and/or Excel spreadsheets) to convey to the meeting attendees the pertinent details of the PROJECT


3.1.4 Traffic Control Meetings 3.1.4.1 Traffic Control General Strategy Meeting The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend a meeting with DEPARTMENT personnel before preparing the preliminary Transportation Management Plan to review the planned strategy for maintaining traffic through the work zone. This meeting will take place in both Las Vegas and Carson City via video conference. SERVICE PROVIDER representatives will be present in both locations to facilitate the meeting. 3.1.4.2 Traffic Control Plan Approval Meetings The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend two (2) Traffic Control Review Meetings with the DEPARTMENT and other PROJECT stakeholders after the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) and QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittals. At the second Traffic Control Review Meeting, the DEPARTMENT and other PROJECT stakeholders shall provide final comments to be incorporated into the traffic control plans. These meetings will take place in both Las Vegas and Carson City via video conference. SERVICE PROVIDER representatives will be present in both locations to facilitate the meeting. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees




3.1.5 Stakeholder and Agency Meetings

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall coordinate design activities with other agencies that are considered PROJECT stakeholders by the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. The DEPARTMENT Project Manager will be invited to all such meetings. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for coordinating, attending, and preparing exhibits and preparing meeting minutes for those meetings as required. SERVICE PROVIDER shall address all design review comments from PROJECT stakeholders including, but not limited to the City of Las Vegas and FAST. It is estimated that two (2) meetings will be held with the City of Las Vegas and one (1) meeting with FAST for Stakeholder and Agency Meetings. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees

• Meeting agenda



of 34

• Meeting materials (PowerPoint presentation assistance, drawings, and/or Excel spreadsheets) to convey to the stakeholders the pertinent details of the PROJECT


3.1.6 Field Review Meetings The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend a site visit within one (1) month following the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal or as directed by the DEPARTMENT Project Manager to review the design and plans with all NDOT Divisions except as noted below. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall attend a site visit within one (1) month following the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal or as directed by the DEPARTMENT Project Manager, to review constructability, construction schedule, and the traffic control plan with staff from the Construction Division and the District ADE, RE, and field crew.

Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees • Meeting agenda • Photos and video logs (if any)


3.1.7 Miscellaneous Meetings Miscellaneous meetings will be scheduled between the DEPARTMENT and SERVICE PROVIDER Project Managers as necessary to address unforeseen developments as they occur. It is estimated that six (6) miscellaneous meetings will be required. Telephone conferences shall be scheduled every two (2) weeks for one (1) hour with Project Manager and DEPARTMENT technical divisions that would like to participate to discuss the technical progress of the PROJECT and coordinate technical questions and follow-ups. The SERVICE PROVIDER will send an email notification to all team members of these meetings two (2) weeks in advance with the date, time and agenda to be discussed and will prepare meeting minutes within three (3) days to be submitted to Project Manager and team members for review. Deliverables: • Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees


spreadsheets) to convey to the attendees the pertinent details of the PROJECT • Participant list or attendance roster

• Meeting minutes with the list of post-meeting action items, responsibilities, and due dates

3.2 SCHEDULE 3.2.1 Design Schedule



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall produce a critical path method (CPM) diagram at the PROJECT onset to aid in control of the PROJECT schedule. The CPM diagram will be submitted to the DEPARTMENT Project Manager within two (2) weeks after the NTP in issued. The CPM diagram will show:

Due dates for PROJECT milestones and deliverables; Production durations for various design elements of the Final Design package; and, Relationship lines between activities.

The following are the anticipated timeframes for major milestones, subject to the development of the baseline PROJECT schedule:

Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal: January 31, 2019 QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal: June 28, 2019 PS&E (100% Plans) Submittal: October 31, 2019 Final Submittal: November 29, 2019

The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for updating and maintaining the CPM diagram as an exhibit for each monthly PROJECT progress meeting. Should significant changes occur that may affect the PROJECT milestones or completion/submittal dates, the SERVICE PROVIDER shall promptly submit a revised PROJECT schedule detailing:

How the PROJECT will be brought back on schedule, if feasible, or Proposed changes in milestone and PROJECT completion dates, if approved target dates are no

longer feasible. Explanation of the change in writing.

The Term significant changes shall apply to the following circumstances:

1. When a delay in completion of any work item or sequence of work items results in an estimated extension of the PROJECT completion in 5 days or 5% of the remaining duration of time to complete the PROJECT, whichever is less

2. When delays in submittals or deliveries make re-planning or rescheduling of the work necessary 3. When the schedule does not represent actual prosecution and progress of the work 4. When any changes affect the critical path 5. When contract modifications necessitate schedule revisions

Deliverables: • Design Schedule within two (2) weeks of obtaining NTP

• Updated Design Schedule for each Monthly Progress Meetings 3.2.2 Construction Schedule The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare a Working Day Construction Schedule for the PROJECT. The duration of work activities shall be based on normal construction industry production rates. The schedule shall include a hammock activity called Working Days starting at Construction Notice to Proceed and finishing at PROJECT completion. Activities and their relationships shall follow any limitations identified in the Special Provisions. The Construction Schedule shall be prepared at the



of 34

Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal and updated at Traffic Control Meetings (Section 3.1.4) and at the Constructability Review Meeting (Section 4.2). The Construction Schedule shall be submitted with the QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal. The Final Construction Schedule shall be submitted to DEPARTMENT with the PS&E (100%) Submittal. Deliverables: • Preliminary Construction Schedule at the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal

• Updated Construction Schedule at the first Traffic Control Meeting • Updated Construction Schedule at the QA/QC (90%) Submittal • Updated Construction Schedule at the second Traffic Control Meeting • Updated Construction Schedule at the Constructability Review Meeting • Final Construction Schedule at the PS&E (100%) Submittal

3.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP) following the DEPARTMENT’S Project Management Guidelines. The PMP will be the primary source of information for how the PROJECT will be planned, executed, monitored, controlled, and closed. The SERVICE PROVIDER’S Project Manager shall prepare and update the project management plan in collaboration with the PROJECT team. The PROJECT team should use the PMP for the successful delivery of the PROJECT. The PMP shall consist of PROJECT’S: Budget, Schedule, Risk Management Plan, Communication Plan, Change Management Plan, and Quality Plan. This plan shall be endorsed by the PROJECT team to gain commitment and to identify and resolve any significant issues with the plan. Deliverable: • Project Management Plan within 30 days of NTP

• Provide updates to the Project Management Plan during Monthly Progress Meetings as necessary

3.4 MONTHLY PROJECT REPORTING The SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit a monthly status report to the DEPARTMENT Project Manager stating the status of the PROJECT. The Progress Report shall be provided at the beginning of each month. The report shall be an overall progress summary of activities completed to date concerning scope, schedule, and budget, including design and construction cost projections. The report shall also contain tasks that were performed during the month and included objectives for the next month of work. Any changes or conflicts in scheduling, scope, or budget should be noted in the report. Deliverable: • Monthly PROJECT Status Report within ten business days of the last business day of the month 3.5 PROJECT COORDINATION AND DOCUMENTATION 3.5.1 Correspondence The SERVICE PROVIDER will maintain a weekly log of PROJECT correspondence. The log will briefly note the identity of the sender and recipients, the date received, and the subject of the correspondence. Copies of all formal correspondence will be forwarded to the DEPARTMENT Manager for review. Deliverable: • Updated Correspondence log to be submitted monthly



of 34

3.5.2 Project Administration The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare and maintain PROJECT cost and budget controls monthly and maintain PROJECT records and files. The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare and submit invoices monthly. The SERVICE PROVIDER will maintain PROJECT records and files. Deliverable: • Monthly invoice within ten business days of the last business day of the month 3.5.3 Coordination with Other Projects The SERVICE PROVIDER will coordinate with the DEPARTMENT on its other projects in Southern Nevada with the intent to achieve consistency (if possible) and efficiency in the development of common criteria. It is anticipated that the SERVICE PROVIDER will coordinate with Project NEON and the I-515 / Charleston Boulevard Interchange Improvement project. Deliverable: • minutes of coordination meetings with other NDOT projects 3.5.4 UPRR Coordination The DEPARTMENT will be responsible for coordinating the PROJECT with the UPRR. The DEPARTMENT’s coordination will include development and execution of all agreements required by applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines. The SERVICE PROVIDER will act in a technical support role, and supply any plans, calculations, reports, or other contract documents necessary for coordination with the UPRR. 4.0 QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QC/QA) The SERVICE PROVIDER is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the plans and related design prepared under this contract and shall check all such material accordingly, except that the DEPARTMENT shall be responsible for the QA/QC for work performed by the DEPARTMENT. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall have a Quality Control Plan in effect during the entire time work is being performed under this contract. The plan shall establish a process whereby plans, calculations, and documents submitted for review shall be marked as being fully checked by a qualified individual other than the originator. The deliverables shall be reviewed by DEPARTMENT for conformity with the DEPARTMENT’s procedures, contract terms, and this Scope of Services. Non-compliance will be sufficient cause for rejection of submittal. The Service Provider acknowledges that review by the DEPARTMENT does not include detailed review or checking of major components and related details or the accuracy of such details. 4.1 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN The SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit its Quality Control Plan to DEPARTMENT for review within thirty (30) days of NTP. The plan will address as a minimum:

Checking procedures, including all drawings and design calculations reviewed by the SERVICE PROVIDER’s QC Team members, none of whom will otherwise be directly involved with the PROJECT;



of 34

The orientation of employees in quality requirements; Methods of monitoring; and, Documenting quality control activities.

The QC process will ensure that all documents produced by the SERVICE PROVIDER, including, but not limited to, plans, reports, calculations, special provisions notes, estimates, and schedules, are thoroughly checked by an individual at least equally competent to the originator of the document to verify accuracy. The process will address resolution of conflicts and assure agreement of computer programs and procedures for checking computer input and output. Checking shall not only confirm the accuracy of calculations, but shall include a thorough review of the proper use of Standard Drawings, Drafting Guide, Project Design Guidelines, and other manuals and documents referenced in Section 2.1. Deliverable: • Quality Control Plan within 30 days of NTP 4.2 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEWS The SERVICE PROVIDER shall hold a 2-day Constructability Review Meeting to evaluate the constructability of the PROJECT. It is anticipated this review will take place in Las Vegas within thirty (30) days after the QC/QA (90%) Submittal. Any constructability issues shall be addressed in the Constructability Review Meeting with the DEPARTMENT Project Manager, Maintenance & Operations, Construction Division, Traffic Division, and Specifications Section. The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare meeting minutes within five (5) days following the meeting to summarize the items discussed during the meeting, actions that need to be taken, and who will be responsible for the action items. Items related to other DEPARTMENT divisions (e.g., structures or drainage) shall also be coordinated with the appropriate DEPARTMENT division through the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. The Transportation Management Plan - TMP (Section 10.1.4.5) and the Construction Schedule (Section 3.2.2) will be available before the Constructability Review Meeting and submitted with the QC/QA Review (90% Plans) Submittal. Deliverables: • Constructability Review Meeting notice and invitation to appropriate attendees

• Meeting agenda • Meeting materials (PowerPoint presentation assistance, drawings, and Excel

spreadsheets) to convey to the attendees the pertinent details of the PROJECT • Participant list or attendance roster

• Meeting minutes with the list of post-meeting action items, responsibilities, and due Dates • Draft and Final Constructability Review Reports

4.3 QC/QA REVIEW The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform quality control/quality assurance reviews before the following stages in accordance with the Quality Control Plan: 4.3.1 60% QC/QA Review



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform QC/QA review before the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal. 4.3.2 90% QC/QA Review The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform QC/QA review before the QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal. 4.3.3 100% QC/QA Review The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform QC/QA review before the PS&E (100% Plans) Submittal. The SERVICE PROVIDER will provide written confirmation of the PROJECT Design Team’s internal checking and review to the DEPARTMENT in conjunction with each deliverable submittal. The checking documentation will be signed by the SERVICE PROVIDER’s Project Manager and QA Manager. Deliverable: • Signed documentation for QC/QA review with each deliverable’s submittal 5.0 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 5.1 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare Construction Cost Estimates for the PROJECT in the integrated Project Development (iPD) System and in accordance with the DEPARTMENT’S Project Cost Estimation Manual. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare Construction Cost Estimates at the following stages: 5.1.1 Intermediate Review Estimate The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare an Intermediate Review Estimate of the Construction Costs during the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal. 5.1.2 QA Estimate The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare a QA Estimate of the Construction Costs during the QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal. 5.1.3 Final Engineer’s Estimate The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare a Final Engineer’s Estimate of the Construction Costs during the PS&E (100% Plans) Submittal. 5.1.4 Preliminary Estimate The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare a Preliminary Estimate of the Construction Costs when the PROJECT is ready for advertising during the Final Submittal. Deliverable: • Construction Cost Estimates with each deliverable submittal 5.2 COST RISK ASSESSMENT The SERVICE PROVIDER shall conduct a Cost Risk Assessment (CRA) for the PROJECT in accordance with NDOT procedures. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall supply the facilitator, schedule and conduct the CRA workshop. The CRA will be conducted after the Intermediate Design (60%) when the scope, and



of 34

preliminary cost and schedule have been developed. Subject matter experts of the SERVICE PROVIDER and the DEPARTMENT shall participate.

A risk register will be prepared which identifies PROJECT risks, estimated costs and probability of occurrence. Mitigation measures to reduce and avoid risks will be identified. The risk register will be updated with the QA/QC Review (90% Plans) and PS&E (100%) submittal.

Probability modeling will be performed using Oracle’s Crystal Ball, a “Monte Carlo” style modeling software that works with Excel as the base.

The facilitator will prepare the draft and final CRA report.

Deliverables: • Draft and final CRA Reports 5.3 INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATING The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) with the QC/QA (90%) submittal using production-based methodologies and software. The ICE includes one cycle of review and production for developing work breakdown schedule (WBS), quantity takeoffs, production estimate, critical path method (CPM) schedule, and basis of estimate. The ICE shall be translated into the DEPARTMENT’s unit price format. Deliverable: •Independent Cost Estimate at QC/QA (90% Plans) Submittal 6.0 MAPPING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY All proposed improvements are expected to be within the existing NDOT right-of-way. Location control and aerial topographic mapping within the PROJECT limits was previously obtained under a separate contract and will be adopted for this PROJECT. All survey data and notes produced or collected will be maintained as part of the PROJECT documentation to be submitted to the DEPARTMENT upon completion of the PROJECT and/or termination of the contract. All survey work will be completed under the direction of a Nevada Registered Land Surveyor. 6.1 LOCATION/SURVEY The SERVICE PROVIDER shall obtain the following survey data for the PROJECT: 6.1.1 LIDAR Survey Mobile LIDAR survey of the existing I-515 northbound and southbound deck surfaces of the G-947 and I-947 structures. The mobile LIDAR survey will produce a point cloud. SERVICE PROVIDER will evaluate the point cloud and will extract useable information by thinning out the points and identifying break lines to create manageable surface and CAD files to be used in the latest DEPARTMENT approved MicroStation and InRoads software versions. The surface information will identify face of barrier rail, bridge joints, detectable pavement markings, drainage features, utility features (if any are on the deck), and any other



of 34

raised feature that resides within the bridge deck. The surface information will be able to accurately pick up and identify horizontal and vertical geometric features such as curvature and dips in the surface. Deliverable: All electronic files extracted from the point cloud, including MicroStation files with

identified features, and InRoads surface/terrain files 6.1.2 Field Survey Any supplemental field survey required for the PROJECT such as:

Edge of pavement Crown line/Longitudinal grade break Pavement markings and signs Barrier rail (Face and Back) Retaining walls and Sound walls Any other critical features as required for PROJECT development

Deliverable: MicroStation CAD files and InRoads surface files

6.2 COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S LOCATION DIVISION Topographic mapping for this PROJECT is being performed under a separate contract. The SERVICE PROVIDER will work with the DEPARTMENT Location Division to obtain the most recent mapping and ortho-photography in the corridor that the DEPARTMENT has available. The SERVICE PROVIDER will reference the “Special Instructions for Location Consultants” Manual for mapping requirements. Additionally, the SERVICE PROVIDER will coordinate with the Location Division to ensure that all mapping, ortho-photography and surveys are completed in accordance with the DEPARTMENT’s requirements. 6.3 RIGHT-OF-WAY No permanent or temporary right-of-way acquisitions are anticipated. Existing right-of-way will be shown on the plans. The SERVICE PROVIDER will assist the DEPARTMENT in researching leases within existing right-of-way and in modifying leases as required. 7.0 UTILITIES The PROJECT includes modifications to the following:

City of Las Vegas lighting on Pier No. 49, NDOT under-deck lighting on Pier No. 42, and ITS relocation at structure G-947 in-span hinge reconstruction (limits as shown on

Attachment “C”)



of 34

The DEPARTMENT may elect to upgrade FAST facilities within the PROJECT limits. The scope of such upgrade has yet to be determined and may be added to the PROJECT by amendment. It is not anticipated that any public utilities will be in conflict with the work or require relocation for this PROJECT. However, the locations of all existing utilities will be researched and shown on the plans. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall perform the following tasks:

1. Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) 2. Utility Rights Research - Solicit information from FAST, DEPARTMENT, and utility companies

about facilities within the PROJECT limits and general area and research and verify prior rights. 3. Final Utility Plans – Include utility locations on construction plans.

If utility conflicts occur and relocations or adjustments are required, the following work may be performed by the SERVICE PROVIDER by amendment to the contract:

1. Prepare cost estimates to include in agreements with utility companies and construction cost estimates broken out by DEPARTMENT bid item numbers.

2. Assist with preparation of documents to authorize work of utility companies and/or SERVICE PROVIDER to incur costs for preparation of plans, cost estimates, prior rights research and preliminary engineering

3. Review of prior rights documentation 4. Assist with approval of utility agreements by DEPARTMENT and utility.

7.1 SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING The SERVICE PROVIDER shall conduct designation and location of all utilities. Horizontal locating quality levels “D”, “C” and “B” for all utilities and up to twenty (20) vertical locating quality level “A” on underground utilities at critical locations. All designation information shall be color coded and provided in electronic and hard copy format. The electronic copy shall be provided in MicroStation DGN file format for CADD files graphically depicting the location of all utilities. The SERVICE PROVIDER will submit a pothole plan to the PROJECT team members for their review and input prior to start potholing. 7.2 UTILITY RIGHTS RESEARCH The SERVICE PROVIDER will research DEPARTMENT permits, County and City Franchise Agreements, old DEPARTMENT contract plans, as-built plans and public records to make a preliminary determination as to which party shall bear the cost of relocation. If a utility relocation is identified as being eligible for reimbursement for costs and easement rights as defined under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended Title II- Uniform Relocation Assistance; the SERVICE PROVIDER’s team will assist in the identification for replacement easements. 7.3 UTILITY COORDINATION The SERVICE PROVIDER will be responsible for utility coordination services, including but not limited to coordination with utility companies or entities. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be required to coordinate,



of 34

facilitate and attend monthly utility coordination meetings with DEPARTMENT Right-of-Way utilities staff, the SERVICE PROVIDER’s Project Manager and Task Leads, the DEPARTMENT Senior Project Manager, Team Leads and any affected utility companies or entities. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall report on the progress of the PROJECT, and any changes in the scope of the PROJECT, and answer any PROJECT related questions. A status of the utility coordination and relocation efforts shall be reported at this meeting. All coordination with utility companies or entities will be the responsibility of the SERVICE PROVIDER with input from DEPARTMENT’s Utility Section Supervisor. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall determine the key contact for each utility company and establish effective communication lines between the utility companies and the SERVICE PROVIDER team. As soon as adequate design plans are available, the SERVICE PROVIDER will submit two sets of the plans to the utility companies along with written authorization for them to incur costs for the preparation of plans, estimates and prior rights. After the utility companies receive the initial plans, a field review will be held with the SERVICE PROVIDER and each of the affected utility companies and entities. The SERVICE PROVIDER will coordinate the planning for relocation of utilities to accommodate the PROJECT with the affected utility owners and DEPARTMENT Right-of- Way Personnel. The SERVICE PROVIDER will determine, by utility rights research, which shall bear the cost of relocation. The SERVICE PROVIDER will assist with the DEPARTMENT notification of utility providers to relocate their lines at their own expense, or obtain any necessary cost estimates and preparation of any necessary agreements to cover the utility relocation work when it is to be at DEPARTMENT’s expense. The SERVICE PROVIDER will coordinate with each utility company to ensure that all plans and relocation cost estimates are produced in a timely fashion to meet the PROJECT schedule. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall keep in constant contact and provide direction to each utility company to ensure they adhere to DEPARTMENT and FHWA policy and procedure, and provide any additional information necessary for them to produce their plans, estimates and prior rights documentation. If necessary, meet with utility company managers to expedite the submission of the plans, estimates and prior rights. Once the package is received, perform an intensive review of the prior rights documentation since this is the basis for the company’s claim to reimbursement. Prior rights documentation must meet the provisions of the NRS, NAC Chapter 408 and Title 23 CFR Part 654 regulations. The SERVICE PROVIDER will perform a detailed review of the utility company’s plans and cost estimates to ensure they meet the requirements of the NAC Chapter 408 and Title 23 CFR Part 645 regulations, with particular attention to betterment, depreciation, and salvage credits. Review and approval of the relocation plans and estimate will be done in conjunction with a “Utility Agreement Checklist - Plans Review” as supplied by DEPARTMENT District 1 Right-of-Way office. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be required to complete, sign and return the “Checklist” to the DEPARTMENT District 1 Right-of-Way office. After a thorough review of the utility packages, prepare utility relocation agreements and occupancy document exhibits according to current DEPARTMENT standards. Once prepared, the agreements shall be reviewed by DEPARTMENT’s District 1 Right-of-Way office, the utility staff specialist and legal staff and then submitted to DEPARTMENT for Signatures. Upon receipt of the fully executed agreement, provide a duplicate original or, “Certified True Copy” to the utility company along with a Notice to Proceed (NTP). To expedite the agreement and relocation processes, all of the Las Vegas Valley deliveries and pick- ups regarding these activities shall be in person. 7.4 UTILITY RELOCATION DESIGN If utility conflicts occur and relocations are required, Uility Relocation Design may be performed by the SERVICE PROVIDER by amendment to the contract. As needed, Develop Intermediate Design (60%),



of 34

QC/QA Review (90%), and PS&E (100%) plans, profiles, details, structure list and cost estimates for the relocation of any utilities required due to conflicts with the proposed improvements. 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare a Geotechnical Memorandum for the PROJECT. The Geotechnical Memorandum shall address the following items:

1. Recommendations for the proposed concrete retaining wall foundations at the I-515 Southbound off-ramp to Eastern Avenue.

2. Recommendations for embankment materials for the proposed pavement widening along I-515 Southbound between I-15 and north of UPRR.

3. Recommendations for the relocation of overhead sign structure foundations at the following locations:

a. Northbound I-15 exit directional ground mounted sign. b. Northbound I-15 advanced guide sign (for ground-mounted option only). c. Southbound Casino Center off-ramp exit directional sign (for ground-mounted option

only).

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall:

Review pertinent background data and literature; Coordinate and mobilize for subsurface exploration. A traffic control plan and DEPARTMENT

encroachment permit will be obtained; Drill, log and sample a total of three (3) exploratory borings to a depth of 20 feet at a spacing of

200 feet along the concrete retaining wall alignment at the I-515 Southbound off-ramp to Eastern Avenue, three (3) exploratory borings to depths of 20 and 25 feet at a spacing of 500 feet on the berm for the proposed pavement widening along I-515 Southbound between City Parkway and north of UPRR, and four (4) exploratory borings to depths of 65 and 75 feet for the relocation of overhead sign structure foundations. ;

Perform Laboratory tests to evaluate physical and engineering properties of sub-soils including shear tests, in-place moisture content and dry density, gradation, Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, R-value, solubility potential, in-situ and saturated resistivity, and chemical analysis (including pH, oxidation-reduction, sulfate, sulfide, total salts, and chloride).

Provide recommendations regarding foundation, excavatability of subsurface materials, earthwork for pavement support, temporary construction slopes, backfills, lateral earth pressures, concrete corrosion, and earthwork.

The DEPARTMENT Materials Division will provide the pavement structural section and theoretical information for the:

1. Proposed concrete pavement widening along I-515 Southbound between I-15 and the UPRR 2. Proposed asphalt pavement widening at the I-515 Southbound off-ramp to Eastern Avenue 3. Overlay of the existing I-515 concrete pavement for restriping between I-15 and Eastern Avenue

Interchange Deliverable: • Draft Geotechnical Memorandum with Intermediate Design (60%) Submittal



of 34

• Final Geotechnical Memorandum with QC/QA Review (90%) Submittal 9.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS 9.1 PUBLIC INFORMATION PLAN

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide the DEPARTMENT Project Manager, DEPARTMENT Public Hearings Officer, and DEPARTMENT Communication Office a comprehensive public information plan for the duration of the PROJECT. The plan shall include public information, public relations and outreach strategies. Upon PROJECT completion, the SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide the DEPARTMENT Project Manager, DEPARTMENT Public Hearings Officer, and DEPARTMENT Communication Officer a Summary Report on Public Information and Outreach, including the public information plan and documentation of all outreach activities, materials, and media coverage.

9.2 PUBLIC MEETING

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall arrange for and conduct one (1) public meeting for the PROJECT in Las Vegas. The SERVICE PROVIDER, in coordination with the DEPARTMENT, the DEPARTMENT’s Public Hearings Officer and the DEPARTMENT’s Public Information Officer, shall be responsible for the public meeting as follows:

Establishing the meeting date and time. Securing meeting location (anticipated to be a public facility with no cost for use). Designing and preparing mailers, flyers, and newspaper advertisements. Providing neighborhood notification (mail and/or door hangers), e-blasts (email), and

newspaper advertisements in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and one minority publication. Preparing any necessary exhibits for the PROJECT for public display. Preparing handouts for the public information meeting. Preparing additional displays as appropriate. Providing a Spanish Translator to attend each public information meeting for translating

services to the public, if needed. Providing meeting summaries including public comments as part of the record of the meeting. Participating in the meeting to explain the PROJECT, and answer questions. Assisting in preparing PowerPoint presentations. Assisting in setting up and breaking down of each public information meeting. Providing additional audio and visual equipment if needed.

9.3 SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC OUTREACH

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall assist the DEPARTMENT Project Manager and the DEPARTMENT Public Information Officer during the design and construction of the PROJECT with creating, preparing and releasing relevant and timely information regarding PROJECT status. Materials may include news releases, advisories, fact sheets, press kits, and any other collateral materials prepared especially for news media, as well as materials such as doorhangers for direct distribution to the public. Supplemental outreach services will also include preparing for and attending meetings with public agencies, affected businesses, and/or other targeted stakeholders during design and construction of the PROJECT.



of 34

10.0 FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING 10.1 INTERMEDIATE DESIGN (60% PLANS) SUBMITTAL

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop Intermediate Design (60%) Construction Plans, Intermediate Review Estimate, and Preliminary Specifications Notes for the PROJECT. The plans shall be prepared on DEPARTMENT standard sheets. Plan sheets shall be color, 11-inch by 17-inch drawings with standard DEPARTMENT borders and in conformance with DEPARTMENT standards. 10.1.1 Roadway The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop Intermediate Design (60%) Title Sheet, Location Sketch, Typical Sections; General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities; Roadway Plans, Profiles, Grading Plans, Geometrics and Elevation Control, Special Details, Site Preparation Plans, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Estimates for the:

Widening of approximately 800’ of I-515 Southbound between City Parkway and the UPRR to provide an emergency pull out area or a standard outside shoulder.

Removal and reconstruction of I-515 Median Barrier between City Parkway and Las Vegas Boulevard.

Overlay of the existing I-515 southbound concrete pavement to eliminate the southbound lane drop and to add an auxiliary lane from I-15 to the Eastern Avenue Interchange. The minimum limits of this overlay will be from the US 95 southbound gore of the I-15 Northbound off-ramp in the Spaghetti Bowl Interchange to the 28th Street overpass, excluding bridge decks. Additional overlay may be needed beyond the limits identified above to account for temporary striping associated with traffic control.

Overlay of the existing I-515 northbound concrete pavement for restriping. The minimum limits of this overlay will be from the City Parkway overpass to the 28th Street overpass, excluding bridge decks. Additional overlay may be needed beyond the limits identified above to account for temporary striping associated with traffic control.

Inside widening of approximately 1000’ of the existing I-515 Southbound Eastern Avenue off-ramp to provide a two-lane exit.

Overlay of the existing I-515 Southbound Eastern Avenue off-ramp asphalt pavement to provide a two-lane exit.

Roadway profiles and/or geometric and elevation control sheets are only needed where roadway widening is proposed, at the I-515 Southbound emergency pull out and the Eastern Avenue Interchange off-ramp widening. 10.1.2 Drainage



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop Intermediate Design (60%) Draft Drainage Report, Drainage Plans, Profiles, Details, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Cost Estimates. 10.1.2.1 Drainage Report The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare an Intermediate Design (60%) Draft Drainage Report by expanding and refining the drainage analysis and further develop selected improvements as outlined in the Conceptual Drainage Study prepared in the Preliminary Engineering Phase. The Draft Drainage Report will refine the hydrologic analysis provided in the Conceptual Drainage Study and further detail onsite/offsite sub-basin delineation maps used in the determination of design flows for hydraulic analysis of existing and proposed drainage facilities within the PROJECT corridor. Although this project is not expected to significantly impact offsite flows, additional discussion of major drainage facilities used to convey offsite flows impacting the PROJECT corridor will be provided and will reference all existing available data such as local Flood Control Master Plans, existing studies, and existing Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) if necessary. Hydraulic analysis provided in the Conceptual Drainage Study will be refined and will include calculations for existing and proposed drop inlets, roadway flow spread width, and outfall storm drain systems within the PROJECT corridor. Spread violations due to the PROJECT shall be identified, compared to existing spread conditions, and mitigation measures proposed and evaluated with NDOT staff for feasibility, cost/benefit, and impacts to the viaduct structures prior to implementation. Normal depth calculations will be provided for minor storm drain systems and water surface profiles will be developed for major storm drain systems. The Draft Drainage Report will provide additional verification on the construction feasibility for all proposed drainage facilities. All drainage design requirements will be outlined and will be developed based on NDOT Drainage Manual criteria as well as any applicable local, state, and federal agency criteria. 10.1.2.2 Drainage Plans The SERVICE PROVIDER will prepare drainage plan and storm drain profile sheets including annotation and construction notes to clearly show and describe existing and proposed drainage facilities within the PROJECT limits. Detail sheets will be prepared for all drainage structures proposed. 10.1.3 Utilities The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Utility Plans showing all the existing utilities within the PROJECT limits. As an amendemnet to the Contract, the SERVICE PROVIDER will also develop Intermediate Design (60%) Utility Plans, Profiles, Details, Quantities, Structure list, and Estimates for the relocation of any utilities required due to conflicts with the proposed improvements. 10.1.4 Traffic 10.1.4.1 Striping The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Striping Plans, Quantities, and Estimates for the:

Restriping of the existing I-515 southbound to eliminate the southbound lane drop and to add an auxiliary lane from I-15 to the Eastern Avenue Interchange. The minimum limits of this restriping will be from the US 95 southbound gore of the I-15 Northbound off-ramp in the



of 34

Spaghetti Bowl Interchange to the 28th Street overpass. Additional restriping may be needed beyond the limits identified above to account for temporary striping associated with traffic control.

Restriping of the existing I-515 northbound from the City Parkway overpass to the 28th Street overpass. Additional restriping may be needed beyond the limits identified above to account for temporary striping associated with traffic control.

Striping Plans shall be developed based on MUTCD and DEPARTMENT standards. 10.1.4.2 Signing The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Guide Signing Plans, Signing Details, Quantities, and Estimates for I-515 within the PROJECT limits based on the MUTCD and DEPARTMENT policies and practices for the:

Removal, replacement, and upgrade of overhead guide sign panels and structures impacted by the median barrier relocation.

Removal, replacement, and addition of overhead guide panels and structures for the new two-lane exit with option lane from I-515 southbound to Eastern Avenue.

Rehabilitation of deteriorated sign panels, if necessary. Signs will be created using SignCAD, with one possible exception. SignCAD does not currently have the ability to create Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs. If SignCAD does not provide an update to address this deficiency, then it is proposed to use GuidSIGN to produce any Overhead Arrow-per-Lane guide signs. For those overhead guide sign panels that exceed the sign panel height limits of the current NDOT Standard Plans, structural calculations and plans will be prepared for the associated sign structures. 10.1.4.3 Lighting The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare Intermediate Design (60%) Lighting Plans, Conduit, Cable, and Conductor Schedule, Pull Box Schedule, High Mast Pole Schedule, Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule, Lighting Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates for the:

Relocation of high mast lighting within the area of median barrier relocation.

Underpass lighting adjustments required for the Viaduct Rehabilitation on Pier No. 42.

Relocation of the City of Las Vegas street lighting on Pier No. 49 of the viaduct structure.

Remove overhead sign lighting from sign structures that are being removed.

Provide overhead sign lighting for the new overhead sign structures.

10.1.4.4 ITS



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare Intermediate Design (60%) ITS Plans, ITS Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates for the:

Local ITS relocation required at the structure G-947 in-span hinge reconstruction. Limits of the ITS

relocation are as shown on Attachment “C”. FAST upgrades within the PROJECT limits may be added by amendment, depending upon Traffic Operations Division funding participation. 10.1.4.5 Traffic Control PRE-INTERMEDIATE DESIGN SUBMITTAL: The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop and submit a preliminary Transportation Management Plan three months prior to the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal. NDOT review and comments on the TMP is critical to the preparation of the construction phasing plans for the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal. The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) shall describe and address the traffic impacts of the proposed construction per the DEPARTMENT’S Work Zone Safety and Mobility Implementation Guide. The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Preliminary Transportation Management Plan and Construction Phasing Plans for the combined:

I-515 Viaduct Rehabilitations consisting of performing partial depth removal of concrete bridge

decks, repairing delaminated and deteriorated concrete, placing a new polymer concrete overlay on the G-947 structure, and placing a new thin bonded multilayer overlay on the I-947 structure; seismic retrofits of selected pier columns on the I-947 structure; removal and replacement of an in-span hinge on the G-947 Structure; and removal and replacement of selected expansion joints on both structures.

I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane consisting of the removal and replacement of the median barrier on I-515 between the City Parkway Overpass and the Las Vegas Boulevard Interchange with the associated removal and replacement of the sign structures and high mast lighting; and longitudinal bridge joint relocation.

The Construction Phasing Plans will identify a logical sequence of construction developed during traffic control meetings with the DEPARTMENT. 10.1.5 Structures 10.1.5.1 Bridge and Sign Structures

10.1.5.1.1 Structures G-947 and I-947

The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop an Intermediate Design (60%) Viaduct Plan, General Notes and Quantities; Bridge Plan and Typical Sections, Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan, and Median Barrier Details for the:



of 34

Relocation of the median barrier rail and longitudinal joint separating the southbound and northbound structures. The relocations are anticipated to extend along the entire length of the G-947 structure to near Pier 52 on the I-947 structure. With the proposed median barrier shift and restriping of travel lanes, the longitudinal joint in the top slab dividing the northbound and southbound structures will fall within the wheel path of the future number 2 travel lane. Reconstruction of this joint is proposed to move it closer to the lane line separating the future number 1 and number 2 travel lanes. The joint is offset within the central bay between the two structures resulting in a long deck overhang on the southbound structure and a short deck overhang on the northbound structure. The joint reconstruction will essentially reverse the long/short orientation of these overhangs. The modifications to the existing long overhang will be minimal with a narrow removal/reconstruction. Reconstruction of the existing short overhang may require the placement of additional transverse deck reinforcing. Typical drill/dowel methodology for this additional reinforcing may not be practical due to minimal deck thickness and deck condition. Removal and reconstruction of a portion of the deck in the adjacent cell may be necessary. The final joint location will accommodate the installation and maintenance of raised pavement markings. Details for mounting the reconstructed portion of median barrier will be developed.

Structural modifications of the deck drainage facilities. Modifications may be required for the installation of new or replacement drainage facilities, including scuppers and down-drains. Installation of scuppers may require reconstruction of portions of deck overhangs and barrier railing. Down-drain installation may require modifications for web and soffit penetrations and details for surface-mounted supports.

Supports for overhead lighting installations. Supports for overhead lighting located along the structure edges may require construction of bolsters. Depending on the type of lighting used, supports for median mounted overhead lighting may be accommodated within the median barrier or on new bolsters constructed within the central bay. Underdeck lighting is anticipated to be surface-mounted and will not necessitate structural modification.

The SERVICE PROVIDER will incorporate the DEPARTMENT’s Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans into the Intermediate Design (60%) Viaduct Plans. 10.1.5.1.2 Structures H-946 (City Parkway) and I-1440 (Eastern Avenue) The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop an Intermediate Design (60%) Bridge Plan, General Notes, and Quantities for the:

Placement of thin bonded multilayer overlay on the bridge deck and approach slabs. 10.1.5.1.3 Overhead Sign Structures The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Plans, General Notes, and Quantities for work related to the new overhead sign structures:

Two (2) Overhead Cantilever Sign Structure Locations - Southbound Eastern off-ramp advanced

guide sign (structure mounted or ground mounted) and Southbound Eastern off-ramp exit



of 34

directional sign (structure mounted or ground mounted). The existing pier cantilever supports at the sign locations will be investigated for structural adequacy to support the new signs and sign structures. The existing pier cantilever supports will be modified to support the new signs and sign structures as necessary. If modifying the existing cantilever supports is not feasible, designs for ground mounted sign supports on independent foundations will be provided.

It is possible that reuse of the existing overhead sign post supports will not be viable due to median rail relocation and anticipated upsizing of sign panels to meet current requirements. Post supports for structure-mounted overhead sign installations will require construction of bolsters at the exterior structure faces and within the central bay separating the southbound and northbound structures. It is anticipated that the designs and details for all new overhead sign truss and cantilever supports will be as shown in the 2017 NDOT Standard Plans for Road and Bridge Construction, and that special sign support designs and details will not be required. 10.1.5.2 Retaining Wall The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop Intermediate Design (60%) Retaining Wall Plan, Profile, Details, Quantities, Structure List, and Estimates for the proposed retaining wall at the I-515 Southbound Eastern Avenue off-ramp. The I-515 Southbound Eastern Avenue off-ramp is proposed for a 10-foot pavement widening towards the mainline. The pavement widening will extend into the mainline fill requiring installation of a retaining wall for approximately 400 feet in length. 10.1.6 Landscaping and Aesthetics The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare an Intermediate Design (60%) Landscaping and Irrigation Plan, Quantities, Structure Lists, and Estimates to provide erosion control (rock mulch) for the slopes disturbed with the I-515 Southbound Eastern Avenue off-ramp pavement widening. Any existing landscaping or irrigation facilities disturbed by the work will be restored, including for the excavation required for Pier No. 42. 10.1.7 Specifications The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide Intermediate Design (60%) Preliminary Special Provisions Notes to the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. The final Special Provisions shall be written by the DEPARTMENT. The Special Provisions Notes shall be written in the imperative mood (see page 1 of the Standard Specifications) and in a format identical to the current edition of the DEPARTMENT’S Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The Special Provisions Notes shall be created and delivered in WordPerfect, using Universal font size 11 (use font size 9 for tables and footnotes). Files created in Microsoft Word and converted to WordPerfect will not be accepted. The Special Provisions Notes shall only include information that is not covered in the Standard Specifications or current Specifications Pull Sheets. Copies of product brochures or product specifications are not acceptable. If it is necessary to specify materials by brand or trade name, a minimum of two brands must be provided and followed by the words “or approved equal.” Where an individual product or trade name requires “sole source” use, a written justification must be provided. The justification to “sole source” requires review and approval by the DEPARTMENT’S Chief Road Design Engineer.



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER’s responsibility is limited to preparation of a draft of Subsection 108.04, Limitation of Operations, which includes operational limits, phasing limits, working hour limits, traffic impact limits, restricted work limits, and construction milestones based on the construction sequencing and traffic control meetings, and Subsection 107.17, Contractor’s Responsibility for Utility Property and Service. 10.1.8 Deliverables The following is a list of anticipated Intermediate Design (60% Plan) Submittal deliverables:

Title Sheet Location Sketch Typical Sections General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities Roadway Plans Roadway Profiles Grading Plans Geometrics and Elevation Control Special Details Site Preparation Plans Drainage Plans Drainage Profiles Drainage Details Utility Plans Utility Profiles (for relocations only) Utility Details (for relocations only) Striping Plans Signing Plans Lighting Plans Conduit, Cable, and Conductor Schedule Pull Box Schedule High Mast Pole Schedule Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule ITS Plans Lighting and ITS Structure Lists Preliminary Transportation Management Plan Construction Phasing Plan Viaduct Overall Plan General Notes and Quantities Bridge Plan and Typical Sections Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans (DEPARTMENT provided) Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan Median Barrier Details Overhead Sign Support Details Retaining Wall Plan and Profile Retaining Wall Detail Landscaping Plan



of 34

Structure Lists Boring logs Preliminary Specification Notes Intermediate Review Estimate Draft Drainage Report Draft Geotechnical Memorandum

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be responsible for preparing all sheets which are common to both the I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane and the Viaduct Rehabilitation, such as the title sheet, location sketch, typical sections, general notes, summaries, striping, traffic control and structure lists. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit a PDF electronic file and one (1) set of Intermediate Design (60%) Plans to the DEPARTMENT. 10.2 QA/QC REVIEW (90% PLANS) SUBMITTAL

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall incorporate all comments from the Intermediate Design (60% Plans) Submittal Review Meeting. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop QA/QC Review (90%) Construction Plans, QA Estimate, and 90% Specifications Notes for the PROJECT. The plans shall be prepared on DEPARTMENT standard sheets. Plan sheets shall be color, 11-inch by 17-inch drawings with standard DEPARTMENT borders and in conformance with DEPARTMENT standards. 10.2.1 Roadway The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop QA/QC Review (90%) Title Sheet, Location Sketch, Typical Sections; General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities; Roadway Plans, Profiles, Grading Plans, Geometrics and Elevation Control, Special Details, Site Preparation Plans Sheets, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Estimates. 10.2.2 Drainage

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop 90% Drainage Report for the PROJECT. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall also develop QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Drainage Plan, Profiles, Details, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Cost Estimates. 10.2.2.1 Drainage Report The SERVICE PROVIDER shall refine hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and address all Intermediate Design (60%) Draft Drainage Study review comments. The 90% Drainage Report will provide final verification of the hydrologic analysis and results (design flows). Hydraulic calculations for existing and proposed drainage facilities will be further refined and verified to complete final design of drainage facilities. All potential conflicts with installation of proposed drainage improvements will be identified and mitigative measures will be provided as necessary. The 90% Drainage Report will include discussion of potential erosion and water quality issues and calculations will be provided as necessary. The 90% Drainage Report will include a cost estimate for proposed drainage improvements.



of 34

10.2.2.2 Drainage Plans The SERVICE PROVIDER will refine all drainage plan, profile, and detail sheets and address all Intermediate Design (60%) Drainage Plan review comments. Plans will be fully annotated and will include all necessary general notes and complete construction notes. Horizontal and vertical control data for construction of proposed improvements will be provided and all details will be refined and include appropriate dimensions. Structure List Sheets will be prepared and included in the plan set to be submitted. 10.2.3 Utilities The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Utility Plans showing all the existing utilities within the PROJECT limits. As an amendemnet to the Contract, the SERVICE PROVIDER will also develop QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Utility Plans, Profiles, Details, Quantities, Structure list, and Estimates for the relocation of any utilities required due to conflicts with the proposed improvements. 10.2.4 Traffic 10.2.4.1 Striping The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Striping Plans, Details, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.2.4.2 Signing The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Guide Signing Plans, Sign Details, Overhead Sign Structure Details, Sign Quantities and General Notes, Sign Summaries, and Estimates. 10.2.4.3 Lighting The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare QA/QC Review (90%) Lighting Plans, Conduit, Cable and Conductor Schedules, Pull Box Schedule, High Mast Pole Schedule, Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule, Lighting Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.2.4.4 ITS The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare QA/QC Review (90%) ITS Plans, ITS Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.2.4.5 Traffic Control The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Construction Phasing Plans, Preliminary Traffic Control Plans, Preliminary Detour Route Plans, Quantitates, and Estimates. The final Transportation Management Plan will be included with this submittal. 10.2.5 Structures 10.2.5.1 Bridge and Sign Structures



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Viaduct Plan, General Notes and Quantities; Bridge Plan and Typical Sections, Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan, Median Barrier Details, Longitudinal Joint Details, Deck Drainage Details; Overhead Sign Structure Plans, General Notes, and Quantities; Underdeck Lighting Details, Bent Bar Details, and Bill of Materials. The SERVICE PROVIDER will incorporate the DEPARTMENT’s Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans into the QA/QC (90%) Viaduct Plans. 10.2.5.2 Retaining Wall The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Retaining Wall Plan, Profile, Details, Quantities, Structure List, and Estimates. 10.2.5.3 Soundwalls Modifications to the existing soundwalls are not anticipated. If the ongoing NEPA noise evaluation identifies the need to modify existing or construct new soundwalls, this work may be added by amendment. 10.2.6 Aesthetics The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop QA/QC Review (90%) Landscaping Plan, Quantities, Structure Lists, and Estimates. 10.2.7 Specifications The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide QA/QC Review 90% Special Provisions Notes to the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. 10.2.8 Deliverables The following is a list of anticipated QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal deliverables:

Title Sheet Location Sketch Typical Sections General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities Roadway Plans Roadway Profiles Grading Plans Geometrics and Elevation Control Special Details Site Preparation Plans Drainage Plans Drainage Profiles Drainage Details Utility Plans



of 34

Utility Profiles (for relocations only) Utility Details (for relocations only) Striping Plans Striping Details Signing Plans Sign Details Overhead Sign Structure Details Sign Quantities and General Notes Sign Summaries Lighting Plans Conduit, Cable, and Conductor Schedule Pull Box Schedule High Mast Pole Schedule Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule ITS Plans Lighting and ITS Structure Lists Final Transportation Management Plan Construction Phasing Plan Preliminary Traffic Control Plans Preliminary Detour Route Plans Viaduct Overall Plan General Notes and Quantities Bridge Plan and Typical Sections Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans (DEPARTMENT provided) Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan Median Barrier Details Longitudinal Joint Details Deck Drainage Details Overhead Sign Support Details Bent Bar Details Bill of Materials Retaining Wall Plan and Profile Retaining Wall Detail Landscaping Plan Structure Lists Boring Logs 90% Specification Notes QA Estimate 90% Drainage Report Final Geotechnical Memorandum

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be responsible for preparing all sheets which are common to both the I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane and the Viaduct Rehabilitation, such as the title sheet, location sketch, typical sections, general notes, summaries, striping, traffic control and structure lists.



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit a PDF electronic file and one (1) set of QA/QC Review (90%) Plans to the DEPARTMENT.

10.3 PS&E (100% PLANS) SUBMITTAL

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall incorporate all comments from the QA/QC Review (90% Plans) Submittal Review Meeting. As an amendemnet to the Contract, the SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop PS&E (100%) Construction Plans, Final Engineers Estimate, and 100% Specifications Notes for any utility relocations required for the PROJECT. 10.3.1 Roadway The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop PS&E (100%) Title Sheet, Location Sketch, Typical Sections; General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities; Roadway Plans, Profiles, Grading Plans, Geometrics and Elevation Control, Special Details, Site Preparation Plans Sheets, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Estimates. 10.3.2 Drainage The SERVICE PROVIDER shall develop PS&E (100%) Final Drainage Report, Drainage Plan, Profiles, Details, Quantitates, Structure Lists, and Estimates. 10.3.2.1 Drainage Report The SERVICE PROVIDER shall refine and address all 90% Drainage Report Review comments and prepare Final Drainage Report. 10.3.2.2 Drainage Plans The SERVICE PROVIDER will refine all drainage plan sheets and address all QA/QC (90%) Drainage Plan review comments and prepare PS&E (100%) Drainage Plans, Profiles, Details, and Structure List Sheets. 10.3.3 Utilities The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Utility Plans showing all the existing utilities within the PROJECT limits. The SERVICE PROVIDER will also develop PS&E (100% Plans) Utility Plans, Profiles, Details, Quantities, Structure list, and Estimates for the relocation of miscellaneous minor utilities due to conflicts with the proposed improvements. 10.3.4 Traffic 10.3.4.1 Striping The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Striping Plans, Details, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.3.4.2 Signing



of 34

The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Guide Signing Plans, Sign Details, Overhead Sign Structure Details, Sign Quantities and General Notes, Sign Summaries, and Estimates. 10.3.4.3 Lighting The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare PS&E (100%) Lighting Plans, Conduit, Cable and Conductor Schedules, Pull Box Schedule, High Mast Pole Schedule, Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule, Lighting Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.3.4.4 ITS The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare PS&E (100%) ITS Plans, ITS Structure List, Quantities, and Estimates. 10.3.4.5 Traffic Control The SERVICE PROVIDER will PS&E (100%) Construction Phasing Plans, Preliminary Traffic Control Plans, Preliminary Detour Route Plans, Quantitates, and Estimates. 10.3.5 Structures 10.3.5.1 Bridge and Sign Structures

The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Viaduct Overall Plan, General Notes and Quantities; Bridge Plan and Typical Sections, Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan, Median Barrier Details, Longitudinal Joint Details, Deck Drainage Details, Overhead Sign Support Details, Bent Bar Details, and Bill of Materials. The SERVICE PROVIDER will incorporate the DEPARTMENT’s Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans into the PS&E (100%) Viaduct Plans. 10.3.5.2 Retaining Wall The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Retaining Wall Plan, Profile, Details, Quantities, Structure List, and Estimates. 10.3.6 Aesthetics The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop PS&E (100%) Landscaping Plan, Quantities, Structure Lists, and Estimates. 10.3.7 Specifications The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide PS&E 100% Special Provisions Notes to the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. 10.3.8 Deliverables The following is a list of anticipated PS&E (100% Plans) Submittal deliverables:



of 34

Title Sheet Location Sketch Typical Sections General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities Roadway Plans Roadway Profiles Grading Plans Geometrics and Elevation Control Special Details Site Preparation Plans Drainage Plans Drainage Profiles Drainage Details Utility Plans Utility Profiles (for relocations only) Utility Details (for relocations only) Striping Plans Striping Details Signing Plans Sign Details Overhead Sign Structure Details Sign Quantities and General Notes Sign Summaries Lighting Plans Conduit, Cable, and Conductor Schedule Pull Box Schedule High Mast Pole Schedule Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule ITS Plans Lighting and ITS Structure Lists Final Transportation Management Plan Construction Phasing Plan Preliminary Traffic Control Plans Preliminary Detour Route Plans Viaduct Overall Plan General Notes and Quantities Bridge Plan and Typical Sections Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans (DEPARTMENT provided) Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan Median Barrier Details Longitudinal Joint Details Deck Drainage Details Overhead Sign Support Details Bent Bar Details Bill of Materials Retaining Wall Plan and Profile



of 34

Retaining Wall Detail Landscaping Plan Structure Lists Boring logs 100% Specification Notes Final Drainage Report Final Engineers Estimate

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall be responsible for preparing all sheets which are common to both the I-515 Southbound Lane Drop Elimination and Auxiliary Lane and the Viaduct Rehabilitation, such as the title sheet, location sketch, typical sections, general notes, summaries, striping, traffic control and structure lists. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall submit a PDF electronic file and one (1) set of PS&E Review (100%) Plans to the DEPARTMENT. 10.4 FINAL SUBMITTAL The SERVICE PROVIDER will incorporate PS&E (100%) Review comments into the Final Plans and Estimate. Each sheet of the Final Plans will show a wet or electronic stamp of a Nevada-registered professional engineer (civil) with an original signature and date. The Preliminary Estimate will be submitted one (1) week prior to submittal of the Final Plans. The following is a list of anticipated sheet types to be included in the Final Plans Submittal:

Title Sheet Location Sketch Typical Sections General Notes, Summaries, and Estimate of Quantities Roadway Plans Roadway Profiles Grading Plans Geometrics and Elevation Control Special Details Site Preparation Plans Drainage Plans Drainage Profiles Drainage Details Utility Plans Utility Profiles (for relocations only) Utility Details (for relocations only) Striping Plans Striping Details Signing Plans Sign Details Overhead Sign Structure Details Sign Quantities and General Notes



of 34

Sign Summaries Lighting Plans Conduit, Cable, and Conductor Schedule Pull Box Schedule High Mast Pole Schedule Overhead Sign Lighting Schedule ITS Plans Lighting and ITS Structure Lists Construction Phasing Plan Preliminary Traffic Control Plans Preliminary Detour Route Plans Viaduct Overall Plan General Notes and Quantities Bridge Plan and Typical Sections Viaduct Rehabilitation Plans (DEPARTMENT provided) Median Barrier and Longitudinal Joint Relocation Plan Median Barrier Details Longitudinal Joint Details Deck Drainage Details Overhead Sign Support Details Bent Bar Details Bill of Materials Retaining Wall Plan and Profile Retaining Wall Detail Landscaping Plan Structure Lists Boring logs Final Specification Notes Preliminary Estimate

11.0 BID/AWARD ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT

11.1 SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICES Unforeseen developments often require that supplemental design details or corrections be produced for distribution to potential bidders, prior to the bid opening. A total of one (1) Supplemental Notice is assumed to be developed to accommodate unanticipated issues. The SERVICE PROVIDER will develop and submit revised documents including, but not limited to, plans, specifications, and estimates upon direction of the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. The SERVICE PROVIDER will provide one (1) original suitable for reproduction and one (1) electronic copy. DEPARTMENT will be responsible for reproduction and distribution of any Supplemental Notices. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall prepare responses to contractor requests for information. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall make all necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of the SERVICE PROVIDER without additional compensation. Acceptance of the



of 34

professional services by the DEPARTMENT will not relieve the SERVICE PROVIDER of the responsibility for subsequent correction of any such errors and the clarification of any ambiguities. The SERVICE PROVIDER will be held responsible for additional costs in subsequent related construction resulting from errors or omissions which are a result of negligence or carelessness. 11.2 PRE-BID CONFERENCE The SERVICE PROVIDER Project Manager shall attend the Pre-Bid Conference in Las Vegas and respond to questions or concerns relating to the SERVICE PROVIDER drawings prior to the contractor bid period. 11.3 BID ANALYSIS The SERVICE PROVIDER will assist DEPARTMENT staff in reviewing all bid packages, making checks of the plans, estimates, or other items as necessary, and will cooperate with the DEPARTMENT Project Manager to recommend selection of the lowest qualified bidder. 11.4 RFI RESPONSE SUPPORT DURING BIDDING PROCESS The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide a timely response to RFIs as provided by the DEPARTMENT Project Manager. 11.5 DELIVERABLES

11.5.1 One (1) Supplemental Notice 11.5.2 One (1) Draft of Pre-Bid Conference Minutes 11.5.3 One (1) Bid Analysis 11.5.4 Responses to RFIs



MEMORANDUM

August 31, 2018



SUBJECT: September 10, 2018, Transportation Board of Directors Meeting

ITEM #6: Contracts, Agreements, and Settlements – Informational Item Only ___________________________________________________________________________

Summary: The purpose of this item is to inform the Board of the following:

• Construction contracts under $5,000,000 awarded July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018.

• Agreements under $300,000 executed July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018. Any emergency agreements authorized by statute will be presented here as an informational item.

Background: Pursuant to NRS 408.131(5), the Transportation Board has authority to “[e]xecute or approve all instruments and documents in the name of the State or Department necessary to carry out the provisions of the chapter”. Additionally, the Director may execute all contracts necessary to carry out the provisions of Chapter 408 of NRS with the approval of the board, except those construction contracts that must be executed by the chairman of the board. Other contracts or agreements not related to the construction, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of highways must be presented to and approved by the Board of Examiners. This item is intended to inform the Board of various matters relating to the Department of Transportation but which do not require any formal action by the Board. The Department contracts for services relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the State’s multi-modal transportation system. Contracts listed in this item are all low-bid per statute and executed by the Governor in his capacity as Board Chairman. The projects are part of the STIP document approved by the Board. In addition, the Department negotiates settlements with contractors, property owners, and other parties to resolve disputes. These proposed settlements are presented to the Board of Examiners, with the support and advisement of the Attorney General’s Office, for approval. Other matters included in this item would be any emergency agreements entered into by the Department during the reporting period.


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

Contracts, Agreements, and Settlements Page 1 of 13

The attached construction contracts and agreements constitute all that were awarded for construction from July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018 and agreements executed by the Department from July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018. There were no settlements during the reporting period. Analysis: These contracts have been executed following the Code of Federal Regulations, Nevada Revised Statutes, Nevada Administrative Code, State Administrative Manual, and/or Department policies and procedures. List of Attachments:

A) State of Nevada Department of Transportation Contracts Awarded – Under $5,000,000, July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018.

B) State of Nevada Department of Transportation Executed Agreements – Informational, July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018.

Recommendation for Board Action: Informational item only Prepared by: Administrative Services Division


Attachment

A



CONTRACTS AWARDED - INFORMATIONAL

July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018

1. July 12, 2018 at 1:30 PM the following bids were opened for Contract 3728, Project No. SPF 050-1(053), on US 50 west of Carson City, in Carson City County, for slope stabilization.

Road and Highway Builders LLC. ................................................................ $1,767,767.00 Granite Construction Company .................................................................... $1,849,849.00 Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. ................................................................. $2,073,007.00 A & K Earth Movers, Inc. .............................................................................. $2,317,000.00 Q & D Construction LLC ............................................................................... $2,329,105.30

Engineer’s Estimate ............................................................................................... $1,908,720.39 The Director awarded the contract on August 2, 2018, to Road and Highway Builders LLC. in the amount of $1,767,767.00.

2. July 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM the following bids were opened for Contract 3733, Project No. SPSR-0229(006), on SR 229, in Elko County, for 2-inch overlay.

Road and Highway Builders LLC ................................................................. $2,111,111.00 Remington Construction Company LLC. ...................................................... $2,777,777.00

Engineer’s Estimate ............................................................................................... $1,969,080.13 The Director awarded the contract on July 30, 2018, to Road and Highway Builders LLC in the amount of $2,111,111.00.

3. July 19, 2018 at 1:30 PM the following bids were opened for Contract 3734, Project No. SPI-515-1(036), on I-515 Interchange at East Russell Road, in Clark County, for landscaping and aesthetics.

Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. ............................................................................ $2,400,000.00 Las Vegas Paving Corporation..................................................................... $2,700,000.00 CMMCM LLC DBA Muller Construction ....................................................... $2,944,611.83

Engineer’s Estimate ............................................................................................... $2,473,881.00 The Director awarded the contract on August 3, 2018, to Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. in the amount of $2,400,000.00.



DISTRICT AGREEMENTS AWARDED - INFORMATIONAL

July 18, 2018, through August 14, 2018

1. June 11, 2018 the following quotes were opened for Agreement 036-18-255, repair spalls and delaminations, remove and replace expansion joints with preformed joint filler, and overlay bridge deck and approach slabs with thin bonded multilayer overlay on I-80 structure H-999 (Sutro Street) east bound (I-80 milepost WA 14.30), in Washoe County.

Q & D Construction, Inc................................................................................... $222,000.00 Granite Construction Company ....................................................................... $247,247.00

Engineer’s Estimate .................................................................................................. $200,635.85 The Agreement was awarded on July 26, 2018, to Q & D Construction, Inc. in the amount of $222,000.00

2. June 11, 2018 the following quotes were opened for Agreement 037-18-255, repair spalls and delaminations, remove and replace expansion joints with preformed joint filler, and overlay bridge deck and approach slabs with thin bonded multilayer overlay on I-80 structure H-999 (Sutro Street) west bound (I-80 milepost WA 14.30), in Washoe County.

Q & D Construction, Inc................................................................................... $211,500.00 Granite Construction Company ....................................................................... $243,243.00

Engineer’s Estimate .................................................................................................. $196,112.80 The Agreement was awarded on July 23, 2018, to Q & D Construction, Inc. in the amount of $211,500.00


Line Item #1: Contract 3728

Project Manager: Billy Ezell

Length of Project: 0.2 Miles Proceed Date: September 4, 2018

Estimated Completion: Spring, 2019 Contracts, Agreements, and Settlements

Page 6 of 13


Project Manager: Devin Cartwright

Length of Project: 6.50 Miles

Proceed Date: August 30, 2018

Estimated Completion: Fall, 2018



Project Manager: Samantha Dowd

Length of Project: 0.51 Miles

Proceed Date: September 17, 2018

Estimated Completion: Spring, 2019 Contracts, Agreements, and Settlements

Page 8 of 13

District Agreements Awarded

Line Item #1: 036-18-255

Proceed Date: July 26, 2018

Line Item #2: 037-18-255

Proceed Date: July 23, 2018

037-18-255 I-80 West

036-18-255 I-80 East


Attachment

B


Attachment B

Line No. Agreement No. Amend No. Contractor Purpose Fed Original Agreement

Amount Amendment

Amount Payable Amount Receivable Amount Start Date End Date Amend Date Agree Type Division Dir. Office Notes

1 29118 00 MONTOOTH REVOCABLE TRUST

PARCEL ACQUISITION N 51,200.00 - 51,200.00 - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Acquisition Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: ACQUISITION OF PARCEL U-050-LY-025.906 CONTAINING .16 ACRES FOR THE WIDENING OF US 50, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

2 42818 00 SHAHWALL BABDUL PARCEL ACQUISITION N 190,000.00 - 190,000.00 - 27-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2019 - Acquisition Right-of-Way Cole 07-27-18: ACQUISITION OF PARCELS U-050-LY-024.698, U-050-LY-024.699, U-050-LY-024.965, U-050-LY-024.905, U-050-LY-024.967, U-050-LY-024.966, AND U-050-LY-024.968 CONTAINING .42 ACRES FOR THE WIDENING OF US 50, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

3 43118 00 NICOLE FAIR PARCEL ACQUISITION N 17,800.00 - 17,800.00 - 23-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2019 - Acquisition Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: ACQUISITION OF PARCEL U-050-LY-023.812 CONTAINING .06 ACRES FOR THE WIDENING OF US 50, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

4 43218 00 ZANDIAN, ET AL. TEMPORARY EASEMENTS N 2,175.00 - 2,175.00 - 23-Jul-2018 30-Jun-2021 - Acquisition Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: TEMPORARY EASEMENTS OF PARCELS U-050-LY-020.019TE1 AND U-050-LY-020.252TE1 ALONG US 50 FROM CHAVES ROAD TO ROY'S ROAD FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

5 33618 00 NEVADA TAHOE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

LAKE TAHOE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS

N 1,000,000.00 - 1,000,000.00 - 26-Jul-2018 31-Dec-2020 - Coop Hydraulics Cole 07-26-18: PLAN, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE TAHOE BASIN TO MEET LAKE TAHOE'S TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) PROGRAM COMMITMENTS TO EFFECTIVELY RESTORE LAKE TAHOE'S HISTORIC CLARITY, CARSON CITY, WASHOE, AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

6 29718 00 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Y 25,000.00 - 25,000.00 - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2024 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: PROVIDE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR A SCHEDULED PROJECT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT INTERCHANGE ON I-15 AT CLARK COUNTY ROUTE 215 WHICH WILL INVOLVE AND IMPACT EXISTING RAILROAD FACILITIES, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

7 42518 00 NV ENERGY LINE EXTENSION AGREEMENT N 1,699.00 - 1,699.00 - 23-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2024 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: LINE EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS ON SECOND STREET, FROM KEYSTONE TO I-580, AND ON ARLINGTON AVENUE, FROM COURT STREET TO SIXTH STREET, WASHOE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19831015840



10 03614 03 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES

SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN Y 665,000.00 71,205.48 1,423,446.02 - 8-Sep-2014 31-Aug-2018 13-Aug-2018 Service Provider Safety Sondra AMD 3 08-13-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $71,205.48 FROM $1,352,240.54 TO $1,423,446.02 TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF ALL SCOPE OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SMP AT SAHARA AVENUE FROM RAINBOW BOULEVARD TO I-15, AND JONES BOULEVARD FROM SMOKE RANCH ROAD TO RANCHO DRIVE AND CHEYENNE AVENUE, FROM TORREY PINES DRIVE TO DECATUR BOULEVARD TO I-15.AMD 2 06-14-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $687,240.54 FROM $665,000.00 TO $1,352,240.54 DUE TO IDENTIFYING A NEED TO COMPLETE TWO (2) NEW SMP: 1) SAHARA AVENUE FROM RAINBOW BOULEVARD TO I-15; AND 2) JONES BOULEVARD FROM SMOKE RANCH ROAD TO RANCHO DRIVE AND CHEYENNE AVENUE, FROM TORREY PINES DRIVE TO DECATUR BOULEVARD TO I-15.AMD 1 11-22-16: NO COST AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-16 TO 08-31-18 FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICES.09-08-14: PROVIDE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLANS (SMP) FOR MULTIPLE LOCATIONS AROUND THE STATE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (HSIP). STATEWIDE. NV B/L#: NVF19911015458-R

11 08511 04 ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. LANDSCAPE AT WOODBURY BELTWAY

Y 641,100.00 58,000.00 997,776.00 - 2-Mar-2011 31-Dec-2022 23-Jul-2018 Service Provider Project Management

Cole AMD 4 07-23-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $58,000.00 FROM $939,776.00 TO $997,776.00 FOR ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES TO INCORPORATE THE BELTWAY MULTI-USE PATH THROUGH THE US 95/CC 215 INTERCHANGE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THE PROJECT. AMD 3 08-28-17: EXTEND THE TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-17 TO 12-31-22 AND INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $298,676.00 FROM $641,100.00 TO $939,776.00 TO COMPLETE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE DESIGN AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE CENTENNIAL BOWL INTERCHANGE. AMD 2 12-14-15: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-15 TO 12-31-17 DUE TO DELAYS IN THE OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE. AMD 1 12-12-14: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-14 TO 12-31-15 DUE TO DELAYS IN THE OVERALL PROJECT. 03-02-11: PROVIDE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE US 95/CC-215 INTERCHANGE, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NV19981347315

12 09317 03 BRAMCO CONSTRUCTION REPLACE UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS

N 168,947.00 20,723.56 189,670.56 - 25-May-2017 31-Jul-2018 30-Apr-2018 Service Provider Architecture Thor AMD 3 04-30-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $20,723.56 FROM $168,947.00 TO $189,670.56 FOR ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES TO INCLUDE NEW WIRING AND CONDUIT FOR THE CARD READER AND A NEW FUEL SITE CONTROLLER.AMD 2 05-25-17: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-17 TO 07-31-18 DUE TO THE DELAY IN OBTAINING THE NECESSARY PERMITS. AMD 1 07-05-17: EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 07-31-17 TO 12-31-17 DUE TO DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. 5-25-17: REPLACE UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS AND INSTALL DISPENSER AT MINA MAINTENANCE STATION, MINERAL COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19811010649-Q

13 23518 00 THOLL FENCE REMOVE AND INSTALL GUARDRAIL

N 15,000.00 - 15,000.00 - 24-Jul-2018 31-Dec-2018 - Service Provider Maintenance & Asset Management

Thor 07-24-18: REMOVE EXISTING GUARDRAIL AND END TREATMENTS, FURNISH AND INSTALL NEW GUARDRAIL POSTS, REUSE EXISTING GUARDRAIL AND ONE END TREATMENT, AND FURNISH A NEW END TREATMENT AT 426 STATE ROUTE 28 (CRYSTAL BAY), WASHOE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19591000420-Q PROPOSERS: THOLL FENCE

14 29318 00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

TITLE REPORT Y 250.00 - 250.00 - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2020 - Service Provider Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: FURNISH ONE PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR PARCELS I-015-CL-041.573TE1 AND I-015-CL-041.573TE2 FOR PROJECT NEON, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

15 31418 00 GENERAL FENCE REMOVE AND REPLACE FENCE N 192,414.40 - 192,414.40 - 30-Jul-2018 31-Mar-2019 - Service Provider District III Tracy/Boyd 07-30-18: REMOVE AND REPLACE 56,648 LINEAR FEET OF FENCE ON US 93 AT MP 117 TO MP 124 ON BOTH SIDES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ELKO COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD20061261860-Q PROPOSERS: GENERAL FENCE, LAMOILLE FENCING

16 32018 00 REBECCA MOSSOW DBA HULINGS ENTERPRISES

JANITORIAL SERVICES N 100,800.00 - 100,800.00 - 24-Jul-2018 30-Apr-2021 - Service Provider District III Tracy/Boyd 07-24-18: PROVIDE JANITORIAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE SUNNYSIDE REST AREA APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES SOUTH OF LUND ON SR 318, NYE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NV2S0151244533-Q PROPOSERS: REBECCA MOSSOW DBA HULINGS ENTERPRISES

17 32118 00 REBECCA MOSSOW DBA HULINGS ENTERPRISES

JANITORIAL SERVICES N 84,606.00 - 84,606.00 - 1-Aug-2018 30-Apr-2021 - Service Provider District III Tracy/Boyd 08-01-18: PROVIDE JANITORIAL SERVICES AT THE SCHELLBOURNE REST AREA LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 42 MILES NORTH OF ELY ON US 93, MILEPOST WP 92.54, WHITE PINE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVS20151244533-Q PROPOSERS: REBECCA MOSSOW DBA HULINGS ENTERPRISES

State of Nevada Department of TransportationExecuted Agreements - Informational

July 18, 2018 through August 14, 2018



Amount Amendment


18 35218 00 ARCADIS U.S., INC. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI) ROADS AND HIGHWAYS SOFTWARE

N 225,000.00 - 225,000.00 - 25-Jul-2018 30-Jun-2019 - Service Provider Information Technology

Robert 07-25-18: PROVIDE EXTENDED SUPPORT TO THE ROADS AND HIGHWAYS APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING, AND ENHANCING BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS FUNCTIONALITY OF THE RECENTLY LAUNCHED ESRI ROADS AND HIGHWAYS APPLICATION. THE EXTENDED SUPPORT WILL IMPROVE THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFICIENCIES IN PRODUCING DELIVERABLES DIRECTLY TIED TO FEDERAL FUNDING, SUCH AS THE ANNUAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM (HPMS) SUBMISSIONS. ROADS AND HIGHWAYS IS A COMPLEX APPLICATION PROVIDING THE DEPARTMENT A STANDARDIZED MEANS OF LOCATING RELEVANT OBJECTS AND EVENTS ON NEVADA’S ROADWAY SYSTEM; THIS EXTENDED SUPPORT WILL ALSO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO PROMOTE DEPARTMENT-WIDE ADOPTION OF THE LINEAR REFERENCING SYSTEM STANDARD, CARSON CITY. NV B/L#: NVF19981175044-S

19 35418 00 TETRA TECH, INC. STORMWATER WORKSHOPS N 97,450.00 - 97,450.00 - 23-Jul-2018 30-Jun-2019 - Service Provider Training Bill 07-23-18: DEVELOP AND DELIVER THREE WORKSHOPS ON THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PROGRAM AND STORMWATER PERMITS FOR 75 DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO CORRECTLY IMPLEMENT AND ABIDE BY NDOT'S MUNICIPLE SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4) PERMIT, CARSON CITY, CLARK, AND ELKO COUNTIES. NV B/L#: NVF19921063769-S

20 54417 00 CUMMINS, INC. GENERATOR MAINTENANCE N 160,000.00 - 160,000.00 - 19-Jul-2018 19-Jul-2019 - Service Provider Traffic Operations Thor 07-19-18: PROVIDE ANNUAL GENERATOR MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY REPAIRS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ITS) AND THE NEVADA SHARED RADIO SYSTEM (NSRS) BACKUP POWER FOR 27 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, WITH SEVERAL OF THOSE LOCATIONS BEING IN REMOTE AREAS THAT WILL REQUIRE A FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE TO ACCESS, STATEWIDE. NV B/L#: NVF20171009441-Q PROPOSERS: GENTECH, CUMMINS, NEVADA ENERGY SYSTEMS, CASHMAN EQUIPMENT

21 57518 00 SOIL-TECH, INC. REMOVE AND REPLACE TORTOISE FENCE

N 290,115.00 - 290,115.00 - 24-Jul-2018 30-Jun-2019 - Service Provider District I Tracy/Mary 07-24-18: REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING TORTOISE FENCE AT THE NDOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON I-15 SOUTHBOUND BETWEEN MILEPOSTS CL 0.9 AND CL 11.6, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19911026864-Q PROPOSERS: SOIL-TECH, INC., RED STAR FENCE COMPANY

22 66816 01 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES

STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN

N 850,000.00 60,000.00 910,000.00 - 2-Aug-2017 30-Sep-2019 25-Jul-2018 Service Provider Safety Sondra AMD 1 07-25-18: INCREASE AUTHORITY BY $60,000.00 FROM $850,000.00 TO $910,000.00 FOR THE CONTINUATION OF SERVICES AND TO EXECUTE THE TRAFFIC SAFETY SUMMIT FOR YEAR 2018 AND 2019.08-02-17: MAINTAIN THE OVERALL STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN (SHSP), SAFETY PARTNERS’ INVOLVEMENT PROCESS, WORK WITH CRITICAL EMPHASIS AREA TASK TEAMS, SAFETY DATA, THE NEVADA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP TO IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN. ADDITIONALLY, THE SHSP COORDINATES WITH THE HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES ARE IDENTIFED BASED ON CRASH DATA, WHICH FORMS THE FOUNDATION FOR ACTION STEPS TO ADDRESS BEHAVIORAL CONSIDERATIONS, STATEWIDE. NV B/L#: NV1911015485-R PROPOSERS: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES



Amount Amendment


23 44118 00 CITY OF RENO PUBLIC WORKS

MANHOLE AND VALVE COVERS N - - - - 27-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-27-18: NO COST AGREEMENT TO ADJUST MANHOLE AND VALVE COVERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS ON SECOND STREET AT THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS: WINTER STREET, WASHINGTON STREET, BELL STREET, RALSTON STREET, STEVENSON STREET, ARLINGTON AVENUE, WEST STREET, KUENZLI STREET, GIROUX STREET, AND KEYSTONE AVENUE, AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARLINGTON AVENUE AND ISLAND AVENUE, WASHOE COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

24 45218 00 NEVADA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

MANHOLE AND VALVE COVERS N - - - 5,500.00 27-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-27-18: NO COST AGREEMENT TO ADJUST MANHOLE AND VALVE COVERS AT THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS: WINTER STREET, WASHINGTON STREET, BELL STREET, RALSTON STREET, STEVENSON STREET, ARLINGTON AVENUE, WEST STREET, KUENZLI STREET, GIROUX STREET, AND KEYSTONE AVENUE, AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARLINGTON AVENUE AND ISLAND AVENUE, WASHOE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19131000017

25 29418 00 NV ENERGY DESIGN INITIATION AGREEMENT

N - - - - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2020 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: NO COST DESIGN INITIATION AGREEMENT TO INSTALL A SIGNAL, LIGHTING, AND INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (ITS) DESIGN ON US 95 FROM ANN ROAD TO KYLE CANYON ROAD, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19831015840

26 29518 00 NV ENERGY DESIGN APPROVAL AGREEMENT

N - - - - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2020 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: NO COST DESIGN APPROVAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WIDENING OF US 50 AND TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AT 5500 US 50 AND LUCILLE AVENUE, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19831015840

27 29618 00 NV ENERGY DESIGN APPROVAL AGREEMENT

N - - - - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2020 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: NO COST DESIGN APPROVAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WIDENING OF US 50 AND TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AT 6120 US 50 AND RESERVOIR ROAD, LYON COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19831015840

28 29818 00 NV ENERGY DESIGN INITIATION AGREEMENT

N - - - - 18-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2020 - Facility Right-of-Way Cole 07-18-18: NO COST DESIGN INITIATION AGREEMENT TO UPGRADE AN EXISTING NDOT SERVICE PEDESTAL AT 272 DEL MONTE AVENUE (NEIL ROAD) AT I-580 INTERCHANGE, WASHOE COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19831015840

29 37316 01 COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT STRIPING COUNTY ROADS N - - - 50,000.00 19-Jul-2016 31-Dec-2020 26-Jul-2018 Interlocal District III Tracy/Boyd AMD 1 07-26-18: NO COST AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FROM 12-31-18 TO 12-31-20 FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICES.07-19-16: PROVIDE STRIPING SERVICES FOR HUMBOLDT COUNTY ROADS, HUMBOLDT COUNTY NV B/L#: EXEMPT

30 34118 00 MICHAEL C. AUSTIN EMPLOYEE HOUSE LEASE N - - - 3,100.00 1-Jul-2018 1-Jul-2022 - Lease District I Tracy/Mary 07-01-18: NO COST EMPLOYEE LEASE LOCATED AT BIG SMOKY MAINTENANCE STATION, HOUSE #1, NYE COUNTY. NV B/L#: EXEMPT

31 26118 00 SAHARA RV CENTER MULTI-USE LEASE N - - - 64,200.00 25-May-2018 31-Jan-2023 - Lease Right-of-Way Cole 05-25-18: NO COST MULTI-USE LEASE FOR PARCELS S-589-CL-025.580 AND S-589-CL-025.582LE1 LOCATED NEAR SAHARA AVENUE AND SCOTLAND LANE, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD19811002546

32 43018 00 999 E. TROPICANA, LLC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS N - - - - 23-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Right-of-Way Access

Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: NO COST AGREEMENT CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PARCEL 162-27-510-015 AT TROPICANA AVENUE FROM DEAN MARTIN DRIVE TO BOULDER HIGHWAY, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD20021057468

33 42918 00 PARADISE GARDENS SHOP CENTER

RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS N - - - - 23-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Right-of-Way Access

Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: NO COST AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON PARCEL 162-27-502-003 AT TROPICANA AVENUE FROM DEAN MARTIN DRIVE TO BOULDER HIGHWAY, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD20131014226

34 44418 00 PARADISE GARDENS SHOP CENTER

RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS N - - - - 23-Jul-2018 31-Jul-2023 - Right-of-Way Access

Right-of-Way Cole 07-23-18: NO COST AGREEMENT CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OT-WAY ON PARCEL 162-27-502-004 AT TROPICANA AVENUE FROM DEAN MARTIN DRIVE TO BOULDER HIGHWAY, CLARK COUNTY. NV B/L#: NVD20131014226

NO COST AGREEMENTS AND/OR AMENDMENTS


MEMORANDUM

August 25, 2018


FROM: Rudy Malfabon, P.E., Director

SUBJECT: September 10, 2018 Transportation Board of Directors Meeting

ITEM #8: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDOT Work Program and Acceptance of

the 2019-2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – For

Possible Action.

Summary:

This agenda item is requesting the board’s approval of the FY 2019 Work Program and the acceptance of the FFY19-FFY22 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). NDOT staff has spent the last twelve months working with federal and regional agencies, local governments, and planning boards to develop these planning and program documents.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), FFY2019-FFY2022 Annual Work Program (WP), FY 2019 Short Range Element (SRE), FY 2020-2022 Long Range Element (LRE), FY 2023 and Beyond

Following consultations with Nevada’s seventeen counties and the thirty-day public comment period the STIP will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for approval and to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for consultation. The State Transportation Board is being asked to approve the 2019 Work Program.

Background:

The STIP lists all capital and non-capital transportation projects proposed for federal transportation funding or are considered regionally significant. These projects improve the capacity, condition, operations, and safety of Nevada’s transportation system, such as increasing the number of lanes, constructing new roads, road extensions, and intersection improvements along with the Department Maintenance Program. It also includes transit, rail, pedestrian, and bicycle facility projects. The Department is required to include, without change, all projects listed in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) approved Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) following review by NDOT staff and approval by the NDOT Director. All other projects outside of the MPOs are included in the Non MPO portion of the STIP, thus capturing all federal funded and regionally significant projects over the four-year period.

1263 South Stewart Street

Carson City, Nevada 89712

Phone: (775) 888-7440

Fax: (775) 888-7201

The STIP is approved by the Governor’s Designee (Director of the Department of Transportation) and submitted to the FHWA, FTA for approval and the EPA for consultation. The Work Program (WP) lists the projects the Department intends to work on during the current fiscal year (Annual Work Program), proposed projects for short term (Short Range Element 2020-2022) and proposed projects outside of that period. This document satisfies Nevada Revised Statue (NRS 408.203) requiring the Director of NDOT to submit a four and ten-year list of transportation projects to the State Legislative Council Bureau every even year and the State Legislature every odd year. The WP lists projects that the Department plans to complete using state resources, in addition to the federal funds as outlined in the four-year STIP.

NDOT will submit these planning documents to the State Legislature/Legislative Council Bureau following the State Transportation Board acceptance/approval and FHWA and FTA for approval of the STIP portion. As part of the Department’s public participation process, staff met with the 14 rural County Commissions and is planned to present to Nevada’s MPOs during the month of August to present the proposed FY 2019 Work Program.

Recommendation for Board Action:

Approval of 2019 Work Program and Acceptance of 2019-2022 STIP.

List of Attachments:

Link to eSTIP public site: DRAFT STIP: https://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp?view_type=DRAFT DRAFT WP: https://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp?view_type=DRAF_AWP

Prepared by:

Joseph Spencer, STIP Manager, Program Development, Planning Division

https://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp?view_type=DRAFT

https://estip.nevadadot.com/default.asp?view_type=DRAF_AWP

MEMORANDUM

August 29, 2018




Item #9: Update on the One Nevada Plan

____________________________________________________________________________

Summary:

The purpose of this agenda item is to update the Board on the One Nevada Transportation Plan

(One NV). This plan will serve as the new Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan and will

be performance based, multimodal and cross-jurisdictional. The plan identifies goals and

measures to evaluate existing conditions as well as future trends that may affect what the

transportation system needs to be in future decades. In addition, One NV goes beyond the plan

to develop processes a to begin to break down silos in project type and funding source in order

to provide more robust information to decision makers on the cross-discipline benefit of potential

projects and opportunities to develop more comprehensive projects that have the potential to

solve multiple challenges.

Background: MAP – 21 and the subsequent FAST Act Transportation Authorization bills require performance-based planning and programming including performance measures and targets in specific areas. These measures include safety, asset management, and system performance (each one includes several specific measures) on roadways and similar measures for transit. These measures and the targets set for them must inform decision making on future investments. NDOT is creating a plan, and more importantly, developing a process to integrate goals, required and additional measures, into decision support tools to allow the agency and the board to have more robust information on the relative benefits of projects and programs. In the process of developing this plan and processes, NDOT conducted surveys, held multiple workshops, and engaged a diverse Steering Committee (the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee) as well as technical assistance from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations and multiple NDOT divisions to ensure the process and plan were being developed to include the transportation needs of the entire state. The Draft One Nevada Transportation Plan will be released in the coming weeks for a 30-day (minimum – may be longer depending on response) public comment period. Staff anticipates bringing the Plan back to the Board in November for approval or adoption prior to submitting it to FHWA.


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

Attachments:

www.onenvplan.com

Recommendation for Board Action:

Informational item only.

Prepared by:

Sondra Rosenberg, Assistant Director, Planning

http://www.onenvplan.com/

MEMORANDUM

August 28, 2018




ITEM #10: Briefing on the I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis – Information

item only.

Summary: This agenda item is to provide an update on the I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis and Planning and Environmental Linkages Study. The study was started by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) in early March to examine corridor alternatives for the future I-11 along the US 95 corridor between Las Vegas and I-80. This study is anticipated to be completed by the end of October with a final executive summary, an implementation plan, and the corridor analyses. This study also includes the Planning and Environmental Linkages checklist that will be completed at the end of the study. This check list will allow for a more seamless transition into next steps related to advancing I-11 within Nevada. This item is informational to update the Board on the work done to date and preliminary recommendations. NDOT will seek approval/acceptance of the plan and recommendations at the October 2018 Board Meeting.

Background:

In 2014, the I-11 Intermountain West Corridor Study was completed and approved by the Board. This study provided a corridor justification for I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas while better defining the need to continue this connection between Mexico and Canada. Within the study, potential I-11 corridors were identified and examined that would provide connections from Las Vegas to the Northern border of the state. This investigation recognized that the western side of Nevada would meet Nevada’s growing needs. This western study area was ultimately approved by the State Transportation Board of Directors. This approval facilitated a congressional designation within the current transportation bill. In 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST ACT) designated the future I-11 to generally follow the US 95 corridor between Las Vegas and I-80. The I-11 Northern Nevada Corridor Analysis and Planning and Environmental Linkages Study set out to consider several viable corridor options that roughly fall within the US 95 corridor. The plan’s purpose was to take each corridor alternative through an analysis using nine evaluation criteria. The process was done to develop a set of recommendations for the future I-11 moving forward.

1263 South Stewart Street

Carson City, Nevada 89712

Phone: (775) 888-7440

Fax: (775) 888-7201

The I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis and Planning and Environmental Linkages Study held a stakeholder meeting to introduce the project and a subsequent meeting to provide an opportunity for the stakeholders to comment on the study’s recommendations. The study also included extensive public outreach. This included six meetings within the study area limits to introduce the project and get feedback on the methodology. Once the analysis was done, seven meeting were held to allow the public to assess and comment on the study’s recommendations.

Recommendation for Board Action: Informational Item Only.

List of Attachments:

Link to: I-11 Northern Nevada Alternatives Analysis web page: https://www.nevadadot.com/projects-programs/programs-studies/future-i-11-alternatives-analysis-las-vegas-valley-to-i-80 Alternatives Analysis Results: https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14481

Prepared by: Kevin Verre Assistant Chief, Program Development & Multi-Modal Planning, Planning Division

https://www.nevadadot.com/projects-programs/programs-studies/future-i-11-alternatives-analysis-las-vegas-valley-to-i-80

https://www.nevadadot.com/projects-programs/programs-studies/future-i-11-alternatives-analysis-las-vegas-valley-to-i-80

https://www.nevadadot.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=14481

MEMORANDUM August 30, 2018




Item #11: Old Business ____________________________________________________________________________

Summary: This item is to provide follow-up and ongoing information brought up at previous Board Meetings. Analysis: a. Project NEON Quarterly Report - Informational item only.

Please see Attachment A. b. Spaghetti Bowl Quarterly Report - Informational item only.

Please see Attachment B. c. Pedestrian Safety Quarterly Report – Informational item only. Please see Attachment C. d. Stormwater Program Quarterly Report– Informational item only. Please see Attachment D. e. Report of Outside Counsel Costs on Open Matters -Informational item only. Please see Attachment E. f. Monthly Litigation Report – Informational item only. Please see Attachment F. g. Fatality Report Dated August 7, 2018 – Informational item only. Please see Attachment G.


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

List of Attachments: a. Project NEON Quarterly Report - Informational item only. b. Spaghetti Bowl Quarterly Report - Informational item only. c. Pedestrian Safety Quarterly Report – Informational item only. d. Stormwater Program Quarterly Report – Informational item only. e. Report of Outside Counsel Costs on Open Matters – Informational item only. f. Monthly Litigation Report – Informational item only. g. Fatality Report Dated August 7, 2018 – Informational item only.

Recommendation for Board Action: Informational item only.

PROJECT NEON UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 1

Project: Project Neon Design-Build Purpose: September 2018 Transportation Board Update Project Completion Status (as of 8.25.18)

• Earned-Value to Date: o $486M

• Progress to Date: o Overall: 81% Complete o Design: 100% Complete o Construction: 76% Complete

• Construction Days: o Contract Day: 1,013 days (from NTP1) o Total Contract Days: 1,338 days o % Days Expended: 76% Complete

Construction (progress photos included below)

Jobs

• During the last full week of July, there were 748 people working on Project Neon (Kiewit and subs)! I-15 Construction Season

• Reached half-way point of The Main Event in early July • On track for completing I-15 work before Thanksgiving • New Charleston Blvd on-ramp to I-15 SB set to open in mid-October

Bridges

• Final bridge scheduled for demolition in late September (24 total bridges demolished) • HOV flyover is 80% complete • I-15 bridge construction ongoing

ATM Signs

• First overnight closure of I-15 NB for sign installation went well • Median work for foundations continues on I-15, southern limit is Russell Road • 19 signs installed to date; 23 more signs to install

Item #11 Attachment A


Public Outreach

A continued focus on proactive public outreach has resulted in minimal complaints.

• Stakeholder Meetings/Presentations o Senator Atkinson o Senator Cancela o Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) o Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Coalition o Roads & Bridges Project Tour

• Event Coordination

o Microsoft Event at LVMS o World Market Center Summer Market o Nascar o Life Is Beautiful o Rock N Roll Marathon

CH2M (Jacobs) Performance Update

• Continuous, proactive communication with stakeholders, as captured in bi-weekly report • 11 General Submittals (Average days to process: 12) • 90 Construction Submittals (Average days to process: 6) • 3 Progress Submittals (Average days to process: 15) • 7 Requests for Information (Average days to process: 13) • 11 Notice of Design Changes (Average days to process: 11) • 10 Field Design Changes (Average days to process: 5.5) • 22 Lane Closure Requests (Average days to process: 2) • 22 Transmittals to/from Kiewit • 18 Non-Compliance Reports



I-15 near Spaghetti Bowl Looking NW

ATM Sign Installation



Bridge Construction over Charleston Blvd

Before

After concrete girders

After concrete deck panels

After concrete pour



I-15 at Charleston Blvd Looking West

I-15 at Alta/Bonneville Looking East


NDOT SPAGHETTI BOWL PROJECT UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2018 1

Project: NDOT Spaghetti Bowl (I-80/I-580 System-to-System Interchange) Purpose: September 2018 Transportation Board Update

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):

• Participating Agencies have completed their 30-day review of the Administrative Draft EIS.

• Comments will be reviewed and discussed.

• Recommendation of Preferred Alternative to be made to public in November 2018;

• Public hearing will be held on December 12th at the Reno-Sparks Convention Center.

• Collaborating with Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority on multiple design options regarding access to and from the airport

Environmental Schedule:

• NDOT remains on schedule to complete the NEPA process by June 2019. The schedule below shares significant dates:

Spaghetti Bowl Xpress (SBX):

• Shortlisted Contracting Teams o Ames Q&D Constructors (Horrocks) o Granite Construction Company (Parsons) o Kiewit Infrastructure West Company (Atkins) o Las Vegas Paving Corporation (CA Group)

• Funding Sources o Bonding, subject to Governor’s Finance and Legislative Approvals o RTC Washoe Local Funds

Item #11 Attachment B

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROJECT STATUS MEMO

TO: Transportation Board of Directors

DATE: August 30, 2018

RE: Status Report on the NDOT Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program

2016 Traffic Signal Projects:

• SR 430/ N Virginia St @ Bonanza Casino – temporary signal was installed. The installation of a

Permanent Traffic Signal is completed, and ADA Crosswalk and sidewalks will be completed

September 2017

• SR 160/ Blue Diamond – signals installed at El Capitan and Ft Apache Way

2016 Complete Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects:

These projects include new crosswalks, pedestrian activated rapid rectangular flashing beacons at the

crosswalks, enhanced street lighting, pedestrian refuge medians and ADA compliant pedestrian ramps.

• SR 28 in Incline Village – completed spring 2016

• SR 443/ Sun Valley Blvd @ Gepford, Skaggs, 6th Ave – completed spring 2107

• SR 430/N Virginia St @ Talus Way and Moraine Way –completed August 2017

• SR 667/Kietzke Lane @ Roberts St, Taylor St, Apple St, Grove St–completed August 2017

• SR 159/Charleston Blvd from Hillside to Nellis Blvd– completed August 2017

• Boulder Highway at Sun Valley Drive – completed July 2017

• Craig Road Complete Street Project – completed May 2018

2017 Complete Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects:

• Lake Shore Blvd at Marla Bay, Nevada – completed July 2018

2017 Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects:

These projects are anticipated to include new crosswalks, pedestrian activated rapid rectangular flashing

beacons at the crosswalks, enhanced street lighting, pedestrian refuge medians and ADA compliant

pedestrian ramps. Additionally, many of the project locations include access management

countermeasures which restrict left turning movements off side streets and increases pedestrian safety.

Contract was awarded March 2018 and construction was estimated for Summer 2018, but due to

procurement timelines has been delayed to Fall 2018.

Item #11 Attachment C

Northern Nevada FY 2017 Projects:

• US 50 @ Pike Street in Dayton Nevada

• Silver State Street in Carson City, Nevada

Northern Nevada FY 2017 Complete Street Project:

This Complete Street Project includes sidewalk improvements and connectivity, buffered bike lanes,

activated rapid rectangular flashing beacons at a crosswalk, enhanced street lighting, pedestrian refuge

medians and ADA compliant pedestrian ramps. Additionally, many of the project locations include access

management countermeasures which restrict left turning movements off side streets and increases

pedestrian safety. The 100% design plans were submitted in August 2017. Plans were re-submitted in

May 2018 and construction is now estimated for late-Fall 2018 and completed in the Spring of 2019.

• Kietzke Lane from Mill Street to Galetti Road

Southern Nevada FY 2017 Projects:

• Lake Mead Boulevard from Civic Center to Pecos Road in North Las Vegas – due to scope creep

and increased costs, this project scope is being re-evaluated, and alternate design options are

currently being reviewed by NDOT and the City of North Las Vegas. Project Cancelled and 2 of

the pedestrian crossings will be included in 2019 projects*.

Boulder Highway at the following 8 locations. These projects are anticipated to include new crosswalks,

activated rapid rectangular flashing beacons at the crosswalks, enhanced street lighting, pedestrian

refuge medians and ADA compliant pedestrian ramps. Additionally, many of the project locations include

access management countermeasures which restrict left turning movements off side streets and

increases pedestrian safety. This project was awarded May 2018 and construction estimated for Fall

2018.

1. VA Clinic – Midblock of College Drive / Horizon Drive in Henderson, NV 2. Foster Ave in Henderson, Nevada 3. Corn Street in Henderson, Nevada 4. Lowery Street in Henderson, Nevada 5. Near Hamilton Ave in Clark County, Nevada 6. Whitney Ave in Clark County, Nevada 7. 4350 Boulder Hwy in Clark County, Nevada 8. Oakey Blvd in Clark County, Nevada



Design is being completed for Pedestrian Safety improvements at the following locations: Northern Nevada:

• Steward Street near NDOT and Little Lane; Carson City (with Federal HSIP funds) – Project advertise in August 2018. Construction estimated for late fall of 2018.

Southern Nevada:

• SR 160 @ Postal Drive; Pahrump – 100% Plans complete, 3-Quote Process award estimated Fall 2018

• Rainbow @ Edna Ave and Rainbow @ Tara Ave; Clark County - 100% Plans complete, 3-Quote Process award estimated Fall 2018

• Cheyenne Ave @ Mary Dee; Clark County - 100% Plans complete, 3-Quote Process award estimated Fall 2018

• Jones Blvd @Eugene Ave, @Carmen Blvd, @Carl; City of Las Vegas – will be combined with NDOT 3R project

• Nellis Blvd @ Sun Valley Dr, @ Mohave Ave, @ Wyoming Ave, @New World, Desert Hills Baptist Church/Walmart Bus Stop; Clark County - will be combined with NDOT 3R project

• Rancho @ Coran Lane, Nellis @ Cedar, Sahara @ Redwood, Charleston @ Mohawk; City of Las Vegas – scheduled to go to contracts in September 2018 with City of Las Vegas, and construction early 2019

2017-18 Safety Management Plans: A Safety Management Plan (SMP) is a transportation analysis effort that focuses on traffic safety for all road users incorporating corridor studies, access management, public and stakeholder input, crash analysis, roadway engineering to reduce roadway crashes. The following SMP’s were completed in February 2018.

Northern Nevada:

• Corridor Safety Improvements Study on McCarran (Greg to Probasco Way) – completed March 2018

Southern Nevada:

• Corridor Safety Improvements along Rancho (US95 to Cheyenne) – completed December 2017

• Corridor Safety Improvements along Lamb (Sahara to Lake Mead Blvd) – completed March 2018 2018-19 Safety Management Plans: The following SMP’s were started in the Summer of 2018: Northern Nevada:

• Corridor Safety Improvements Study along McCarran Blvd (Sutro - N. Virginia)

Southern Nevada:

• Corridor Safety Improvements along Sahara (Rainbow – I-15)

• Corridor Safety Improvements along Jones (Carey - Rancho) & Cheyenne (Torrey Pines - Decatur)



The following Pedestrian Safety improvements projects were started in the Summer of 2018. Northern Nevada:

• Various locations in Winnemucca

• McCarran (between Greg -Probasco) as recommended in the SMP- Southern Nevada:

• Lake Mead Boulevard near Bassler and Brand Streets *

• Las Vegas Blvd @ Shelborne Ave

• Las Vegas Blvd @ Webster St./McCarran Street

• Charleston @ Shetland Road

• Craig Rd @ Lamont Street

• Craig Road @ Puebla

• Nellis @ Kell Lane


MEMORANDUM

August 29, 2018 TO: Department of Transportation Board of Directors

FROM: Director Rudy Malfabon


Item #11D: Update on NDOT’s Stormwater Division and Program – Informational item

only

____________________________________________________________________________

Summary: Deputy Director David Gaskin will provide an update on the NDOT Stormwater Division and Program. Background: In May 2012, the US EPA presented an audit report which identified potential deficiencies in NDOT’s compliance with the Clean Water Act. Since then, NDOT has worked with the US EPA, the Nevada Governor’s Office, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and others to improve stormwater management programs and practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation and protect water resources throughout the state. Analysis: During the 2015 Legislative session, NDOT requested a budget amendment to its 2016-2017 biennial budget for additional staff and equipment for a new Stormwater Division and additional maintenance crews. NDOT’s public outreach program has provided information through websites, social media, brochures and community events as well as increased internal communications. A presentation will be provided to the Transportation Board on the following elements of NDOT’s Stormwater Program:

• Recent quarterly meeting with the US EPA

• Meetings and presentations information

• Stormwater program update

Recommendation for Board Action: Informational item only. Prepared by: Deputy Director David Gaskin


Phone: (775) 888-7440 Fax: (775) 888-7201

Item #11 Attachment D

Contract Period Contract and Amendment Date

Nossaman, LLP Project Neon 3/11/13 - 12/31/20 3/11/13 1,400,000.00$

Legal and Financial Planning Amendment #1 1/14/14 2,000,000.00$

Amendment #2 12/15/15 300,000.00$

NDOT Agmt No. P014-13-015 3,700,000.00$ $ 145,013.74

Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. NDOT vs. Wykoff

8th JD - A-12-656578-C

Warms Springs Project - Las Vegas

2/27/13 - 1/31/19 2/27/13 $275,000.00

NDOT Agmt No. P071-13-004 Amendment #1 1/23/15 Extension of Time

Amendment #2 5/13/15 $ 150,000.00

Amendment #3 6/24/16 $ 65,000.00

Amendment #4 1/19/17 Extension of Time

Amendment #5 10/6/17 $ 50,000.00 $ 540,000.00 $ 20,270.21

Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. NDOT vs. I-15 & Cactus

Cactus Project - Las Vegas

8th JD - A-12-664403-C

2/27/13 - 2/28/19 2/27/13 $ 200,000.00

NDOT Agmt No. P074-13-004 Amendment #1 2/17/15 Extension of Time

Amendment #2 10/6/17 $ 95,000.00 $ 295,000.00 $ 30,048.67

Kemp, Jones, Coulthard Nassiri vs. NDOT

8th JD A672841

7/17/13 - 2/28/19 7/17/13 280,000.00$

NDOT Agmt No. P290-13-004 Amendment #1 2/12/15 475,000.00$

Amendment #2 8/12/15 375,000.00$

Amendment #3 1/17/17 100,000.00$ 1,230,000.00$ $ 341.69

Contracts Closed Or Expired Since Last Report:

Contract Period Contract and Amendment Date

Sylvester & Polednak First Presbyterian Church 7/17/14 - 7/31/18 7/17/14 $ 280,000.00

Project Neon Amendment #1 6/29/16 Extension of Time

NDOT Agmt No. P327-14-004 Contract Expired 280,000.00$ $ 206,697.55

Contract Authority

Remaining

Vendor Case/Project NameContract and Amendment

Amount

Total Contract

Authority

Contract Authority

Remaining

OPEN NDOT - OUTSIDE COUNSEL CONTRACTS AS OF AUGUST 20, 2018

Case/Project NameContract and Amendment

Amount

Total Contract

Authority

Page 1 of 1

Item #11 Attachment E

Monthly Litigation Report to the Nevada Department of Transportation - August 20, 2018

Fees Costs TotalCondemnations

NDOT vs. 1916 Highland Properties, Ltd. Eminent domain - Project Neon

NDOT vs. Ad America, Inc. (Neon-Silver Ave.) Eminent domain - Project Neon

NDOT vs. Danisi, Vincent, J. III

Eminent domain - Project Neon

Administrative Action for Relocation Benefits

NDOT vs. ERGS, Inc. Eminent domain - US 50

NDOT vs. Jackson, Darrell, et al. Eminent domain - Project Neon

NDOT vs. Nashlund, Brett A., et al. Eminent domain - US 50

NDOT vs. Perry, Justin, et al. Eminent domain - US 50

* NDOT vs. Sharples, John; Sharples, Bonnie Eminent domain - Project Neon - Appealed 76,734.00$ 17,905.04$ 94,639.04$

NDOT vs. Traxler, John R., et al. Eminent domain - US 50

NDOT vs. Wykoff Newberg Corporation Eminent domain - I-15 and Warm Springs 456,150.64$ 63,579.15$ 519,729.79$

532,884.64$ 81,484.19$ 614,368.83$

Inverse Condemnations

First Presbyterian Church of Las Vegas vs. NDOT Inverse condemnation

FLP Holdings, LLC Inverse condemnation

Nassiri, Fred vs. NDOT Inverse condemnation 1,055,721.84$ 171,237.77$ 1,226,959.61$

Village Springs, LLC Inverse condemnation

1,055,721.84$ 171,237.77$ 1,226,959.61$

Cases Closed and Removed from Last Report:

None

New case appear in red.

* These totals show the combined funds expended in closed Agreement P434-14-004 and closed Agreement P718-16-004.

Case Name

J

u

r

Nature of CaseOutside Counsel to Date

Page 1

Item #11 Attachment F

Monthly Litigation Report to the Nevada Department of Transportation - August 20, 2018

Fees Costs Total

Torts -$ -$ -$

Cannon, Candy vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Corbin, Kaleb vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Ducoing, Holly Ann vs. NDOT; et al Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Hendrickson, Cynthia vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Hitzemann, Darrell, et al. vs. Las Vegas Paving; NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Liu, Hui vs. Clark County and NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and wrongful death

NDOT vs. Tamietti NDOT seeks injunct. relief to prevent closing access

Simpson, David W., et al vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges wrongful death

Sloane, Miguel vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges negligence and personal injury

Vezina, Macy vs. Fedex Freight et al.; NDOT, et al. Defendant third-party complaint alleging negligence

Viola, Estate of Anthony Michael vs. Clark County, NDOT Plaintiff alleges wrongful death and negligence

Winecup Gamble, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges negligence; seeks declaratory judgment,

contribution, and indemnity

Contract Disputes

Road and Highway Builders vs. NDOT Plaintiff alleges Contract #3699 awarded in error

Miscellaneous

Hawhee, William L. and Hawhee, Dianne P. vs. NDOT Complaint for Quiet Title

Laborer' International Union vs. Labor Commissioner, NDO Petition for Judicial Review

Personnel Matters

Akinola, Ayodele vs. State, NDOT Personnel Matter

Bonnet, Bobby vs. State, NDOT Personnel Matter

Cosio, Christine vs. NDOT Personnel Matter

Crawford, Kendrick, vs. State, NDOT Personnel Matter

Smith, Monika vs. State, NDOT Personnel Matter

None

New case appears in red.

Case Name

J

u

r

Nature of Case

Outside Counsel

to Date

Cases Closed and Removed from Last Report:

Page 2


Category Fees Costs Total

Condemnation Litigation 532,884.64$ 81,484.19$ 614,368.83$

Inverse Condemnation Litigation 1,055,721.84$ 171,237.77$ 1,226,959.61$

Construction Litigation 0 0 0

Personnel Litigation 0 0 0

Tort Claim Litigation 0 0 0

1,588,606.48$ 252,721.96$ 1,841,328.44$

Outside Counsel

Fees and Costs of Open Cases

as of August 20, 2018

Page 3


TO: PUBLIC SAFETY, DIRECTOR NDOT, HIGHWAY SAFETY COORDINATOR, NDOT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, FHWA, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

FROM: THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, STATE FATAL DATA PREPARED BY: MARIA MADERA, FATAL ANALYST

SUBJECT: FATALITIES BY COUNTY, PERSON TYPE, DAY, MONTH, YEAR AND PERCENT CHANGE.

Month

2017

Crashes

2018

Crashes

%

Change Month

2017

Fatals

2018

Fatals

%

Change

JAN 31 21 -32.26% JAN 32 23 -28.13%FEB 21 26 23.81% FEB 24 30 25.00%MAR 22 25 13.64% MAR 24 26 8.33%APR 24 16 -33.33% APR 24 17 -29.17%MAY 23 25 8.70% MAY 23 31 34.78%JUN 24 27 12.50% JUN 26 32 23.08%JUL 26 25 -3.85% JUL 27 27 0.00%AUG 0.00% AUG 0.00%SEP 0.00% SEP 0.00%OCT 0.00% OCT 0.00%NOV 0.00% NOV 0.00%DEC 0.00% DEC 0.00%TOTAL 171 165 -3.51% TOTAL 180 186 3.33%

CARSON 1 1 0.00% 1 1 0.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00%CHURCHILL 3 2 -33.33% 3 2 -33.33% 2 2 0.00% 1 1 0.00%CLARK 122 117 -4.10% 127 128 0.79% 57 69 21.05% 28 30 7.14%DOUGLAS 6 1 -83.33% 7 1 -85.71% 6 0 -100.00% 4 0 -100.00%ELKO 5 2 -60.00% 5 2 -60.00% 3 2 -33.33% 2 2 0.00%ESMERALDA 2 3 50.00% 3 3 0.00% 3 1 -66.67% 0 0 0.00%EUREKA 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%HUMBOLDT 2 3 50.00% 2 3 50.00% 2 1 -50.00% 1 1 0.00%LANDER 1 1 0.00% 1 1 0.00% 1 0 -100.00% 1 1 0.00%LINCOLN 0 3 300.00% 0 3 300.00% 0 3 300.00% 0 1 100.00%LYON 4 6 50.00% 4 8 100.00% 4 6 50.00% 2 0 -100.00%MINERAL 1 0 -100.00% 1 0 -100.00% 1 1 0.00% 0 0 0.00%NYE 3 3 0.00% 4 7 75.00% 3 7 133.33% 3 1 -66.67%PERSHING 0 3 300.00% 0 3 300.00% 0 2 200.00% 0 2 200.00%STOREY 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%WASHOE 19 19 0.00% 20 23 15.00% 13 13 0.00% 4 2 -50.00%WHITE PINE 2 1 -50.00% 2 1 -50.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00%

TOTAL 171 165 -3.51% 180 186 3.33% 95 109 14.74% 46 41 -10.87%

CARSON 0 0 0.00% 1 0 -100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%CHURCHILL 1 0 -100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%CLARK 41 35 -14.63% 24 19 -20.83% 4 3 -25.00% 1 3 200.00%DOUGLAS 1 0 -100.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%ELKO 0 0 0.00% 1 0 -100.00% 0 0 0.00% 1 0 -100.00%ESMERALDA 0 0 0.00% 0 2 200.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%EUREKA 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%HUMBOLDT 0 1 100.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%LANDER 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%LINCOLN 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%LYON 0 0 0.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%MINERAL 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%NYE 1 0 -100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%PERSHING 0 0 0.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%STOREY 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%WASHOE 5 4 -20.00% 2 4 100.00% 0 1 100.00% 0 1 100.00%WHITE PINE 1 0 -100.00% 1 0 -100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%

TOTAL 50 40 -20.00% 29 29 0.00% 4 4 0.00% 2 4 100.00%

2018 DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDE FINAL REPORTS (FORM 5, CORONER, AND/OR TOXICOLOGY).

2017 DATA IS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE END OF DECEMBER 2018.

%

Change

DATE OF REPORT: 08/07/2018

DATA AS OF: 07/31/2018

2017

Unrestraine

d

2018

Unrestraine

d

KNOWN COMPARISON OF FATALITIES BY PERSON TYPE BETWEEN 2017 AND 2018.

2017

Occupants

2018

Occupants % Change

KNOWN FATAL COMPARISON BETWEEN 2017 AND 2018.

COUNTY

2017

Fatalities

2018

Fatalities

%

Change

2018

Motorcyclist % Change

2017

Bicyclist

2018

Bicyclist

2017

Pedestrian

2018

PedestrianCOUNTY

%

Change

2017

Motorcyclist

2017

Crashes

2018

Crashes

%

Change

%

Change% Change

2017

Other Scooter,

Moped, ATV

2018

Other Scooter, Moped,

ATV

THIS DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE DATA FIELDS MARKED BY THE OFFICER AS UNKNOWN.

Item #11 Attachment G

Board of Directors Third Floor Conference Room Carson City ...

Documents

Transcript of Board of Directors Third Floor Conference Room Carson City ...