Table of Contents

Section 1 ............ Introduction and Qualifications

Section 2 ............ Project Team

Section 3 ............ Approach and Method

Section 4 ............ Understanding

Section 5 ............ Assumptions

Section 6 ............ References

Section 7 ............ Schedule

Section 8 ............ Fee Proposal

Appendix..............Required Forms

1-1

Section 1—Introduction and QualificationsSince 1968, the C&S Companies have earned a solid reputation for quality engi-neering and construction services. Clients across the country trust C&S to deliver successful projects time and time again. Our diverse group of professionals specializ-es in meeting multi-disciplined challenges, working together to seamlessly complete both routine and complex projects. Our family of companies works together toward the common goal of building, protecting, enhancing, and maintaining your assets.

Resources

Our staff of nearly 500 professionals has the expertise to handle almost any engineering challenge. The engineers, architects, geologists, scientists, planners, designers, construction special-ists, and other experts at C&S talk to one another, making sure that your needs and concerns are always at the forefront. They are supported by a full administrative staff, state-of-the-art field equipment, and the latest in computer hardware and software.

C&S focuses on unifying our diverse services. Our experts sup-port one another by collaborating on projects, combining their knowledge to reach a more well-rounded solution. This inter-

nal partnership means that we are as proficient at handling complex, multimillion-dollar projects that require myriad services as we are at small projects involving only one specialty. Project management and production groups coordinate projects from inception through construction, enabling the firm to provide a continuity of service that our clients rely on.

Services

We provide a wide variety of services to municipalities, industry, developers, state and federal governments, and the military. Our 10 full-time offices and numer-ous project offices support projects throughout the United States, from Maine to Florida, and California to Alaska. Our services include engineering, planning, and construction management services in a number of sectors:

• Geotechnical/geological

• Bridgesandhighways

• Municipalinfrastructure

• Landdevelopment

• Environmental

• Facilities

• Energy

1-2

• Hubandgeneralaviationairports

• Landscapearchitecture

• Technologysolutions

• GIS/informationmanagement

• Soundattenuation

• Constructionmanagement

• Generalandspecialtycontracting

• Valueengineering

Client Focus

Our consulting practice is client-oriented. This enhances our ability to understand the relationship of any given project to the overall goals and objectives of the client organization.Itistheprimarygoalofourtechnicalstafftodeliverthebestprod-uct possible and provide the highest level of service. Our comprehensive range of services is somewhat unique in the industry and has proven invaluable to our clients.

Local Roads Experience

The C&S team brings extensive experience from the public sector including many combined years of town highway and public works supervisory, design and road construction experience. Our team is uniquely qualified to manage this particular study as a result of first-hand experience with developing a highway impactsstudyandreportfortheSullivanCountyMulti-MunicipalGasDrillingTaskForce.Thereportincludedacharacterizationofspecificroads,evaluationof data collected, creation of a proposed Road Use Agreement (RUA) and imple-mentation procedures. The C&S team offers the overall experience described in the following paragraphs.

Pavement Management and Design Experience

C&S’s highway design staff have completed roadway designs for every level of public service from local town roads (paved and gravel) municipal streets and countyroads,tointerstateandstatehighways.Designshaveincludedanalysisofexisting conditions, traffic studies of anticipated car and heavy vehicle volumes, selection of typical roadway and pavement sections (width and thickness) for gravel roads and asphalt (AC) and concrete (PCC) paved roads. For AC pave-ments we are equally well versed at conventional and super pave designs. A typi-calanalysisincludesanequivalentsingleaxel(ESAL)loadcalculationtodeter-mine the optimum pavement design, including mix types, number of lifts and lift thicknesses. Sub-grade stabilization requirements are also integral to pavement designs that we have completed.

1-3

Ourengineersutilizethefollowingdesignguidelines/manualsandclient-specifiedstandards and requirements when designing and evaluating roadways:

• AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)GeometricDesignofHighwaysandStreets,2004;

• AASHTOGuidelinesforGeometricDesignofVeryLow-VolumeLocalRoads(ADT≤400),2001;

• AASHTOGuideforDesignofPavementStructures,1993and1998supplement;

• NewYorkStateDepartmentofTransportation(NYSDOT)HighwayDe-signManual,2005withallsubsequentrevisions;and

• NYSDOTComprehensivePavementDesignManual,2000withallsubse-quent revisions.

Projects completed by our team in the past include hundreds of pavement evalua-tions, involving condition surveys, subsurface investigations, falling weight deflecto-meter(FWD-deflectiontesting),designedrehabilitationalternativesandcompletedlife cycle cost analyses for roads and airports. Specific project experience is listed below:

C&S Companies Experience

• FiveMunicipalities,SullivanCounty—100milesoflocalroads.Developeda Road Use Agreement (RUA) for the Sullivan County Multi-Municipal GasDrillingTaskForcewhichincluded:characterizingspecificroadsidenti-fied by town highway superintendents, evaluation of the data to identify replacement/repaircosts,determinationofanticipatedlifeexpectancies,de-velopment of an RUA and procedures for the municipalities to implement the RUA.

• McLeanRd,TompkinsCounty—2.3milesruralmajorcollectorroad.Investigationincludedvisualconditionsurvey,cores/boringsandnon-destructivestrengthtestingutilizingFallingWeightDeflectometer(FWD).Pavementtreatmentsselectedfor3differentroadsegmentsincludedthinmaintenanceoverlay,strengtheningoverlaywithbaserepairand/orrecon-struction.

• ConklinAve,Binghamton—1.2milearterialstreet.Completereconstruc-tion selected.

• JamesvilleRd,OnondagaCounty—1.6milearterialinsuburbanandruralarea.

• Aqueduct-MaxonRd,SchenectadyCounty—2.5milesofruralandsubur-ban road. Selected two pavement treatments for distinct segments of road consisting of strengthening overlay and reconstruction.

1-4

• EastTaftRd,OnondagaCounty—3mileruralmajorcollector.Selecteddesigns consisted of base repair and overlay, and reconstruction including geogrid base reinforcement in areas of weak sub grade.

• OnondagaLakePark,Syracuse—2.5milebike/lightvehiclepatharoundOnondagaLake.Asphaltpavementwithgeogridreinforcedbaseoververysoft sub grade.

• Route7Rehabilitation,Oneonta,NY—Conducteddetailedinvestigationof street pavements consisting of concrete, asphalt and brick, evaluated life cyclecostsof3alternativerehabschemesanddesignedmill,isolatedrepairs,selective reconstruction and overlay of 1.8 miles of city streets. The pave-mentrehabsaved$200,000fromtheinitiallyproposedreconstruction.Totalconstruction—$2.1million

• ReynoldsRoad,JohnsonCity,NY—Evaluatedeffectofconstructiontrucktraffic on pavement life.

• NewYorkThruwayRehabilitationMP347.5toMP351.3—Directeddetailed concrete pavement investigation that identified expansive aggregate asamajorfactorcausingslabheavingandcracking.Prepared4alternativerehabilitation designs and recommended rubblizing and rigid overlay.

• NYSDOTRehabilitationofRoute635(ThompsonRoad),Syracuse—formulated pavement investigation, evaluated and designed rehabilitation techniques consisting of mill and overlay, rubblizing and overlay and recon-struction.

• NewYorkThruwayRehabilitationMP296-314—Pavementinvestigation,identified Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) damaged concrete, evaluated alterna-tive rehabilitation treatments and designed rubblizing and asphalt overlay.

C&S Companies Experience in Otsego County

Previous projects C&S Companies has worked on many projects with the Otsego CountyDepartmentofHighway,ForestryandParksdepartments.Projectsincludea bridge replacement which involved roadway design and pavement considerations for the new approaches. Summaries of each project are listed below:

• ReplacementofCountyRoad18overWhartonCreek,TownofPittsfield,NY—EmergencydesignservicesforFEMA/SEMAfundedbridgereplace-mentduetobridgefailurefromflooding–JuneandOctober,2006.Thenew replacement bridge is 100’ of pre-stressed concrete box beams utiliz-ing internal abutments and maintaining the same highway alignment, road profile and highway width as the present bridge.

• CountyRoad19overWhartonCreek,TownofBurlington,NY—Re-placement of a 15m long (50’) multi-girder jack arch bridge and existing substructureswitha20mlong(65’)prestressedconcreteboxsuperstructure.The existing bridge was located in the center of a reserve curve and crossed

1-5

Wharton Creek at approximately a 90degree angle. The new bridge was shifted slightly to the south to improve the roadway geometry. Roadway approachworkwas520mlong(1700’)andrequiredtheacquisitionofaRight-of way on the south side of CR19 in order to improve the roadway alignment.

• CountyRoad34overElkCreek,TownofMaryland,NY—Replacementofa24mlong(78’)throughgirderbridgeandexistingsubstructureslocatedat a hairpin 90-degree bend in the road to cross the creek (curve posted for 10mph).Thenewbridgeis30mlong(100’)andisahorizontallycurvedmultigirderstructurelocatedona195m(640’)radiuscurvepostedfor35mph.Thenewbridgewasconstructeddownstreamfromexistingbridgeandinvolvedacquisitionofa0.8-ha(2acres).Roadworkincludedcon-struction of new highway embankment at each new bridge approach for ap-proximately0.2km(650’).Thisprojectwasa204ExcellenceSilverAwardwinnerfromtheAmericanCouncilofEngineeringCompaniesofNewYork.

• CountyRoad35APortlandvilleBridgeoverSusquehannaRiver,Milford,NY—Replacementofaone-span,steelponytrussbridgewithanew45m(148’)longweatheringsteelponytruss.Multi-agencyapprovalwasre-quired for replacement of this aging bridge as it was a historic landmark of thecommunity.Agenciesinvolvedincluded,USDOI,USNPS,USACOE,FHWA,NYSDEC,NYSDOT,&NYSPR&HP.

• CountyRoad56overSchenevusCreek,TownofMaryland,NY—Replace-mentofaone-lane22mlong(72’)structurewithadjacentprestressedcon-crete box beams supported by new steel sheetpile abutments and wingwalls. Reconfiguration of the intersection of County Route 56 and Chaseville Road to a 90-degree intersection was also included. The bridge is located in the floodplain and the floodplain cannot be raised, therefore the CR56 vertical profile was not raised.

Geotechnical Experience

C&S’s geotechnical engineering staff have performed hundreds of subsurface inves-tigations and geotechnical reports and designs for a wide variety of infrastructure projectsincluding;stateandfederalhighways,county,town,andmunicipalroads(pavedandgravel),bridges,buildings,dams,multi-storyplants/buildings,waste-watertreatmentplants,airports,railroads,andports.Inaddition,C&Sstaffhaveconducted forensic studies of geotechnical related failures with roads and structures and designed remedial measures. Our experts stay current on technological develop-ments and implemented them on many projects, including chemical and jet grout-ing to improve soils, underpinning with mini-piles, soil nailing, light weight fill, and geo-reinforcement for retaining structures and pavement sub grades.

1-6

A foundational aspect of the C&S approach to geotechnical services is its complete integration into a full service professional engineering and design firm. Our geo-technical staff are not only experts in soil science with a thorough technical under-standing of the sub-grade materials beneath your pavements, but they are also fully integrated into the complete data analysis, road design, and pavement management processes. All applicable aspects will be considered and involved in the full assess-mentofandstudyoftheimpactstoyourcountyand/orlocalroadsbytheantici-pated heavy vehicular traffic loads that will be using them as a result of high-impact development in the area such as wind turbine farm construction, natural gas explo-ration/production,orotherareasofdevelopmentimposinghighloadingsonthesearea roadways.

2-1

Section 2—Project TeamC&S has assembled a team of in-house and external expertise to deliver this proj-ect to Otsego County and other entities within the county. Our team includes Atlantic Testing Laboratory, Inc. (ATL), and SJB Services, Inc. (SJB). C&S will serve as the prime consultant and single point of contact.

C&S will lead the study and perform and coordinate the field work with the sub consul-tants. The data generated from the field work will be analyzed by C&S in preparing the Existing Conditions Baseline Survey Report. C&S will also prepare a Trends Analysis and Study Report that will contain a Road Use Agreement and procedures for implementing the agreement. In addition to the field work and report, C&S will attend all meetings that the County deems necessary.

C&S brings a strong and diversified team composed of professionals with broad back-grounds in both public and private sectors and a mix of the skills necessary to meet the demands of the study. Specific technical areas of expertise required for this project include asphalt and roadway materials science, highway design and construction, geotechnical engineering, pavement management data collection and evaluation, and local rural roads construction and maintenance practices, as well as an understanding of public policy related to road maintenance and operation of public roadways at the local and municipal levels.

Organizational Chart

The organizational chart below illustrates the makeup of our team Information about each staff member appears on the following pages, with detailed resumes provided at the end of this section.

Craig Bruening, P.E.Project Manager

James Morrisey, P.E.Principal in Charge

SJB ServicesPavement Core and Subgrade Sampling

Bill Mobbs, P.E.Local Roads Representative

Quality Control

Atlantic Testing LaboratoriesVideo Logging

2-2

James Morrissey, P.E., Transportation Service Group Manager; Jim’s 36 years of experience has been focused primarily on transportation projects. He has designed, inspected and managed multiple projects for towns, villages, counties, cities, and NYSDOT under the federal-aid program. He is currently the manager of the Trans-portation Group of over 30 staff consisting of design and traffic engineers, planners, geotechnical engineers, and construction inspection staff. Mr. Morrissey’s career in transportation began in construction inspection on rehabilitation projects for NYS including Routes 5, 5a & 28 in Region 2, I-87 Region I, and Route 812 in Region 7. After several years of construction experience culminating as a resident engineer, Jim then focused on transportation design, hydrology and stormwater manage-ment. Jim has a broad mix of projects on urban City street reconstruction, County highways, and State highways including interchange projects. His field experience, combined with his overall dedication to the transportation design phases I-VI, provides the basis for an excellent project manager. He has performed all aspects of highway design including development of plan & profile, drainage design, HCS traffic analysis, all phases of utility coordination and relocation design, design report preparation, wetland mitigation and design, public meeting presentation, right-of-way acquisition process including negotiation with property owners, traffic control and staging. Jim is a member of the New York State Association of Transportation Engineers and the American Society of Highway Engineers.

Craig Bruening, P.E., Geotechnical Engineer; Craig joined C&S in 2009 and has over 20 years of engineering experience that includes geotechnical, environmental, and general civil engineering. For approximately 12 years Craig has been involved with geotechnical engineering projects that have included preparing and supervising subsurface investigations and developing laboratory testing programs for soil, rock and/or groundwater. Craig has also been the design engineer on various civil engi-neering projects where geotechnical engineering has been involved. These projects include state and federal highways, county, town, and municipal roads (paved and gravel), bridges, buildings, dams, multi-story plants/buildings, wastewater treatment plants, airports, railroads, and ports. Part of providing design services is determining geotechnical characteristic (e.g., bearing capacity, settlement, slope stability, etc.) for the in-situ soil conditions and writing technical reports that contain geotechnical design recommendations for other engineers and/or architects.

William Mobbs, PE, Local Roads Representative; Quality Control; Mr. Mobbs’ 45 year engineering career has included 20 years as commissioner of Public Works for Tompkins County and 8 years as the senior civil engineer. Early in his career, he was employed in the contracting business building roads and participated in the construction of a hydroelectric project in West Africa. He has served as a workshop instructor since 1990 for the Cornell Local Roads Program teaching workshops for highway department management and highway crew management in their technol-ogy transfer efforts in New York and in several other states. He has served as a guest lecturer for graduate classes in civil engineering at Cornell University.

James F. Morrissey, P.E. Transportation Service Group Manager Jim’s 36 years of experience has been focused primarily on transportation projects. He has designed, inspected and managed multiple projects for towns, villages, counties, cities, and NYSDOT under the federal-aid program. He is currently the manager of the Transportation Group of over 30 staff consisting of design and traffic engineers, planners, geotechnical engineers, and construction inspection staff. Education

A.A.S., Civil Technology, Mohawk Valley Community College, 1974

Registration and Certifications

Professional Engineer, New York

NICET IV

M&PT FHWA

Professional Organizations

New York State Association of Transportation Engineers

American Society of High-way Engineers

Experience Highway Design

Reconstruction of E. Genesee Street (US 20) PINs 3076.07 & 3753.45, City of Auburn, Auburn, NY, 2006—Project manager responsible for the design locally ad-ministered federal aid phases I-VI. 1.1 miles of historically significant street on the NHS, included new storm sewers, sanitary sewer evaluation & repairs, 12-inch water main evaluation and upgrades, and replacement traffic signals. Project cost: $6.2 million

NYS Route 42 Rehabilitation (US 20), PIN 9013.24, Town of Thompson, Sulli-van County, NY, 2006—Project manager design Phases I-VI of 0.8 miles of urban minor arterial, widened from 2 to 4 lanes with additional turning lanes, replacement traffic signals, box culvert extension and GRESS walls, portions of project were feder-ally funded. Project cost: $5.2 million

Exit 105 at NYS Route 42 Rehabilitation PIN 9013.30, Towns of Thompson & Monticello, Sullivan County, NY, ongoing—Project manager design Phases I-VI of of urban minor arterial, widened from 2 to 4 lanes with additional turning lanes, removal of 2of 4 loop ramps, conversion of NYS Route 17 to I-86 standards, rounda-bout evaluations, new traffic signal design. Portions of project were federally funded. Est. project cost: $11 million River Road Rehabilitation (CR1) PIN 8755.22, Village of Grand-View on Hud-son, Rockland County, NY, ongoing—Project manager for design of locally admi-nistered federal aid phases I-VI of 1.6 miles design of urban collector along west bank of Hudson River. Project includes road reconstruction, consolidating storm outlet loca-tions, new curbing and drainage, new walks and guide railing, ROW acquisitions, slope stabilization, and permitting fill in the Hudson River. Est. project cost: $8 million Bridge Rehabilitations on I-81 and I-690, NYSDOT, Syracuse, NY, 2006—Led the team that developed more than 300 site-specific maintenance and protection of traffic plans for rehabilitation of 53 bridges on Interstate 81 and Interstate 690 in downtown Syracuse. Project cost: $27 million Rehabilitation of Chapman Road (CR 24) PIN 2753.76, Oneida County, NY, 2005—Project manager responsible for the design for locally administered federal aid phases I-VI. 1.2 miles of rehabilitation included replacing deep ditches with storm sew-ers and widening shoulders, curbing and sidewalk full length, adding turning lanes to school entrance, ROW acquisitions. Project cost: $2.1 million

Buckley Road & Henry Clay Intersection Improvements PIN 3752.69, Ononda-ga County, NY, 2002—Project manager responsible for the design reconstruction of locally administered federal aid phases I-VI. Project included widening from 2 to 5 lanes, adding turning lanes including dual lefts, traffic signal replacement, ROW acqui-sition. Project was combined with PIN 3752.86 for a total construction cost of $4.2 million

Wetzel & Henry Clay Intersection Improvements PIN 3752.86, Onondaga County, NY, 2002—Project manager responsible for the design reconstruction of lo-

cally administered federal aid phases I-VI. Project included adding exclusive left turning lanes, traffic & pedestrian signal upgrades. Project was combined with PIN 3752.69 for a total construction cost of $4.2 million. Rehabilitation of Jamesville Road (CR7) PIN 375459, Onondaga County, NY, 2009—Project manager responsible for the 1.57 miles urban minor arterial 2R design rehabilitation of locally admi-nistered federal aid phases I-VI. Project includes upgrading signage to NMUTCD, ADA upgrades. Project cost: $1.35 million

Reconstruction of Genesee Street PIN 307608 City of Auburn, NY, 2002—Project manager re-sponsible for the design reconstruction of 1.2 miles of urban street. Project included new storm sew-ers, business district parking improvements, staged box culvert replacement, locally administered fed-eral aid phases I-VI. Project cost: $5 million

Reconstruction of NYS Route 5S, Amsterdam, NY, 1998—Consultant project manager responsi-ble for the reconstruction of NYS Route 5S of Amsterdam in Region 2, project involves rubbilizing and drainage improvements. Project cost: $6.5 million

Reconstruction of South Street (NYS 34 & 38) PIN 3314.31, City of Auburn, NY, 1999—Project manager responsible for the design reconstruction for locally administered federal aid phases I-VI. Project included 1.0 miles of urban arterial city street widening in a historic district, 12” water main evaluation and upgrades sandstone curbing, slate walks, ornamental lighting, 3 traffic signal replace-ments, tree replacements. Project cost: $2.3 million

Rehabilitation of County Route 7, OCDOT, Town of DeWitt, DeWitt, NY, 1998— Project Manager responsible for the design of rehabilitation for Jamesville Road (CR 7) in the Town of De-Witt for the Onondaga County Department of Transportation. Project cost: $2.5 million

Reconstruction and Widening of Old Route 57 and Route 31, Onondaga County, NY, 1997— Final design of reconstruction and widening of Old Route 57 and Route 31, Onondaga County. QA/QC M&PT plans for widening two-lane highways to five lanes. Project cost: $8.7 million

Reconstruction and Widening of Route 635, Syracuse, NY, 1997—Final design of rehabilitation and widening of Route 635, a principal arterial. Developed 40 multi-stage on-site M&PT plans includ-ing an off-site detour for pavement reconstruction and bridge deck replacement. Project cost: $7.1 million

Pavement Design and Evaluation for Maxon and Aqueduct Roads, Schenectady, NY, 1997— Pavement evaluation report and pavement design in accordance with NYSDOT procedures for the reconstruction of Maxon and Aqueduct Roads. Project cost: $4.2 million

Design of NYS Route 298 Bridge over I-81, Syracuse, NY, 1994—Developed M&PT plans for the closure travel lanes on I-81 to facilitate bridge inspection, and developed the construction phasing and related M&PT plans for the rehabilitation. Project cost: $900,000

Reconstruction of Old Route 57 Phase III, OCDOT, Onondaga County, NY, 1992—Project manager responsible for the design of reconstruction of Old Route 57 Phase III (CR91) for the Onondaga County Department of Transportation. Project cost: $400,000

Franklin Square Improvements, Hiawatha Boulevard Bridge Replacement, Roadway Recon-struction, City of Syracuse, Syracuse, NY, 1991—Design and contract administration of the $5 million Franklin Square infrastructure improvements and design of the $11 million Hiawatha Boule-vard Bridge replacement and roadway reconstruction for the Oil City redevelopment in the City of Syracuse. Developed construction staging and traffic plans for a five-lane section. Project cost: $20 million

Intersection Reconstruction, City of Syracuse, Syracuse, NY, 1990—Design of intersection re-construction and realignment of the Grand Avenue, Avery Avenue and Velasko Road intersection in

the City of Syracuse. Resident Engineer for this project, responsible for construction administration M&PT plans including an off-site detour. Project cost: $1 million

Shopping Mall Design, Buffalo, NY, 1989—Design of Walden/Galleria shopping mall entrance roadways near Buffalo, NY. Project cost: $2.7 million

NYS Thruway Reconstruction, New York State Thruway Authority, Syracuse, NY, 1988— Design of New York State Thruway Authority highway reconstruction project between MP 268 and 284, Syracuse Division. Project cost: $9 million

NYS Thruway Bridge Rehabilitation, New York State Thruway Authority, Tonawanda, NY, 1987—Design of New York State Thruway Authority rehabilitation of the southbound South Grand Island Bridge. Project cost: $12 million

Stewart Airport Industrial Park Improvements, NYSDOT, 1987—Resident engineer on infra-structure improvements at Stewart Airport Industrial Park for NYSDOT in Region 8. Project cost: $2.5 million

Road Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement, City of Syracuse, Syracuse, NY, 1985—Design and construction inspection of the reconstruction of East Brighton Avenue including the bridge re-placements of Conrail over East Brighton Avenue and East Brighton Avenue over Conrail. Project cost: $6 million

Craig Bruening, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Craig Bruening joined C&S in 2009 and has over 20 years of engineering experience that includes geotechnical, environmental, and general civil engineering. For approx-imately 12 years Craig has been involved with geotechnical engineering projects that have included preparing and supervising subsurface investigations and developing la-boratory testing programs for soil, rock and/or groundwater. Craig has also been the design engineer on various civil engineering projects where geotechnical engineering has been involved. These projects include single story buildings, multi-story buildings, dams, roadways/highways, parking lots, taxi ways, tarmacs, bridges, earth retaining structures, subsurface utilities, and communication towers. Part of providing design services is determining geotechnical characteristic (e.g., bearing capacity, settlement, slope stability, etc.) for the in-situ soil conditions and writing technical reports that con-tain geotechnical design recommendations for other engineers and/or architects.

Education

M.S. Civil Engineering, Newark College of Engineering New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 1995 B.S. Civil Engineering Newark College of Engineering New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ 1989

Registration and Certifications

Professional Engineer, New Jersey

Experience

Columbia County Airport, Hudson, NY, 2010—Developed field investigation for tarmac reconstruction and expansion, inspected borings and prepared boring logs for borings advanced 10 to 15 feet below ground surface. Prepared a laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis, Atterberg limits, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing. Evaluated boring and laboratory testing results and prepared geotech-nical report that included recommendations for the tarmac pavement section and con-struction considerations.

Bridge Foundations, Livingston County, NY, 2010—Developed field investigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Rock Cores using NX core barrel and prepared boring logs for borings advanced 25 feet below ground surface. Rock cores were measured in the field for Rock Quality Designation (RQD), jointing and other rock properties. Conducted mea-surements of bedding planes (e.g., strike and dip) on local rock outcrops to determine rock bedding orientation. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis of the overburden soils. Prepared geotechnical report that included recom-mendations for bridge abutment foundations based on rock/soil slope stability, bearing capacity and potential settlement. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Visitor Center/Administration Building, Shirley, NY & Woodbridge, VA, 2010—Developed field investigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and undisturbed soil samples by direct push (Shelby tubes) and prepared boring logs for borings advanced 25 to 100 feet be-low ground surface. Measured groundwater elevations to determine tidal impact on site and proposed building. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis, Atterberg Limits, and unconfined compression testing. Conducted seismic evaluation based on International Building Code (IBC) or New York State Building Code (NYSBC) requirements and prepared geotechnical reports that included recom-mendations for shallow foundations based on bearing capacity and potential settle-ment, pavement section and passive under-drain systems for the buildings. Hampton Inns Five-Story Hotel, Clay, NY, 2006—Developed field investigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and undisturbed soil samples by Shelby tubes and prepared boring logs for borings advanced 35 to 100 feet below ground surface. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis, Atterberg Limits, unconfined compression testing and consolidation testing. Conducted seismic evaluation based on NYSBC requirements and prepared geotech-

nical report that included recommendations and designs for steel H-pile foundation, pavement and construction inspection during pile installation. Plainville Farms Wastewater Treatment Facility, Plainville, NY, 2007—Developed field investi-gation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and prepared boring logs for borings advanced 25 to 100 feet below ground surface. Conducted groundwater measurements to determine potential flotation of treatment tanks when empty. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis, Atterberg Limits and unconfined compression testing. Prepared geo-technical report that included recommendations and designs for shallow foundations and/or ring foundations for the treatment tanks, treatment equipment, and building foundation based on bearing capacity, potential settlement and potential for flotation. Hershey Medical Center Four-Story Medical Diagnostics Building, Hershey, PA, 1996—Developed field investigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and Rock Cores using NX core barrels and NQ core barrels on a wire line and prepared boring logs for borings advanced at planned caisson locations to depths of 85 to 225 feet below ground surface in Karst topography. Depths varied due to the depth at which 15 feet of hard competent bedrock was encountered with a minimum Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of 70%. Installed three groundwater piezometers (monitoring wells) to check for groundwater depth and groundwater chemistry for po-tential attack on the concrete caissons. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis of the overburden soils, compressive testing of select rock core samples. Prepared geotech-nical report that included recommendations for the caisson foundation with regards to bearing eleva-tion, size of the drilled shaft and size of the belled bottom based on anticipated load and rock charac-teristics. New Jersey State Route 31 Intersection/Jug Handle Alignment, Clinton, NJ—Developed field investigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and prepared bor-ing logs for borings advanced 15 to 35 feet below ground surface. Prepared laboratory testing pro-gram that included grain-size analysis, Atterberg Limits and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Prepared geotechnical report that included recommendations and designs for pavement based on soil and CBR results and an interceptor drain in the side-slope where a 25-foot cut was conducted based on slope stability evaluation. Light House Hill Dam, Earthen Dam Rehabilitation, Altmar, NY—Conducted field evaluation of existing earthen dam to identify deficiencies and concluded dam required additional mass and see-page controls. Prepared mix designs for roller compacted concrete (RCC) prepared laboratory testing program that included compression testing, freeze/thaw testing, and permeability testing. Prepared report that included recommendations and designs for the RCC mix, placement, seepage blanket spe-cification and inspection requirements. Moses Tyler Hospital Five-Story Addition, Scranton, PA, 1998—Conducted subsurface mine study to determine if coal mining had occurred beneath the proposed addition. Developed field inves-tigation, inspected borings that included obtaining soil samples using the SPT and Rock Cores using NX core barrels and prepared boring logs for borings advanced at planned caisson locations to depths of 125 to 195 feet below ground surface in a formerly subsurface mined area. Depths varied due to the depth at which 15 feet of hard competent bedrock was encountered with a minimum Rock Quali-ty Designation (RQD) of 70%. Installed three vapor wells to determine if methane or other mine gas could be a potential hazard. Prepared laboratory testing program that included grain-size analysis of the overburden soils, compressive testing of select rock core samples. Prepared geotechnical report that included recommendations for the caisson foundation with regards to bearing elevation, size of the drilled shaft and size of the belled bottom based on anticipated load and rock characteristics.

WILLIAM J. MOBBS, P.E. PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS EXPERIENCE Mr. Mobbs’ 45 year engineering career has included 20 years as Commis-sioner of Public Works for Tompkins County and 8 years as the senior civil engineer. Early in his career, he was employed in the contracting business building roads and participated in the construction of a hydroelectric project in West Africa. He has served as a workshop instructor since 1990 for the Cornell Local Roads Program teaching workshops for Highway Department Management and Highway Crew Management in their technology transfer efforts in New York and in several other states. He has served as a guest lecturer for graduate classes in civil engineering at Cornell University. A summary of Mr. Mobbs’ relevant experience at Tompkins County is pro-vided below: While serving as senior civil engineer from 1970 to 1978 for the Tompkins County Highway Department, Mr. Mobbs was responsible for day to day highway department operations and budget management for the overall county system of 308 miles of highways and 108 bridges. During his tenure as commissioner of Public Works from 1978 to 1998, Mr. Mobbs, while assuming additional duties, also carried out responsibilities as county superintendent of highways. Notable activities and projects relevant to facility operations include:

. • Supervised the renovation of existing highway department facilities for

expanded office use and upgraded HVAC capabilities. • Implemented the construction of a new 3,000 ton salt storage facility • Developed a preventative maintenance system for the highway equip-

ment fleet. • Operated his office at the highway department facility for 28 years and

became familiar with all aspects of facility operations. • Oversaw the implementation of a gasoline and diesel fuel storage and

dispensing system meeting new environmental regulations and comput-erized fuel record keeping requirements.

• Conducted public meetings related to controversial public works pro-jects.

• Developed in-house capabilities for building pre-cast concrete bridge decks in the highway facility during the winter months.

• Conceived, developed and implemented a plan to facilitate inter-municipal use of highway equipment.

• In 1996 initiated, with NYSDOT Region 3, the concept of “local ad-ministration” of bridge projects as a preferred way of implementing federal aid highway projects for Tompkins County.

• Participated in the design process for a new 55 bus transit facility.

Mr. Mobbs serves as the public works operations advisor to the Facilities group at C&S, in addi-tion to other activities involving county public works projects. His intended role is to add value to county projects assigned to C&S by participating in key phases of project development. Specifically, he will be involved in brainstorm-ing sessions as new projects begin and will review and critique con-ceptual designs to help ensure that the design meets the county’s needs. Also, he will utilize his ex-tensive experience with many sen-sitive projects to help municipali-ties develop and implement appro-priate community participation programs for projects assigned to C&S. EDUCATION B.C.E, 1963, Civil Engineering Cornell University M.C.E., 1964, Civil Engineering Cornell University REGISTRATION Professional Engineer - New York PROFESSIONAL AFFILIA-TIONS American Public Works Associa-tion – Member National Association of County Engineers –Life Member NYS County Highway Superin-tendents Association – Past Presi-dent and Honorary Member

3-1

Section 3—Approach and MethodThe objective of C&S is to integrate the county RFP scope of services into an overall strategy that can be practically and cost effectively implemented to facilitate the re-pair of any damage to county and/or town roads and seek recovery of costs for those repairs from the responsible developer. Those costs could also include a pro-rated amount for this study and full reimbursement for follow-on engineering services to document the damages and calculate repair costs. Accordingly, the following para-graphs will describe the overall strategy that C&S proposes, and then provide an overview of how the requested scope of services and deliverables will be performed within the framework of the proposed strategy. The overall approach described in this proposal is based on the successful road use agreement project conducted for the Sullivan County Gas Drilling Task Force.

The C&S Study Strategy

It is assumed that the high impact development activity will occur over several years. During this period of time road conditions at any given segment may change. Therefore it is necessary to develop a strategy that not only assesses existing condi-tions, but also considers road conditions and damages before and after the actual time the roads are used. The C&S strategy will take this into account by proposing the following:

a. Existing Conditions Baseline Survey

b. Trend Analysis

c. Road Use Agreement

d. Impacts Monitoring

e. Repair Cost Assessment and Recovery

An important part of the overall strategy will be completion of half- day interviews with each of the county/town highway superintendents (C/THS). The interviews will be necessary to obtain information to be used in all of the C&S strategy compo-nents. Each of the components is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Existing Conditions Baseline Survey

To assess damages to the roads by heavy vehicular traffic it is first necessary to survey and classify the capacity of the roads in terms of two key parameters, design life (measured in equivalent 18-ton single axle wheel loads, ESALs), and load capacity, (measured in terms of max. allowable wheel loads, tons). Both parameters are neces-sary because there are two possible impacts of heavy vehicular traffic, long term and immediate. Long-term impacts can be estimated based on the design life ESALs, and consist of premature shortening of design life due to an unplanned increase in average daily traffic (ADT), also measured in ESALs. If the ADT increase is great

3-2

enough the design life may be reduced resulting in higher annualized maintenance and repair costs for the county/town. The second and more likely impact is immedi-ate, whereby heavy vehicular traffic loads may exceed the rated load capacity of a road, resulting in immediate structural failure, and unplanned repair costs which can derail a local highway budget. In summary, it is important to understand that an as-sessment of design life ESALs must be combined with structural load limit ratings to fully document both the long term and immediate potential impacts to county and town roads of construction related vehicular traffic.

To develop a budget for the Baseline Survey, C&S has assumed that approximately 25% of the county and town roads will be visually inspected and categorized. On average this works out to approximately 5 miles of county road for each municipality and approximately 15 miles of town road for each municipality. The road segments to be inspected will be based on input from the C/THS for their particular roadway network. The RPF also indicates that the consultant and county or member munici-pality shall determine the number of pavement core/soil borings to be conducted in each town. One assumption in our development of the budget was to estimate the number of pavement cores/soil borings to be advanced. Our estimate was based on assuming that 100 different road blocks would be identified during Baseline Survey and that one boring will be advanced to a depth of 6-feet below the bottom of the pavement section or approximately four pavement core/soil borings per municipal-ity.

Addendum 1 also indicated that the local bridges are to be included in the Baseline Survey. C&S will contact the New York State Department of Transportation to re-view their bridge inventory for Otsego County. This inventory provides basic infor-mation such as type of bridge, load rating, date of last inspection and BIN number in the event additional information is necessary for review at a later date.

Prior to conducting the work for this phase, C&S will attend a project start up meeting with the county and member municipalities. We will then conduct ½-day interviews with the C/THS prior to inspecting the road segments identified by each C/THS. A report will be prepared that contains a roadway network classification, the field data obtained during the Baseline Survey (e.g., boring logs, road surface inspection logs) and a summary of that data, calculations for pavement life using the AASHTO ESAL method and/or ADT method, and the results of the Road Surface Management System (RSMS) analysis. C&S will then attend a second meeting to present the Existing Conditions Baseline Survey Report.

Trends Analysis

After the Existing Conditions Baseline Survey Report is presented, C&S will prepare a final report that will contain the Baseline Survey Report along with maps depict-ing the locations surveyed, methods used for the survey, and an assessment of the

3-3

existing conditions and structural / load capacity for each type of roadway. The Trends Analysis will also incorporate any supplemental data available from the C/THS to establish a range of possible impacts that could occur to each roadway type and the costs for repair of each those impacts. The repair costs will be generated base on information provided by the C/THS based on prior work conducted within the respective jurisdiction. C&S will also include within the Trends Analysis a road-way database that provides the roadway classification, locations and mileage of each roadway type.

Road Use Agreement

The heart of the C&S strategy will be the development of a Road Use Agreement (RUA) for use by the county or the municipalities, in coordination with the C/THS. The RUA will be generic with sections that can be removed to tailor it to a specific municipality or to the type of roadways used in a particular haul route. The RUA must be negotiated with the developer ultimately requiring them to commit to all costs associated with monitoring their activity and repairing damage caused by their activity. The RUA will specify the conditions under which they will be permitted to use county/municipal roads, which will include but not be limited to such things as; planned haul routes and schedules, notification and operational requirements, test-ing stipulations for impact monitoring, fee requirements for all costs associated with monitoring and documenting roadway impacts, and most importantly payment formulas for damages based on typical road classifications, actual damages, and local construction costs. Final analysis of the field data and its use for development of the road use agreement will require a one-half day interview with each of the town su-pervisors, and possible follow up discussions via telephone. Negotiation and closure of the RUA with the developer is essential to the successful implementation of assess-ing damages and recovering reimbursement. While C&S cannot guarantee successful closure of the agreement with the developer, C&S will if requested, attend meetings with the developer to provide technical assistance and explanation of the RUA. Unit rates discussed later in this document will be used for attendance at those meetings.C&S will also recommend procedures for implementing the RUA in accordance with New York State Administrative Law. Part of this work could include but not be limited to:

• Reviewofexistingmunicipallawsand/orRUAsforconsistency;

• ProvidingdraftresolutionforadoptionoftheRUAbytheCountyorMu-nicipality;

• GeneralReviewofCounty/localadministrativeprocedures;

• TrainCountypersonnelontheprocedures

Upon finalizing the Trends Analysis and RUA, C&S will then attend a third meeting to present the final report that will contain the Existing Conditions Baseline Survey

3-4

Report, Trends Analysis, Road Use Agreement, and procedures to implement the RUA. If attendance is required at meetings other than those described herein, C&S will use the unit rates provided later in this document for reimbursement.

Additional work will also be required to when an RUA is implemented. The work consists of a pre-use evaluation and post-use evaluation. Those activities are pro-vided in the following two sections.

Impacts Monitoring

As discussed, the RUA will specify/require impact monitoring in order to iden-tify and quantify the severity and extent of roadway damages caused by the heavy vehicular loads. It is anticipated that use of the roads and subsequent damages will occur over a period of time. C&S proposes that impact monitoring be performed for each occurrence of use, as delineated in the RUA. The testing for each occurrence shall consist of:

• Videosurvey

• Crossslopemeasurement

• Rutdepthmeasurement

• Internationalroughnessindexsurvey(IRI)

• Pavementdistresssurvey

The impact monitoring identified above should be performed for each mile of road used during the developer’s related activity (as defined by allowable haul routes speci-fied in the RUA) immediately before and after use in order to compare results and quantify roadway impacts. The RUA will provide the specifications and performance standards for the above tests, and the gas contractors will be required under the RUA to pay all costs and fees associated with the impact monitoring and testing.

Repair Cost Assessment

The before and after impacts data gathered as discussed, will be analyzed by C&S on behalf of the county/municipality to quantify the extent and severity of damages for a given section of road. This information will be used in conjunction with the typical road type inventory for each town, local construction costs, and the damage/cost re-imbursement formulas developed for the RUA to determine the repair methods and total costs that the developer will be required to reimburse the county/municipality for repair of damaged roads. Again, as for the impact monitoring and testing, the road use agreement will require the developer to pay all costs and fees associated with the evaluation of test data and computations to assess repair costs.

4-1

Section 4—UnderstandingOur understanding of this project is that Otsego County and potentially the cities, towns, and/or villages within the county anticipate the county and local roads to be traveled heavily and frequently with large equipment associated with high impact industrial development such as wind turbine farms, natural gas exploration and production or other activities. It is anticipated that the county and/or local roads subjected to the heavy vehicular traffic loads will greatly exceed the traffic volume and structural load capacity that these roads and culverts as originally designed and currently maintained. Therefore it is necessary for the county and other entities to identify their existing roadway network and life-cycle traffic capacity of each road. Based on the existing types of roads and the anticipated heavy traffic loads, estimates can be made for the amount of damage and repair costs that could be incurred by the county and other entities as a result of the high impact industrial development.

5-1

Section 5—AssumptionsThe following list of assumptions applies to C&S services and deliverables described in the aforementioned text:

1. Road distress rating during survey will be performed using a method similar to that used for Cornell Local Roads RSMS pavement management system or that used by the US Army Corps of Engineers PAVER system, whichever in most applicable, in the opinion of C&S.

2. Still photography will consist of one to three representative photos per mile.

3. Roadway widths and cross sections will be completed using measuring tape and/or measuring wheel. In general representative measurements will be made for each case of cross section geometry observed. For example; if a given road segment is three miles long, and two miles of the road exhibit one particular cross section geometry and the remaining three miles exhibit a different cross section geometry two sets of measurements will be made, one for each subsegment.

4. Completion of both the preliminary and final report requires a ½ day interview with each town county/highway supervisor (C/THS) to understand details of local construction, construction costs, and to review historical data. C&S’s capabilities to meet the proposed schedule is illustrated in Section 7 of this proposal. of the C/THS for interview. Preferably arrangements can be made for all the interviews to be conducted on a continual basis. If the interviews require additional time or multiple trips, mileage and per diem may be charged accordingly to cover those items.

5. C&S will use the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide computational procedures to develop typical road design life cycle estimates and remaining life estimates. However, if due to low traffic colume or other design parameters it is not possible to use the AASHTO method, an alternative method such as that of the Asphalt Institute or Army Corps will be used as appropriate in the opinion of C&S.

6. Determination of life-cycle ESALs and structural capacity of typical road sections and life remaining, requires historical input and traffic count data (or estimates ) from C/THSs with an understanding of local construction practices and costs. This information will be discussed during the interviews as well as other issues yet to be determined. As a result of the interviews it may be necessary for a given C/THS to perform some research or quantification of town data to be forwarded to C&S after the interview. Completion of the C&S final report will depend on the timely and thorough completion of such research (if required) and if it is de-termined during the interview that information is in fact available. If information required is not available, C&S will make the best possible estimates of technical parameters based on the results of the interviews, field data, and/or published standards and guidelines for low volume roads, such as the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Manual.

5-2

7. The road survey will be completed as soon as roads are sufficiently clear of snow, ice, or excessive moisture to enable inspection. It may not be possible conduct field observations during the winter months, and the work will commence when weather and road conditions permit. Town interviews must also wait until after the survey is completed so that as much data as possible is available at the time of the interview. If adverse winter weather delays the road survey, C&S does not guarantee that it will be able to meet the timeframe/deadline specified in the RFP, and it is assumed that the deadline will be moved ahead the amount of time elapsed between the stated start time and any time lost due to weather-related delay.

8. The costs for road cores and 4-foot subsurface sampling via SJB Inc. do not include traffic control—it is assumed that the towns will provide traffic control in accordance with NYDOT guidelines. If the county/towns do not provide traffic control SJB Inc. will bill for additional fees to cover traffic control when necessary.

9. Culvert survey will consist of visual inspection, including looking into the pipe to visually estimate the internal condition of the pipe. Accordingly, documentation of the condition of the inside of the pipe will be provided only to the extent that exist-ing conditions (high water, dense vegetation, etc.) allow. Measurements will be made via tape. The conditions will be reported via 8.5 × 11 sketches to be published for culverts identified by the C/THS, along with pertinent dimensions and comments. If greater detail of conditions inside culvert pipes is required which cannot be ob-tained by visual inspection C&S, if requested, will subcontract for specialty services to make a video recording of the inside of the culverts. Fees for such services are not included in this proposal and would be added to the total costs shown herein.

10. It is assumed that the C/THS will provide a map of town roads and an inven-tory listing of the county/town roads prior to start of the survey, that provides at a minimum the name, length, and start/stop location (intersection to intersection) of each road segment, as well as any other data that may be available in the inventory.

11. The cost for video documentation by ATL will be based on a day rate to be de-termined if this service is deemed necessary as part of the pre-use survey.

6-1

Section 6—ReferencesC&S is proud of the positive relationships we’ve established with our clients over our more than 40 years of service. The references below represent just a small fraction of the transportation clients we have served.

Ronald TinderencelSuperintendent, Highways, Forestry and Parks Otsego County, NY,(607)547-0538

Ethan CohenPlannerSullivan County, NY (845)807-0527

William CherryCounty TreasurerScoharie County NY(518) 295-8300

George Doucette, PERegional Design EngineerNew York State Department of Transportation, Region 3(315) 428-4345

Younus Samadzada, PEProject ManagerNew York State Thruway Authority(518) 471-4230

7-1

Section 7—ScheduleThe following schedule assumes that the county and all municipalities will partici-pate.

Milestones are designated in bold type.

This schedule takes into account that the field work may be halted during winter 2010 – 2011. During that time it is envisioned that the field data collected to that point can be compiled and made ready for the Interim Report. If other circum-stances beyond the reasonable control of C&S or Otsego County cause delays, the schedule will be lengthened by the amount of time the unforeseeable delay occurs.

Task Time to Complete Date Complete

Proposal due August 16, 2010

Possible interview by Otsego County 1 Day 2nd half August 2010

Final selection by Otsego County Early Fall 2010 (estimate mid September

Signed contract 1 Week Last week September 2010

Meeting with Otsego County—project startup 1 Day October 1, 2010

Interviews with county/town highway super-intendents & plan reviews

3 WeeksMiddle to end October 2010

Roadway survey / visual observations Pavement cores / soil borings

Anticipate completing 1 week of roadway survey followed immediately with 1 week of pavement cores / soil borings for the areas identified in the roadway survey. This way the field work for certain portions (i.e., individual municipalities) of the County can be completed prior to winter setting in and causing delays. In addition, those municipalities where the field work is completed can be evaluated while field activities may be on hold due to winter weather/safety constraints.

10 Weeks

Anticipate that winter weather and safety concerns will require field activities to be halted during winter 2010–2011.

Anticipate the field work to be completed middle to end of May 2011

Prepare interim report 4 Weeks Middle to end of June 2011

Meeting with Otsego County—review interim report

1 DayJuly 15, 2010

Prepare final report4 Weeks

Beginning to middle of August 2011

Meeting with Otsego County—review final report

1 DayAugust 31, 2011

8-1

Section 8— Fee ProposalThe fees indicated in the table on the next page are for the work necessary to com-plete an Interim Report that will consist of the Existing Conditions Baseline Survey Report and a final report that will include the Interim Report along with the Trends Analysis and Study Report and the Road Use Agreement and Implementation Procedures. The fees shown are based on our assumptions provided in Section 6. If County/Town Highway Supervisors (C/THS) are not available when scheduled for their interview and/or weather/safety issues delay C&S from completing the work, additional time, mileage and/or per diem may be charged; however, C&S will use any “down-time” as efficiently as possible by conducting other activities that remain incomplete.

Fee Proposal – Interim Report and Final Report Deliverables for Otsego County and all municipalities participating

Unit rates for C&S strategy components D and E, expenses, and additional C&S services as may be requested:

Category Title/Item Units/Unit Cost

Engineering Services Principal Engineer Hourly $155.00

Senior Project Engineer Hourly $120.00

Project Engineer Hourly $100.00

Expenses Mileage Per mile .50

Per Diem Day $180.00

Note: C&S fees related to the before/after impact monitoring and preparation of damage/repair cost reports for each instance of road use and damage, will be re-quired to be paid by the developer/agency under the RUA. Similarly, services for field testing and pavement cores at damage locations etc. (requirements to be set forth in RUA) will be bid when the RUA goes into effect with testing costs of testing subcontractors to be passed on to the developer.

A detailed fee chart can be found on the following page.

8-2

Phase Work Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total

Inte

rim R

epor

tMeeting

• Attendprojectstartupmeeting1 Lump

Sum$1,000 $1,000

Interviews & Plan Review• Conduct½-dayinterviewswitheachC/THS

(1-county, 1-city, 24-town)• Reviewroadplans,maintenancerecordsandother

available information

1 Lump Sum

$18,000 $18,000

Road Survey• Visuallyinspect/assess/photograph125milesof

county roads and 345 miles of local roads (average of 5 miles of county roads and 15 miles of local roads per municipality)

• Inspect/assess/documentculvertsandbridgeswithin road segments

• AssumesC/THSwillidentifyroadsegmentsforstudy area within each municipality

1 Lump Sum

$35,000 $35,000

Pavement Cores & Subsurface Soil Borings• Assumes100pavementblockswillbeidentified

during the road survey and 1 core / boring will be advanced per block.

100 Each $650 $65,000

Prepare Existing Conditions Baseline Survey Report• Categorizeroadtypes• Evaluatefielddata• Calculatepavementlife

1 Lump Sum

$25,000 $25,000

Meeting• Attendmeetingtoreviewinterimreport

1 Lump Sum

$1,000 $1,000

Subtotal Interim Report: $147,400

Fina

l Rep

ort

Prepare Trends Analysis & Roadway Use Agreement• Includeinterimreport• Trendsanalysis• Roaduseagreement(RUA)• ProceduresforimplementingRUA

1 Lump Sum

$25,000 $25,000

Meeting• Attendmeetingtopresentfinalreport

1 Lump Sum

$1,400 $1,400

Subtotal Final Report: $27,200Grand Total: $174,600

Cost Per Road Mile Reviewed: $371

Fee Continued