SAND POINT CITY DOCK REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT

Transcription

1 SAND POINT CITY DOCK REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared for: City of Sand Point 3380 C Street, Suite 205 Anchorage, Alaska Prepared by: PND Engineers, Inc W. 36 th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska July 22, 2015

2 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SITE CONDITIONS REPLACEMENT DOCK ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead Alternative 2: Single Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock Alternative 2a: Dual Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock Alternative 3: Tied Back Combination Wall System COST ESTIMATES Basis of Estimates ROM Cost Estimates CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES i

3 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. SECTION: OPEN CELL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD... 3 Figure 2. SECTION: PILE SUPPORTED CONCRETE PLATFORM DOCK... 5 Figure 3. SECTION: TIED BACK COMBI WALL SYSTEM... 8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. COST ESTIMATES Table 2. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Plan and Section Drawings for (4) Replacement Dock Concepts Appendix B. Cost Estimates for (3) Replacement Dock Concepts (includes material takeoffs) Appendix C. Schedules for (3) Replacement Dock Concepts Appendix D. Existing City Dock Drawings ii

4 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared for the City of Sand Point (City), Alaska, with the purpose of providing an analysis of alternatives for replacement of the City Dock. Built in 1981, the existing City Dock is a steel pile supported, concrete deck, platform dock that was designed by PND Engineers, Inc. (PND, under the name Peratrovich & Nottingham at the time). The dock is currently utilized for receiving shipment of conventional and containerized cargo and as a terminal for the Alaska Marine Highway System. The dock has outlived its 30 year design life and requires replacement. The City seeks to obtain funding for replacement of this dock. To support the efforts of the City, PND is providing the following: Preliminary design concepts for (3) replacement dock concepts with a modification of one of the concepts also presented Material takeoffs and cost estimates for (3) replacement dock concepts (see Appendix B) Alternatives analysis and recommendations Three primary alternative concepts for the new replacement dock were examined: an OPEN CELL SHEET PILE (OCSP ) bulkhead, a single pile supported concrete platform dock, and a tied back combination wall (or combi wall) system. A fourth alternative investigates a dual pile supported concrete platform dock concept that will work in conjunction with the existing dock. A Material takeoff and cost estimate corresponding to this concept was not analyzed at this time; however, costs are expected to be similar to the pile supported dock option. Preliminary designs include analyses of dead loads, vehicular live loads, uniform surcharge live loads, soil loads, phreatic water loads, and seismic loads. In addition to the structural analysis, dock concepts were reviewed for performance, constructability, permitting concerns, and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost. Advantages and disadvantages in each of these areas were considered for each dock concept. A summary of the ROM costs is shown in the table below. ALTERNATIVE ROM COST OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead $8,497,000 Single Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock $9,511,000 Tied Back Combination Wall System $13,411,000 *Note: Cost estimate for dual pile supported concrete platform dock concept was not performed The recommended replacement concept for the City Dock is an OCSP bulkhead. This option has many advantages over the other two primary options considered. Most significantly, the OCSP bulkhead is the least expensive alternative, has a relatively short construction time, and is expected to perform well under both service and extreme loads. Alternatively, should the dock s finished surface (concrete or gravel) be a major consideration, and if relative ease of permitting is deemed to be valuable, the pilesupported option may offer an attractive alternative at a marginally higher cost. iii

5 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report INTRODUCTION As stated in the Executive Summary, we understand that the City is seeking to obtain funding for replacement of the existing City Dock, which has outlived its 30 year design life. PND has reviewed the existing dock for applicability to the current design codes and has determined the dock requires replacement. The existing dock is 200 feet long by 60 feet wide and services vessels with drafts up to 30 feet. The replacement dock will be of similar size to the existing dock, but with greater expected performance under both service and extreme loads. It will be designed to support shipping and receiving of commercial goods, service industry goods and will function as a terminal for the ferry Tustumena and its longer replacement vessel. PND performed preliminary design on four alternatives for a replacement dock: 1. OPEN CELL SHEET PILE bulkhead 2. Single Pile supported concrete platform dock a. Dual Pile supported concrete platform dock 3. Tied back combination wall system This report is divided into four sections. Section 1 includes discussion of the existing site conditions. Section 2 discusses the four proposed dock replacement concepts, including advantages and disadvantages for each option. Section 3 includes the cost estimates and related discussion. Section 4 is the conclusions and recommendations. 1

6 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 1.0 SITE CONDITIONS Based on the limited soils information available from existing drawings and PND s experience on the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, we anticipate the soils in the project vicinity to be silty sand and gravel. Existing mudline is overlain by a 12 minus rock fill at the dock location. The fill slopes 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) from approximately the top of existing dock to the dock waterside face. The proposed primary design options all assume that the existing dock will be demolished and the replacement dock will be placed in approximately the same location. Therefore, the footprint of the new dock will be approximately equal to the existing dock. PND acknowledges the option to keep the existing dock in service while the replacement dock is being built; however, the implications of this have not been explored in detail. If the replacement dock is built adjacent to the existing dock, all three alternative replacement dock options will have to contend with driving piles (sheet piles, pipe piles, or Peine beam box piles) through the existing armor rock on the causeway slope or removing the armor rock to mitigate risk and may require additional permitting effort. Limited survey and bathymetry information is available for this preliminary phase of design. Therefore, material quantities, sizes, duration of construction, and costs are subject to change based on additional survey data. The selected design alternative will be subject to change based on geotechnical considerations that are not part of this report. 2

7 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 2.0 REPLACEMENT DOCK ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternative 1: OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead The OPEN CELL SHEET PILE (OCSP ) bulkhead option will be constructed from flat steel sheet piles driven in connected semi circular or scalloped arcs to form face and end cells. The sheet piles will be driven straight back from the face cells to form tailwalls that tie back/support the face. At the upland end of the tailwalls, anchor piles consisting of a half piece of flat sheet pile welded to an H pile will be driven to provide added resistance to the tailwall. The dock face will be 220 feet long and consist of a double H pile cap beam welded to the top of the face cell sheet piles to form a straight dock face. The total dock width will be approximately 250 feet between apexes of the end cells. The dock will extend seaward from the causeway approximately the same distance as the existing pile supported dock (i.e., dock face will be at approximately the same water depth). See Figure 1. See Appendix A for a plan and section drawing of this concept. Figure 1. SECTION: OPEN CELL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD The surface of the dock will be a crushed gravel finish course. Alternatively, cast in place concrete surfacing may be installed across a large portion of the dock or in discrete sections. 3

8 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Similar to the other dock options, the OCSP dock will have a heavy duty fender system on the face of the dock and two mooring dolphins accessible by catwalks from the dock. The new dolphins are positioned in approximately the same location as the existing mooring dolphins. Construction time for the OCSP option is estimated at 120 days (see Appendix C for a draft construction schedule). Construction involves driving sheet piles, placing and compacting fill. Construction equipment required for an OCSP dock is similar to that of a tied back sheet pile or combi wall system and is similar in size and quantity to the pile supported dock. The construction of the OCSP bulkhead requires placement of fill material below the high tide line (HTL), requiring regulatory review by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Installation of the piles will create elevated noise levels that could affect endangered species within the vicinity of the project. Consultations with agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, will result in additional permit conditions like hazard radii and marine mammal observers. OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead Advantages: OCSP bulkhead is more economical than the other dock options considered. OCSP bulkhead concept has a higher reserve load capacity compared to the concrete platform dock or the tied back combi wall options. Design has fewer fabricated components compared to the concrete platform dock or the tied back combi wall options. Sheet piles may be installed by vibratory hammer rather than impact pile driving; therefore, permitting hazard radii are reduced. OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead Disadvantages: Concrete surfacing is not inherent to design, and would be extra cost. Permitting for fill below HTL and installation of piles will require regulatory agency review. Contractor experienced with the installation of the OCSP system is required. 4

9 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 2.2 Alternative 2: Single Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock The single pile supported concrete platform dock will replace the existing dock and will have a concrete deck approximately 220 feet long by 60 feet wide. The concrete deck will be constructed from a series of precast prestressed concrete deck panels supported by galvanized steel framing on galvanized steel pipe piles. A typical precast concrete deck panel will be approximately 40 feet long by 5 feet wide. Concrete panels will be joined to the structure and to each other with cast in place grout. Piles will be placed on a 20 foot by 20 foot grid, for a total of (48) dock piles. See Appendix A for a plan and section drawing of this concept. Figure 2. SECTION: PILE SUPPORTED CONCRETE PLATFORM DOCK While the conceptual design of the pile supported concrete platform dock was performed assuming a precast prestressed deck, a pile supported platform dock could also be constructed with a cast in place (CIP) deck, with either standard reinforcing steel or post tensioning strands. However, it is anticipated that the deck thickness for a CIP option would be greater than the expected 11 inches for a precast deck. As with other design alternatives, the pile supported dock will have a heavy duty fender pile system on the front face of the dock and two mooring dolphins accessible by catwalks from the dock. 5

10 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Construction duration of the pile supported dock is estimated at 130 days. See Appendix C for a draft construction schedule. Fabrication of components for this concept will be more involved than the other options and will require additional coordination and quality management. Quality coordination between owner, engineer, steel and concrete fabricators, and contractor is essential for the success this alternative. Once the fabrication of components and demolition of the existing dock has been completed, construction of the pile supported dock will begin at the shore line. Following the shoreward pile placement, girders, beams, and slab will be placed. Once these structural elements are adequately joined together, this portion of the new dock will be used for placement of the final row of piles and associated girders, beams, and slab. The primary permitting concern for the pile supported dock is the noise related to pile driving. Depending on the method used for pile installation (impact or vibratory pile driving, both of which are anticipated for the pipe piles), hazard radii constraints and marine mammal observers, may be required by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the final permit. Sea otters, sea lions, and seals are known to be in the Sand Point region and could be affected by noise created from pile driving. Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock Advantages: A pile supported dock is expected to be less expensive than a tied back combi wall system. Precasting concrete panels allows for greater control of component dimensional tolerance and overall quality during fabrication versus cast in place methods. Precasting can be done simultaneously as piles, girders, and beams are being placed on site. Standard AISC wide flange sections can be used for framing and commonly available pipe sizes for piles. Permitting concerns required for fill based dock options are not applicable to the pile supported option. Pile Supported Dock Concrete Platform Dock Disadvantages: A pile supported dock is estimated to be more expensive than an OCSP bulkhead. The difference in cost is due to an increase in material cost and construction time. Significant coordination is essential due to the large quantity of steel and concrete material required. Permitting for the installation of the pipe piles will require an extensive, multi agency review. Permit conditions relating to the noise resulting from the impact and vibratory driving of the piles will be applied to the final permit in order to protect threatened and endangered species. These conditions could have significant impact on the construction schedule. ASCE Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves suggests a displacement based approach for design; displacement based designs may require additional time during design. 6

11 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 2.3 Alternative 2a: Dual Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock As the modified design of the previous alternative, the proposed dual pile supported concrete platform dock adds a new pile supported concrete platform dock approximately 140 feet west of the existing dock. This allows the M/V Tustumena to moor simultaneously with a vessel similar in size. The dual pilesupported concrete platform dock will share the same construction materials and configuration as the single pile supported concrete platform dock. The new dock will share the existing southwest mooring dolphin. Catwalks will join both docks with the existing mooring dolphin between them. An additional mooring dolphin and catwalk will provide the mooring anchor on the opposite end the new dock. Permitting for this concept will be similar to Alternative 2 but will require Borough approval due to the additional land use required by the extended footprint to the southwest. Construction methods are the same as those required by the single pile supported dock. Construction duration of the dual pile supported dock is estimated at 120 days, slightly less than the replacement dock concept in Alternative 2. By keeping the existing dock in place, demolition of the existing dock is not required, saving construction time and cost. However, the cost savings are offset by the requirement for additional fill and armor rock on the southwest end of the new dock. Dual Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock Advantages: Demolition of the existing dock is not required saving both construction time and cost. Allows two vessels to be moored at the same time. Keeping the existing dock increases the overall dock space available, increasing throughput and availability for vessel traffic. Existing dock can remain functional during most of the construction of the new dock. The additional dock provides redundancy in case of emergency. Having an additional dock during a large earthquake provides greater assurance that dock space will be serviceable immediately after the event. Same advantages as that listed for the single pile supported dock. Dual Pile Supported Dock Concrete Platform Dock Disadvantages: A pile supported dock is estimated to be more expensive than an OCSP bulkhead. The difference in cost is due to an increase in material cost and construction time. The shared mooring dolphin may require retrofits to accommodate the new load configuration and needs a condition assessment before it can be used as designed. Significant coordination is essential due to the large quantity of steel and concrete material required. Permitting for the installation of the pipe piles will require multi agency review. Permit conditions relating to the noise resulting from the impact and vibratory driving of the piles will be applied to the final permit in order to protect threatened and endangered species. These conditions could have significant impact on the construction schedule. Permitting for fill below HTL will require regulatory agency review. 7

12 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Permitting for fill below HTL will require regulatory agency review. ASCE Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves suggests a displacement based approach for design; displacement based designs may require additional time. 2.4 Alternative 3: Tied Back Combination Wall System The proposed tied back combination wall (or combi wall) system is approximately 222 feet long by 60 feet wide. The bulkhead consists of approximately (200) 80 foot long steel PSp 1006 Peine beams. The Peine beams are connected together with full length PBS locking bars to form a box system that has a continuous wall of vertical beams (piles). A continuous double C channel waler beam is installed and anchored along the bulkhead perimeter at an elevation of +6.0 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) with 60 foot long by 2.5 inch diameter anchor rods spaced at 4.5 feet on center. To obtain sufficient anchoring capacity for the tied back combi wall system, cast in place (CIP) or precast concrete is utilized as a foundation for the anchoring system. The concrete anchoring structure measures 15 feet (depth) by 25 feet (width) by 15 inches (thickness), and is an offset, tub shape basin running parallel to bulkhead face. Another two similar tub shape concrete anchoring structures run north to south starting from the bulkhead face and tie into the continuous east west concrete anchoring system. All anchoring walls are stiffened with concrete buttresses spaced at 4.5 feet on center, consistent with the anchor rod layout. Once the anchoring system is installed, the concrete anchoring walls will be backfilled with gravel thereby saving large quantities of CIP or precast concrete. See Figure 3 and Appendix A for plan and section drawings of this concept. Figure 3. SECTION: TIED BACK COMBI WALL SYSTEM 8

13 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report The surface of the tied back dock will be a crushed gravel finish course. Alternatively, cast in place concrete surfacing may be installed across a large portion of the dock or in discrete sections. As with the previous design alternatives, the tied back bulkhead will have a heavy duty fender pile system at the front face of the dock with two mooring dolphins accessible by a catwalk connected to the bulkhead. Construction time for the tied back combi wall option is estimated at 180 days (see Appendix C for a draft construction schedule). A significant amount of time will be allocated towards the preparation and casting for the concrete anchoring wall. The Peine box beams have a long lead time and limited providers, which increases the cost for the tied back option. Construction equipment required for the tied back option is similar to the OPEN CELL SHEET PILE bulkhead and similar in magnitude to the pilesupported dock. The tied back combi wall system option requires placement of fill material below the high tide line (HTL), requiring regulatory review by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Installation of the Peine beams (piles) will create elevated noise levels that could affect endangered species within the vicinity of the project. Consultations with agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, will result in additional permit conditions like hazard radii and marine mammal observers. Tied Back Combi Wall System Advantages: Conventional construction methods are applied. No sophisticated construction means and methods are required. Peine beams may be installed by vibratory hammer rather than impact pile driving; therefore permitting hazard radii are reduced versus impact driving of pipe piles. Tied Back Combi Wall System Disadvantages: Due to the long lead time and limited manufacture providers, the total material cost of the Peine box beams could be significantly higher than other options. The tied back option has the longest anticipated construction schedule. A temporary dewatering system might be necessary during waler installation. Permitting for fill below HTL and the installation of Peine beams (piles) will require regulatory agency review. Tied back walls are predisposed to anchor rod failure, which can be costly to repair. 9

14 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 3.0 COST ESTIMATES 3.1 Basis of Estimates The cost estimates for this report were developed from conceptual design and estimated material quantities. See Appendix B for detailed cost estimates, including material takeoffs, for each alternate. The accuracy of the estimates directly corresponds to the Level of design completion; cost may vary as the design is progressed and project scope is refined. Cost estimates were created using anticipated and historical production rates for each type of work to be completed. Project costs were developed from the bottom up using the estimating program Hard Dollar V10.1. This estimating program utilizes a work crew and work item analysis estimate method to develop anticipated costs. In house pricing data and historical costs were utilized to populate the estimating database. Durations for individual project components were developed based upon in house historical data and information received from relevant contractors where historical data was not available. See Appendix C for estimated schedules for each concept. Final costs were vetted against both in house and outside relevant estimates. The estimates developed encompass the proposed dock alternatives alone and do not include costs for additional renovations or improvements to the adjacent uplands areas. The estimated costs are for construction only and do not include estimating uncertainties or unexpected construction costs (e.g. variations in final quantities or confining permit stipulations). Construction equipment rates are based on average historical rates and information obtained from relevant heavy civil marine contractors. Separate cost elements are provided for support equipment, fueling and servicing of contractor equipment during construction. Labor rates are based on current prevailing wage determinations for heavy civil construction projects. Labor rates include markup for pension, federal and state taxes, medical, workman s compensation, and overtime premiums. In order to provide a reliable basis for developing the estimates, assumptions were made to define critical work elements and factors that will have significant influence on the total estimated cost. It is assumed that the construction portion of the project will be issued as a fixed fee, lump sum contract to a single primary contractor. The contractor is assumed to be responsible for providing, mobilizing and demobilizing all materials, labor, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete construction of the project scope. Assumptions: Man hours, labor costs, and equipment costs are based on 12 hour shifts. Production rates are based on 12 hour shifts. Fuel costs are $6.00 per gallon. Gravel fill material is sourced from a local site within 5 miles of the project location. 10

15 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Inclusions: Contractor profit and risk for equipment is included in the equipment rates and is assumed at 15%. Contractor profit and risk for materials is assumed at 10%. Contractor consumables (welding consumables, etc.) are included where appropriate. Exclusions: Equipment standby or overwintering costs Weather day provisions Escalation 3.2 ROM Cost Estimates A summary of the estimated cost for each alternative is provided in Table 1. Please note that cost estimates are Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM). See Appendix B for detailed cost estimates. Note that material takeoffs and cost estimate corresponding to Alternative 3 Dual Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock were not analyzed and could be performed in the formal design process. 11

16 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Table 1. COST ESTIMATES Description Total Cost OPEN CELL SHEET PILE Bulkhead $8,497,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Sheet Pile Bulkhead $2,254,000 Provide and Place Fill Material $307,000 Vibracompaction $139,000 Dock Face Beam $238,000 Dock Appurtenances $235,000 Fender System $850,000 Mooring Bollards $88,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $765,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $515,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $290,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,004,000 Pile Supported Concrete Platform Dock $9,511,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Pile Supported Dock $3,809,000 Fender System $850,000 Dock Appurtenances $306,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $763,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $550,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $290,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,131,000 Tied Back Combination Wall System $13,411,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Tie Back Wall $6,245,000 Provide and Place Fill Material $307,000 Dock Face Beam $238,000 Fender System $850,000 Dock Appurtenances $177,000 Mooring Bollards $88,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $1,031,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $715,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $335,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,613,000 12

17 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis for the replacement of the City Dock. As previously described, PND performed a preliminary analysis of three dock alternative designs, considering performance, constructability, costs, and permitting. Advantages and disadvantages in each of these areas were considered. See Table 2. Table 2. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES CRITERIA Performance Construction Cost Permitting 1: OPEN CELL SHEET PILE BULKHEAD 2: PILE SUPPORTED DOCK 3: TIED BACK COMBI WALL SYSTEM PRO CON PRO CON PRO CON High reserve load capacity Moderate construction time Least cost option Reduced pile driving noise for sheet pile installed by vibratory hammer N/A Experience installing OCSP system required Extra cost for concrete surface Permitting due to fill below HTL Traditional system Moderate construction time Moderate cost No fill concerns, substantially similar to existing structure Minimal reserve load capacity Significant coordination More expensive than OCSP bulkhead Permitting due to large diameter impact pile driving Traditional system N/A N/A Reduced pile driving noise for vibratory pile driving Minimal reserve load capacity; potential for anchor rod failure Long construction time Highest cost of all options; additional cost for concrete surface Permitting due to fill below HTL PND recommends the OPEN CELL SHEET PILE (OCSP) bulkhead for replacement of the City Dock. This option has many advantages over the other two options considered. Most significantly, the OCSP bulkhead is the least costly, has a relatively short construction time, and is expected to perform well under both service and extreme loads. The OCSP bulkhead is a strong, robust retaining wall system that has been used successfully at numerous dock facilities throughout Alaska, including southwest Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. Should the dock finished surface (concrete or gravel) be a major consideration, and if relative ease of permitting is deemed to be valuable, the pile supported option may offer an attractive alternative at a marginally higher cost. 13

18 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Appendix A. Plan and Section Drawings for (4) Replacement Dock Concepts

19

20

21

22

23 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Appendix B. Cost Estimates for (3) Replacement Dock Concepts (includes material takeoffs)

24 City of Sand Point City Dock Replacement ROM Cost Estimate Summary /26/14 Description Total Cost OPEN CELL SHEET PILE DOCK $8,497,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Sheet Pile Bulkhead $2,254,000 Provide and Place Fill Material $307,000 Vibracompaction $139,000 Dock Face Beam $238,000 Dock Appurtenances $235,000 Fender System $850,000 Mooring Bollards $88,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $765,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $515,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $290,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,004,000 Description Total Cost Pile Supported Dock $9,511,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Pile Supported Dock $3,809,000 Fender System $850,000 Dock Appurtenances $306,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $763,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $550,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $290,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,131,000 Description Total Cost Tied Back Wall Dock $13,411,000 Mobilization and Demobilization $813,000 Demolition $185,000 Provide and Install Tie Back Wall $6,245,000 Provide and Place Fill Material $307,000 Dock Face Beam $238,000 Fender System $850,000 Dock Appurtenances $177,000 Mooring Bollards $88,000 Mooring Dolphins $814,000 Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment $1,031,000 Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering $715,000 Construction Administration and Inspection $335,000 Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) $1,613,000 Notes: 1) Costs are presented in current (September 2014) dollars and do not include escalation. 2) Indirect costs are approximate and will depend to construction duration. PND Engineers, Inc. 1 of 1

25 City of Sand Point City Dock Replacement ROM Estimate OCSP /26/14 Item No. Description Material Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost 1 OPEN CELL SHEET PILE DOCK 1 LS $8,497,000 $8,497, Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $813,000 $813, Mobilization 1 LS $408,000 $408, Yard Mobilization 1 LS $38,000 $38, Mobilization to Site 1 LS $370,000 $370, Demobilization 1 Each $405,000 $405, Site Demobilization 1 LS $41,000 $41, Demobilization from Site 1 LS $364,000 $364, Demolition 1 LS $185,000 $185, Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock 1 LS $159,000 $159, Remove Existing Rip Rap 1200 CY $21.67 $26, Provide and Install Sheet Pile Bulkhead 1 LS $2,254,000 $2,254, Provide Sheet Piles Pound $1.21 $1,580, Set Template and Temporary Supports (Per Cell) 7 EA $12,143 $85, Stab and Drive Sheet Piles 455 EA $1,152 $524, Cut Off Sheet Piles and Weld Interlocks 233 EA $279 $65, Provide and Place Fill Material 1 LS $307,000 $307, Provide and Place Fill CY $21.23 $276, Layer Compact Fill 5000 CY $2.40 $12, Provide and Place Surface Course 400 CY $47.50 $19, Vibracompaction 75 EA $1,853 $139, Vibracompaction Probing 75 EA $1,613 $121, Vibracompaction Fill 525 CY $34.29 $18, Dock Face Beam 1 LS $238,000 $238, Provide Face Beam Materials (Dlb HP14x89) Pound $2.88 $135, Install Face Beam 1 LS $79,000 $79, Provide and Install Bullrail 1 LS $24,000 $24, Dock Appurtenances 1 LS $235,000 $235, Provide and Install Anodes 21 EA $4,381 $92, Provide and Install Ladders 5 Each $17,000 $85, Provide and Install Bent Pipe Rail 180 LF $322 $58, Fender System 4 EA $212,500 $850, Provide Fender Pin Piles (30x0.5") Pound $1.51 $172, Install Fender Pin Pile 8 EA $3,625 $29, Provide and Install Fender Unit 4 EA $162,250 $649, Mooring Bollards 4 EA $22,000 $88, Provide Pipe Bollard Materials Pound $2 $57, Install Bollard 4 EA $7,750 $31, Mooring Dolphins 1 LS $814,000 $814, Provide and Install Dolphin Piles 6 EA $34,833 $209, Provide and Install Dolphin Caps 2 EA $226,000 $452, Provide and Install Access Catwalk 2 LS $76,500 $153, Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment 1 LS $765,000 $765, Contractor Pre-Planning 30 Day $1,000 $30, Lodging and Per Diem 1 LS $100,000 $100, Support Labor and Equipment 100 Day $3,230 $323, Salaried Indirect Staff 100 Day $1,900 $190, Construction Survey 30 Day $3,267 $98, Small Tools Hour $2.00 $24, Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering 1 LS $515,000 $515, Geotechnical Investigation 1 LS $100,000 $100, Site Survey and Bathymetry 1 LS $40,000 $40, Permitting 1 LS $35,000 $35, Design Engineering (Assumed at 5% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $340,000 $340, Construction Administration and Inspection 1 LS $290,000 $290, Bid Support 1 LS $15,000 $15, Onsite Inspection (Assumes Owner Provides Lodging and Vehicle) 1 LS $189,000 $189, Submittal Review 1 LS $15,000 $15, Fabrication Inspection 1 LS $20,000 $20, Office Support During Construction 1 LS $51,000 $51, Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $1,004,000 $1,004,000 Notes: 1) Costs are presented in current (September 2014) dollars and do not include escalation. 2) Indirect costs are approximate and will depend to construction duration. PND Engineers, Inc. 1 of 1

26 City of Sand Point City Dock Replacement ROM Estimate Pile Supported Dock /26/14 Item No. Description Material Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost 2 Pile Supported Dock 1 LS $9,511,000 $9,511, Mobilization and Demobilization 1.00 LS $813,000 $813, Mobilization 1 LS $408,000 $408, Yard Mobilization 1 LS $38,000 $38, Mobilization to Site 1 LS $370,000 $370, Demobilization 1 Each $405,000 $405, Site Demobilization 1 LS $41,000 $41, Demobilization from Site 1 LS $364,000 $364, Demolition 1.00 LS $185,000 $185, Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock 1 LS $159,000 $159, Remove and Replace Rip Rap As Req'd 400 CY $65.00 $26, Provide and Install Pile Supported Dock 1.00 LS $3,809,000 $3,809, Provide and Install Pipe Pile 1 LS $2,451,000 $2,451, Provide Pipe Piles 16" dia x 0.5"t 1210 LF $126 $152, Provide Pipe Piles 34" dia x 1"t 3630 LF $534 $1,939, Drive Pipe Piles 44 EA $7,295 $321, Cut Off Piles and Prep For Cap 44 EA $886 $39, Provide and Install Superstructure 1 LS $643,000 $643, Provide Steel Superstructure 176 TN $2,699 $475, Set and Bolt Steel Superstructure 1 LS $114,000 $114, Weld Piles Cap 1 LS $54,000 $54, Provide and Install Concrete Deck 1 LS $715,000 $715, Provide Precast Concrete Panels 450 CY $1,153 $519, Set Concrete Panels 1 LS $44,000 $44, Provide and Install Formwork 1 LS $49,000 $49, Grout Panels 1 LS $103,000 $103, Fender System 4.00 EA $212,500 $850, Provide Fender Pin Piles (30x0.5") Pound $1.51 $172, Install Fender Pin Pile 8 EA $3,625 $29, Provide and Install Fender Unit 4 EA $162,250 $649, Dock Appurtenances 1.00 LS $306,000 $306, Provide and Install Bullrail 1 LS $24,000 $24, Provide and Install Bollards 4 EA $7,000 $28, Provide and Install Ladders 5 Each $17,000 $85, Provide and Install Pile Anodes 132 EA $1,280 $169, Mooring Dolphins 1.00 LS $814,000 $814, Provide and Install Dolphin Piles 6 EA $34,833 $209, Provide and Install Dolphin Caps 2 EA $226,000 $452, Provide and Install Access Catwalk 2 LS $76,500 $153, Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment 1.00 LS $763,000 $763, Contractor Pre-Planning 30 Day $1,000 $30, Lodging and Per Diem 1 LS $100,000 $100, Support Labor and Equipment 100 Day $3,230 $323, Salaried Indirect Staff 100 Day $1,900 $190, Construction Survey 30 Day $3,267 $98, Small Tools Hour $2.00 $22, Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering 1.00 LS $550,000 $550, Geotechnical Investigation 1 LS $100,000 $100, Site Survey and Bathymetry 1 LS $40,000 $40, Permitting 1 LS $25,000 $25, Design Engineering (Assumed at 5% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $385,000 $385, Construction Administration and Inspection 1.00 LS $290,000 $290, Bid Support 1 LS $15,000 $15, Onsite Inspection (Assumes Owner Provides Lodging and Vehicle) 1 LS $189,000 $189, Submittal Review 1 LS $15,000 $15, Fabrication Inspection 1 LS $20,000 $20, Office Support During Construction 1 LS $51,000 $51, Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) 1.00 LS $1,131,000 $1,131,000 Notes: 1) Costs are presented in current (September 2014) dollars and do not include escalation. 2) Indirect costs are approximate and will depend to construction duration. PND Engineers, Inc. 1 of 1

27 City of Sand Point City Dock Replacement ROM Estimate Tied Back Wall /26/14 Item No. Description Material Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total Cost 3 Tied Back Wall Dock 1 LS $13,411,000 $13,411, Mobilization and Demobilization 1 LS $813,000 $813, Mobilization 1 LS $408,000 $408, Yard Mobilization 1 LS $38,000 $38, Mobilization to Site 1 LS $370,000 $370, Demobilization 1 Each $405,000 $405, Site Demobilization 1 LS $41,000 $41, Demobilization from Site 1 LS $364,000 $364, Demolition 1 LS $185,000 $185, Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock 1 LS $159,000 $159, Remove Existing Rip Rap 1200 CY $21.67 $26, Provide and Install Tie Back Wall 1 LS $6,245,000 $6,245, Provide Peine Beams Pound $1 $4,630, Stab and Drive Sheet Piles 218 EA $1,440 $314, Cut Off Piles Prep For Dock Face 218 EA $349 $76, Provide and Install Whaler 1 LS $136,000 $136, Provide and Install Anchor Rods 1 LS $22,000 $22, Provide and Install CIP Concrete Deadman Anchors 1250 CY $854 $1,067, Provide and Install Formwork 1 LS $159,000 $159, Provide and Place Concrete 1250 CY $ $908, Provide and Place Fill Material 1 LS $307,000 $307, Provide and Place Fill CY $21.23 $276, Layer Compact Fill 5000 CY $2.40 $12, Provide and Place Surface Course 400 CY $47.50 $19, Dock Face Beam 1 LS $238,000 $238, Provide Face Beam Materials (Dlb HP14x89) Pound $2.88 $135, Install Face Beam 1 LS $79,000 $79, Provide and Install Bullrail 1 LS $24,000 $24, Fender System 4 EA $212,500 $850, Provide Fender Pin Piles (30x0.5") Pound $1.51 $172, Install Fender Pin Pile 8 EA $3,625 $29, Provide and Install Fender Unit 4 EA $162,250 $649, Dock Appurtenances 1 LS $177,000 $177, Provide and Install Anodes 21 EA $4,381 $92, Provide and Install Ladders 5 Each $17,000 $85, Mooring Bollards 4 EA $22,000 $88, Provide Pipe Bollard Materials Pound $1.52 $57, Install Bollard 4 EA $7,750 $31, Mooring Dolphins 1 LS $814,000 $814, Provide and Install Dolphin Piles 6 EA $34,833 $209, Provide and Install Dolphin Caps 2 EA $226,000 $452, Provide and Install Access Catwalk 2 LS $76,500 $153, Contractor Indirects and Support Equipment 1 LS $1,031,000 $1,031, Contractor Pre-Planning 30 Day $1,000 $30, Lodging and Per Diem 1 LS $100,000 $100, Support Labor and Equipment 150 Day $3,227 $484, Salaried Indirect Staff 150 Day $1,900 $285, Construction Survey 30 Day $3,267 $98, Small Tools Hour $2.00 $34, Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering 1 LS $715,000 $715, Geotechnical Investigation 1 LS $100,000 $100, Site Survey and Bathymetry 1 LS $40,000 $40, Permitting 1 LS $35,000 $35, Design Engineering (Assumed at 5% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $540,000 $540, Construction Administration and Inspection 1 LS $335,000 $335, Bid Support 1 LS $15,000 $15, Onsite Inspection (Assumes Owner Provides Lodging and Vehicle) 1 LS $234,000 $234, Submittal Review 1 LS $15,000 $15, Fabrication Inspection 1 LS $20,000 $20, Office Support During Construction 1 LS $51,000 $51, Contingency (Assumed at 15% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $1,613,000 $1,613,000 Notes: 1) Costs are presented in current (September 2014) dollars and do not include escalation. 2) Indirect costs are approximate and will depend to construction duration. PND Engineers, Inc. 1 of 1

28 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Appendix C. Schedules for (3) Replacement Dock Concepts

29 Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - OCSP Activity Name Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - OCSP OPEN CELL SHEET PILE DOCK Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering Design Engineering Permitting Geotechnical Investigation Site Survey and Bathymetry Mobilization and Demobilization Mobilization Yard Mobilization Mobilization to Site Demobilization Site Demobilization Demobilization from Site Demolition Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock Remove Existing Rip Rap Provide and Install Sheet Pile Bulkhead Set Template and Temporary Supports Stab and Drive Sheet Piles Cut Off Sheet Piles and Weld Interlocks Provide and Place Fill Material Provide and Place Fill Layer Compact Fill Provide and Place Surface Course Vibracompaction Vibracompaction Probing Vibracompaction Fill Dock Face Beam Install Face Beam Provide and Install Bullrail Mooring Bollards Install Bollard Fender System Install Fender Pin Pile Provide and Install Fender Unit Mooring Dolphins Provide and Install Dolphin Piles Provide and Install Dolphin Caps Provide and Install Access Catwalk Dock Appurtenances Provide and Install Bent Pipe Rail Provide and Install Ladders Provide and Install Anodes Construction Administration and Inspection Bid Support Submittal Review Fabrication Inspection Office Support During Construction Onsite Inspection 25-Sep-14 Qtr 4, 2014 Qtr 1, 2015 Qtr 2, 2015 Qtr 3, 2015 Qtr 4, 2015 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Remaining Level of Effort Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 1 of 1

30 Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - Pile Supported Activity Name Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - Pile Supported Pile Supported Dock Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering Design Engineering Permitting Geotechnical Investigation Site Survey and Bathymetry Mobilization and Demobilization Mobilization Yard Mobilization Mobilization to Site Demobilization Site Demobilization Demobilization from Site Demolition Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock Remove and Replace Rip Rap As Req'd Provide and Install Pile Supported Dock Provide and Install Pipe Pile Drive Pipe Piles Cut Off Piles and Prep For Cap Provide and Install Superstructure Provide and Install Pile Caps Set and Bolt Steel Superstructure Provide and Install Concrete Deck Set Concrete Panels Provide and Install Formwork Grout Panels Fender System Install Fender Pin Pile Provide and Install Fender Unit Mooring Dolphins Provide and Install Dolphin Piles Provide and Install Dolphin Caps Provide and Install Access Catwalk Dock Appurtenances Provide and Install Bullrail Provide and Install Pile Anodes Provide and Install Bollards Provide and Install Ladders Construction Administration and Inspection Bid Support Submittal Review Fabrication Inspection Office Support During Construction Onsite Inspection 25-Sep-14 Qtr 4, 2014 Qtr 1, 2015 Qtr 2, 2015 Qtr 3, 2015 Qtr 4, 2015 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Remaining Level of Effort Actual Work Remaining Work Critical Remaining Work Milestone Summary Page 1 of 1

31 Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - Tied Back Activity Name Sand Point Alternatives Analysis - Tied Back Tied Back Wall Dock Geotech, Survey, Permitting and Design Engineering Design Engineering Permitting Geotechnical Investigation Site Survey and Bathymetry Mobilization and Demobilization Mobilization Yard Mobilization Mobilization to Site Demobilization Site Demobilization Demobilization from Site Demolition Demo and Dispose of Existing Pile Supported Dock Remove Existing Rip Rap Provide and Install Tie Back Wall Stab and Drive Peine Beams Provide and Install Whaler Provide and Install Anchor Rods Cut Off Piles Prep For Dock Face Provide and Install CIP Concrete Deadman Anchors Provide and Install Formwork Provide and Place Concrete Provide and Place Fill Material Provide and Place Fill Layer Compact Fill Provide and Place Surface Course Dock Face Beam Install Face Beam Provide and Install Bullrail Fender System Install Fender Pin Pile Provide and Install Fender Unit Mooring Bollards Install Bollard Mooring Dolphins Provide and Install Dolphin Piles Provide and Install Dolphin Caps Provide and Install Access Catwalk Dock Appurtenances Provide and Install Ladders Provide and Install Anodes Construction Administration and Inspection Bid Support Submittal Review Fabrication Inspection Office Support During Construction Onsite Inspection 25-Sep-14 Qtr 4, 2014 Qtr 1, 2015 Qtr 2, 2015 Qtr 3, 2015 Qtr 4, 2015 Qtr 1, 2016 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Remaining Level of Effort Remaining Work Milestone Page 1 of 1 Actual Work Critical Remaining Work Summary

32 PND Engineers, Inc. Sand Point City Dock Replacement Alternatives Analysis Report Appendix D. Existing City Dock Drawings

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44