County Of Los Angeles A&e Evaluation Manual For North Ridge Earthquake

County of Los Angeles

Pbase IA

-... - ........

_

......--. __ ._­

Pbase m

AlE EVALUATION SERVICES MANUAL -'; : : : :.: ~ : ~ .. : : - '';'';'';~-';';'-::::: .-"

For The

Phase II

Northridge Earthquake

-,

. - ....

:::::--1 -=• ..~ !

-_. -... _-----­

--­I

•

c--_

. . _.................... c:..._.. ........

.. _ ,...,.. e t n . _ _ _•

Revised September 1, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION

-

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1. I General .............................................................................................................................................................................. I-I

1.2 Purpose And Interpretation Of The Manual ...................................................................................................................... I-I

1.3 Participation By Community Business Entcrprises ......................................._ ....................................... ___ ..................... 1-2

1.3.1 CBE Compliance (Proposer's Obligations) ................... :............................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.2 Post·Award Good Faith Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.3 Non-compliance with County's CBE Program ............................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4 Equal Employment OpportunitylAffirmative Action (EEOIAA)...................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 Counry Policy ......................................................................................... _........................................... _...................... 1-3

1.4.2 Affirmative Action Plan .................~ ............................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.5 Project LiaisoniCommuni(;ations .............................................................................................................. _...................... t-4

2. BASICSERYICES 2. I General .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 AlE Consultant Services ............................................................................ ~ ....................................................................... 2·1

2.3 Coordination Of AlE Evaluations ..................................................................................................................................... 2·2

2.4 Quality Assur:tncelQuality Control ...........................................................:....................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Project Schedule ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.6 Applicable Codes And Ordinances ................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.7 Construction Cost Estimate .......................................................................: ....................................................................... 2-4

2.8 Value Design/Value Engineering ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.9 Photographs..............................................................................':................................................, ....................................... .2-5

2.10 Procedures For Meetings And Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.11 AlE Evaluation Subminals And Presentations ................................................................................................................ 2-5

2.11.1 Submittals .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.11.2 Report Submittals - All Study Phases ..................................................................................................................... 2-7

2.11.3 Interim Report Meetings ............................................................................................................................................ 2-8

2.12 Certi fic:l!ion of the NE Evaluation Report ..................................................................................................................... 2·8

2.13 Invoicing Instructions ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-8

3. INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PRODUCTION OF AlE EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS 3.1 Ge:ne:ral ...............................................................................................................................................~ .... :......................... 3-1

3.2 Phas.: 1- Earthquake Damage And Structural Repair Documentation ........................................................................... 3-'

].2.1 Phase: lA - Initi:lI Dam3gc Description and Documentation ................................................................... ~ ................. 3-'

3.2.1 I Dc:tc:nninJtion ofS.:ope ofWorlc ....................................................................................................................... 3-'

'J

.-~

3.2.1.2 Iniliallnspeclion ................................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.:!.2 Ilrojecl Kick·Orf Meeting ............................................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.3 FaCIlity DeSCrIption ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.~

Detailed BUilding/Silt! Condition Evaluation ....................................................................................................... :...... 3-7

3.2.5 Structural Analysis ....................................................................................................................... ;............................. 3-11

3.2.5.1 Loss of Slructural Capacity Description .......................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.5.2 Phase IA Submittal .......................................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.6 Phase IB - Structural Damage Repair Concept Development ......................................................................:............. 3-12

3.2.6.1 Historical Structure Status Review .................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.2.6.2 Structural Damage Repair Analysis ................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.2.6.3 Phase IB Submittal and County Review ...................................... _ ................................................................. 3-14

3.3 Phase II -

Facility Repair/Replacement Concept Developmcnt................................_ ........ _....................................... 3-15

3.3.1 Facility Repair Concept Developmcnt ................................................ _............._ ..................................................... 3-15

3.3.1.1 Code Compliance.......................................................................... _................................................................. 3-15

3.3.1.2 Facility Repair Concepts .....................................................................................:............................................ 3-17

3.3.1.3 Facility Repair Concept Approval ................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.3.2 Facility Repair Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................................._ ............. 3-19

3.3.2.1 Total Project Cost Estimate (TPCE) ................................................................................................................ 3-21

3.3.2.2 Facility Repair Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 3-21

3.3.3 Haz.ard :vtiligation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.3.3.1 Haz.ard Mitigation Proposals ........................................ :.................................................................................. 3-22

3.3.3.2 Hazard l\.litigation Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 3-22

=.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3.4 Facility Replacement Program ..........................·............................... :.:::...... :;...~ ..... 3-23

3.3A.1 Dam;aged Facility Program .............................................................................................................................. 3-23

3.3.4.2 Facility Replacement Cost Estimate ..............................( ................................................................................. 3-24­ 3.3.4.3 Facility Replacement Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 3-24

3.3.5 Phase II Briefing and Review .................................................................................................................................... 3~25

4. PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Project Documentation ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Interim Report Submittals ............................................................::.................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Final Report ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Executive Summary ................................................................................. _ .................................................................
4.3.2 Table of ContentsfTable of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.3.3 Detailed Documentation .............................................................................................................................................. "·4·

4.3.4 AlE Report Preparation Guide And Review Check List...................................................................................... ·....... 4-5

4.3.5 Other Documentation and Services ............................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.4 Report Format ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4.1 Report Covers ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.4.2 Reproducible M:lSters .................................................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4.3 Reproduction/Binding ....................... ,......................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.4.4 Photographs ................................................................................................................................................................. t.·7

4.4.5 \\i ord Processing Software........................................................................................................................................... 4~ 7

4.5 Final Report Presentation ............................................................ :..........................................................., ......................... 4-7

4.6 Project Files ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-7

-----.-

--­

5. APPENDICES Appendix A -

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

Appendix B -

OESIFEMA Compliance List

Appendix C -

AlE Report Preparation Guide and Review CbeckHst

Appendix D -

Executive Summary Format

Appendix E -

Sample Table of Contents

Appendix F -

Inspection Survey Form

Appendix G -

Coordinated Text and Matrix

Appendix H.- Crack Maps

Appendix I -

Cost Estimate Format

(

Appendix J -

Historical Structure Guidelines

Appendix K -

Standard Review Form

Appendix L -

Standard Facility Description

"

1. INTRODUCTION Chapter Topics 1.1 General .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Purpose And Interpretation Of The Manual ......................................................................................................:............... 1-\

1.3 Participation By Community Business Entctprises.............................................................................................. _........... \-2

1.3.1 CBE Compliance (Proposer's ObJigations) ................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.2 Post-Award Good Faith EffortS ................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.3 Non-compliance with County's CBE Program ....... _ ................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) ....................................................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 County Policy .............................................................................................................................................................. \-3

1.4.2 Affirmative Action Plan............................................................................................................................................... \-3

I.S Projcct Liaison/Communications ...................................................................................................................................... 1-4

.''.

Northr-idge Earthquake January 17, 199~

1.1

Chapter I - Introduction AlE Evaluation Scrvic:es ;\-l:Inual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

General The Federal Emergency Management Agency and California Office of Emergency Services (FEMAlOES) and/or insurance funding available to recover from damage sustained during the January 17. 1994 Northridge Earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks is (in large part) defined by FEMA's Ar­ chitectural/Engineering (AlE) Evaluation process. This process identifies and documents the extent of damage and the most cost-effective means to provide comparable. functionally equivalent. facilities to those occupied prior to the earthquake - including repair work that must be done in compliance with current. applicable codes <1I1d ordinances. This process also identifies and documents the opportunities and costs for eligible hazard mitigation projects and, in some facilities, the cost of preserving structures which exhibit features of historical architectural significance. The AlE Evaluation process is a multi-step, iterative process that requires the: detailed documentation of damage.

•

• development and documentation of various conceprual level repairs to the earthquake-related damage and the preparation of accurate cost estimates for the various repair (or replacement) con­ cepts that meet the eligibility criteria defined by CFR 1 44 and FEMAlOES. • development and documentation of alternative concepts (and cost estimates) to repair damaged stnM!tural elements to their Pre-Earthquake functional conditioft'. • development and documentation of alternative (where applicable and practical) conceptual level programs and cost estimates to repair damage to the architecruraVmechanicallelectricallplumb)ng (~nd other) systems of a building to a Pre-Earthquake functional condition that complies with cur­ rent applicable Federal, State and local statutes/titles, codes and ordinances. • development and documentation of a program and cost esti~ate to allow preservation of buildings that possesses features of historical architectural significance. • development and documentation (including costs) of a separate program to address potential Haz­ ard Mitigation initiatives (if applicable). •

1.2

cfevelopment and documentation' of the characteristics and costs of replacing the building if re­ pairing it is unfeasible or uneconomical.

Purpose And Interpretation OfThe Manual J{. The purpose of this Manual is to prescribe in detail the ArchitectlEngineer (AlE) Consultant services re­ quired for the preparation of an AlE Evaluation resulting from damages sustained during the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake. It is consistent with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). the California Oifice of Emergency Services (OES) and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works' programs to expedite the recovery of County operations and to support the FEMA/OES and insurance company claims process. This Manual provides a basic definition of those services. products and project-related processes in­ volved in the preparation of an A. E Evaluation. Incorporated by reference in the Consultant Services Agreement (Agreement), this AlE Evaluation Services Manual ("Manual") is binding upon the AlE Con­ sultant as though fully set forth in the: Agreement. When the Agreement and this manual are inconsistent or in contlict. the appropriate provisions of the Agreement define which has precedence.

Code: of FCl.kral

(~~'gublillI\S

-------

-------------

--------- - - - -

,

"

Northrid&e Earthquake Janua..,. 17. 199.&

Chapter 1 - Inlroduction AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

The services. products and project-related processes described in this Manual are principally oriented towards larger. more complex AlE Evaluations and therefore may not be applicable to facilities that sus­ tained only minor damage. As appropriate. the Project Manager (PM) may adjust the scope of services. products andlor project-related processes to reflect the complexity or requirementS for a particular proj­ ect or facility; however. any modification to this Manual shall be specified in writing in the Agreement and shall be signed by the AlE Consultant's authorized representative and the Director of the Department of Public Works or his designee.

1.3

Participation By Community Business Enterprises The County of Los Angeles adopted a Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) Pro­ gram in t 991. This Program was expanded to include Disadvantaged-owned Business Enterprises (DBEs) and Disabled Veteran-owned Business Enterprises (DVBEs) in November 1994. and renamed the Community Business Enterprise (CBE) Program. It is the policy of the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors that CBEs shall have the maximum opportunity to participate in the County's pro­ curement programs and to encourage the participation of these enterprises. The County has adopted the following objectives for all County depamnents, consultants and contractors to ensure that maximum opportunities are provided to CBEs to participate in County procurement pro­ grams: • 'Ensure that C8Es are provided equal access to contracts and subcontracts.

."-...

---

• Aggressively pursue outreach efforts co locate and provide CBEs with the necessary aSsistance.to co~pete in the County's contracting programs. t 'Identify any barriers that negatively impact the ability of C8Es Co compece for County contracts -and explore ways to mitigate these barriers.

•

Validate and monitor good faith efforts to achieve established goals for C8E participation County contracts.

•

Report on the participation of CBEs in County contracting programs.

10

1.3.1 CBE Compliance (Proposer's Obligations) The AlE Consultant shall submit a CBE Plan in accordance with the requirements of the County Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) and/or Request for Proposals (RFP). This shall include verifica­ tion of the certiftcation Z of C8E entities or subconsultants or implementation of the good faith efforts provisions of Section 2000 of the California Public Contract Code.

2

Finns interested in becoming certified as a CBE may contact the following office for an application County of Los Angeles Office of Affirmative Action Compliance

K
sao West Temple Street. Room 780

Los Angeles. Caliromia 90011

(213) 97~-I080

rage 1-2

..

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994 .

Chapter I - Introduction AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

1.3.2 Post-Award Good Faith Efforts During the tenn of the contract with the County. the AlE Consultant shall continue to make good faith efforts to ensure that CBEs have the maximum opportunity to successfully participate in the contract. These efforts shall include, but not be limited to the fOllowing: •

Negotiate in good faith to finalize and execute a subcontract agreement with the CBE finn(s) identified in and committed to in the proposal.

•

Notify the CSE in writing of any potential problem and attempt to resolve the problem prior to formally requesting County approval to substirute the CSE.

• Timely alerting of the County concerning any anticipated problems in attaining the CBE partici­ pation goal committed to in the proposal. •

Pay all moneys due and owed to CBE subconsultants and suppliers in a timely manner.

• Submit complete and accurate CBE Monthly Utilization reports as specified by the County.' • Exert and document efforts to seek out and utilize additional CaE consultants and suppliers to participate in the project.

1.3.3 Non-C'Ompliance with County.!s CBE Program Failure to carry out the CBE requirements of this Manual constitutes a breach of contract and may result in tennination of that contract by the County or imposition of other appropriate sanctiops.

1.4

Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Actio~ The County of Los Angeles and its Consultants are subject to the Anti-Discrimination provisions of Title VI and Title vn of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, and the Equal Employment Opportu­ nity!Affirmative Action (EEOI AA) provisions of Executive Order I 1246.

1.4.1 County Policy The County of Los Angeles and its Consultants shall comply with the Anti-Discrimination provisions of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. as amended, and the Equal Employment Opportu­ nity/Affirmative Action provisions of Executive Order 11246.

1.4.2 Affirmative Action Plan Consultants shall submit an EEO/AA Plan for the Consultant and each of its subconsultants. The Plan shall identify the person designated to implement the plan. the good faith efforts to be undertaken to out­ reach to "under-represented" groups and fair representation with relevant work force availability. In addition. the Plan shall include a statistical breakdown of the ethnicity and gender of the company's work force by job classification together with goals and timetables for employment of under-represented groups. The Consultant must submit this plan within n hours after it is requested by the County.

r . -'.

",1._:, .";,,

'~n",", "'~\'

n:su't in the imposition of JdministTativc sanctions.

"

I

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

1.5

Chapter i '. Introductioa AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Project LiaisonlComniunicanoDS -- .-.'; ••

~

f

•

The designated County Project Manag~r (PM) shall be the only liaison between the AlE ConSulLan{ a"J all County and other jurisdictional agencies involved directly or indirectly with the projec., Le" FEMA, OES, insurance companies, Department ofPublic Works Building and Safety Division, building occu­ pants/tenants. etc. No dinct contacts with such ar~ncll!S shall b~ madl! withoutthl! lDt!Ciflc know/I!dgl! and const!1rt fo,. I!aeh CIIntact bY the PM. The PM shall be kept infonncd at all times concerning any and all project-related activities, consulta­ tions, etc., between die AlE Consultant and its subconsul13Jlts (engineers, technical specialists, designers/planners, etc.) and any County entity or other jurisdictional agency. Neither the AlE Consultant nor his subconsultants will commit to any requirement by, or make any agreement with, any County entity or other jurisdictional agency on matters pertaining to the project without the prior knowledge and written consent afthe PM.

2. BASIC SERVICES Chapter Topics 2. I General .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2·(

2.2 AlE Consultant Servicc:s .................................................................................................._ .................................: .............. 2-1

2.3 Coordination Of AlE Evaluations ..........................................._....................................... _............................................... 2·2

2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................................................................................... 2·2

2.5 Project Schedule................................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.6 Applicable Codes And Ordinances ................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.7 Construction Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................................... 24

2.8 Value Dcsign/Value Enginccring ...................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.9 Photographs....................................................................................................................................................................... 2·5

2.10 Procedures For Meetings And Approvals ....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.l-1 AlE -Evaluation Submittals And Prcsentations ................................................................................................................ 2·5

2.1 !.1 Subminals .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-6

2. ! !.2 Report Submittals -

A}l Study Phases ..................................................................................................................... 2·7

2.11.3 Interim Report Meetin&s ............................................................................................................................................ 2·8

2.12 Certification of the NE Evaluation Repon .................................... :................................................................................ 2-8

2.13 Invoicing Instructions.......: .............................................................................................................................................. 2·8

..

N~rthridge

E:arthqu:lkc

January 17. 199...

2.1

Chapter 2 • Basic Services AlE Ev:\lu:ltion Services M:lnual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

General Following execution of a contract with the County that defines the specific scope of work for the project and upon receipt of a nOlice-lo-proceed, the AlE Consultant shall proceed to develop the AlE Evaluation Report that is defined by the scope of work in the Agreement and this Manual. Project services provided shall result in the gener.ltion of all analyses, recommendations, cost estimates, calculations and other documentation necessary to identify, validate and justify the conceptual level program to repair or re­ place facilities damaged in the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake and its associated aftershocks. This Manual defines the basic services to be provided and minimum contents of the AlE Evaluation Re­ . port to be prepared by the AlE Consultant. All work shall comply with the Agreement and this Manual except where specifically modified in writing by the PM4. Any further changes or deviations in the ap­ proved scope of the Project as defined in the Agreement and/or this Manual shall be executed only with the expressed, written approval of the Director and/or the Board of Supervisors. Revisions and/or cor­ rections - as directed by the County - of any work perfonned during the AlE Evaluation that deviate from the scope of the Project as defined in the Agreement, i.e., project size, budget, schedule. etc., witfl­ out tIre expressed, written approval oftlre County shall be the responsibility (including fiscal) of the AlE Consultant. Any changes involving additional professional services shall require the prior, written di­ rection and approval of the Director and/or the Board of Supervisors.

2.2

AlE Consultant Services The AlE Consultant shall perfonn or contract for the perfonnance of all services necessary for' the or­ derly and timely completion and documentation of the AlE Evaluation. Any required services·that the AlE must provide through a subcontract in order co complete the project shall be acquired in accordance with policies and guidelines established by the County, including those for participation by CBEs as out­ lined in this Manual. Required services may include, bue shall not be limited to, the following architectural/engineering and/or consulting services:

....

•

Architectural (including Interior Environment and Hazard Mitigation)

• •

Civil Construction Cost Estimating

•

Designs For The Disabled (ADA Compliance)

•

Electrical (High And Low Voltage)

•

Energy/Resource Conservation and Management

•

Fire Protection

•

Hazardous Materials'!

•

Historic Preservation/Restoration

•

Landscaping And Irrigation

•

Mc:chanical (Plumbing and HV AC)

•

Project Scheduling

It is the intent of the County that the NE Consult:tnl work closely with the PM to develop a scope of work reflecting the specific needs orlhe project and. if necessary. modify the required AlE Evaluation services accordingly. This service shall be provided under separate COnlr:lct with the County: however. as defined in the Agreement and if re­ que:sted in writing. by the P;\1. th..: AlE COnSUII!]nt moy be required 10 coordinate: these services if hazardous materials arc de:lcrminctf (0 h:1\": be..:n dislurbcd by the earthI.Julkc or will he disturbed while making the n:quired repairs.

Northridge Earthquake January 17. 199"

Chapter 2 - Basic: Servic:es AlE Evaluation Servic:es Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

• Sc:isrtllc Safety lnspc:ctions· • Site/Utility Studies • Structural (Including Sc:ismiciDynamic Analysis, Seismic Retrofit and Hazard Mitigation) • Traffic And Parking Studies (On-Site Only) •

Vertical Circulation

• Vibmtion Studies As part of these services, the AlE Consultant shall, as directed in writing by the PM, provide the County with review and support services relating to the AlE Evaluation during meetings, tours and discussions with FEMAlOES and/or parties from other agencies. AlE Evaluations are intended to develop conceptual level solutions with minimal definition of the mode of execution. Detailed design solutions and drawinr:s are neither required nor desired as part of the AlE Evaluation Report submittals - except for those structural engineering analyses and repair propos­ als where illustrations andlor calculations are specifically required by this manual or are necessary to illustrate andlor demonstrate a problem andlor solution.

2.3

Coordination OfAlE Evaluations Coordination of all services provided by architectural, engineering and associated disciplines w9rking on the AlE Evaluation - including those provided by County staff or under separate contract to the County - shalf be the responsibility of the AlE Consultant. Such coordination shall include the review and in­ tegratiOLl of all survey documentation. concept development, cost estimating and other documentation necessary to prepare an accurate A/E Evaluation. As part of the AlE Evaluation Final Report. the AlE Consultant shall certify in writing that the required coordination has occurred.

2.4

Quality Assurance/Quality Control As part of the proposal submitted during Phase lA, the AlE Consultant shall outline a Quality Assur­ ance/Quality Control (QAlQC) Plan for the AlE Evaluation. The scope of QAJQC Plan shaH reflect the size. complexity and scope of the AlE Evaluation services to be provided. This plan will id~ntify the mechanism(s) employed to assure identification of all repair andlor replacement requirements, coordina­ tion of disciplines, coordination with jurisdictional agencies, accuracy and consistency of calculations and cost estimates, and adherence to the schedule and processes and procedures in the contract and this manual. The staff person(s) responsible for implementing the QAlQC Plan shall be identified and any other project technical support and/or project production role(s) of those personnel acknowledged. All scheduled QAlQC reviews and other QAlQC activities shall be incorporated into the Project Schedule with appropriate time allocations. The QAlQC Plan shall be submitted to the PM as part of the AlE Con­ sultant proposal and shaH subsequently be used for reference ilJ1d application during the project.

6

After being. appointcd. the AlE Consult:1llt shall be pn:pared to provide Seismic Safety Inspection services on the project facility(s) following an atlcrshock or other event. These servicd shall be provided when so directed in writing by the County. All such Seismic Safety Inspection sc::rvices shall be in conformance with the requirements of the "County ofLos Angelu Post Earthquake Safety Evaluation Team :I,fanuai". Thc AlE Consultant shall review these requirements and cer­ tify in "'riling that qualilicd project staff - who have also reviewed these requirements - are (Of :lJl equally qualitied replacement will be) available and prepared to providc:: any required Seismic Safety Inspection services. Copies of the "COUllty a/Los Angeles Post Earthquake Safay £\'aluation Team JI..lIIuar are available from the PM.

Page :!-2

..

Chapter 1- aasic Servicn AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Nortbridge Earthquake January 17. 1994

2.5

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

ProjecfScheduIe Prior to submitting irs proposal. the AlE Consultant shall discuss the scheduling requirements of the project with the PM. Based on this discussion (and the infonnation provided by the PM regarding County review and approval periods). the NE Consultant shall develop an outline (or level 2) schedule' that lists all key AlE Evaluation study tasks. production activities. reviews and the associated man-hours of work. The AlE Consultant shall include this outline schedule as part of the proposal to provide NE Evaluation services on the project_ Upon approval. this schedule shall become part of the Agi"eemenL The schedule shall identify, as a minimum, the dates of all significant milestones and Interim Report submittals including. but not limited to: Phase fA -

Initial Inspection

•

Project Kick-Off Meeting

•

Detailed Facility Description DocumentationlResearch and Completion

•

Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluation - Surveys and Documentation Activities

•

Structural Damage Analysis and Calculations

•

Phas~ IA Interim Report Sllbmittal and Review

Phase 18 -

Structural Damage Repair

Con~ept

Development

•

Historical Structure Status Determination

•

Structural Damage Repair Concept Development and Rough-Order-Magnirude Cost Estimate

•

Phase IB Interim Report S~bmittal and Review

Phase II -

Facilitv RepairlReplacement Concept Development

•

Non-Structural Damage Repair Analysis and Rough-Order-Magnitude Cost Estimate

•

Code Compliance Analysis and Application

•

Basic Facility Repair Concept Program Report Submittal and Review

•

Develop Total Project Cost Estimate (TPCE)

•

Develop a Hazard Mitigation Program and Cost Estimate (If Applicable)

•

Prepare a Facility Replacement Program Concept and Cost Estimate (If Applicable)

•

Phase II Briefing and Review

Project Documentation and Final Report •

Final Report Submittal

In addition to these milestones. interim meetings to review the project status shall be identified on the schedule and used to measure the progress of the project.

Unless otherwise directed by the PM. the schedule: for projects hnving professionnl fees over S7S.000 shall be prepared using an automated. resource-loaded network analysis system and Critical Path Method (CPM) techniques. On projects having prof.:ssional fees under S7S.000, a simplified bar-chart identifying the start and finish dates of each major task shall be 3cceptnble:. All schedules shall idcntit)· the proposed number of staff hours (and percentage of fees) associnted with C3ch major task and identify any anticipal~d intc:rdependencies of the: tasks. This schedule may require modification by Ihe AlE Consultant during [he projc:ct to n:ncct adjustments made in the scope of work or approach based on project findings andlor I""-......... ~" A ...... ;,.:,...,..". ", .... A ,f;""""'''inn

•

.

,.

Northridge Earthquake: January 11,1994

2.6

Chapter! - Basic Services AlE Evalu.tion Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

Applicable Codes And Ordinances All repair concepts considered and developed as part of the NE Evaluation shall comply with the current applicable codes and ordinances s of the County of Los Angeles andlor other applicable jurisdictional agencies. i.e .• Fire Department. Planning and Zoning, OSHPD, OSA, SCAQMD. CY A, sac. etc. Dur­ ing Phase II, the AlE Consultant shall identify and list all the codes and ordinances of jurisdictional agencies that will be applicable or relevant to the repair of the earthquake-damaged facility (§ 3.3.1.1). The AlE Consultant shall provide copies of the specific sections and paragraphs of all non-standard" codes and ordinances that are used or referenced in the AlE Evaluation in an appendix. This shall in­ clude any applicable zoning/site development ordinances or industry standards - but exclude those standard codes adopted and used by the County of Los Angeles.

2.7

Construction Cost Estimate The AlE Consultant shall be responsible for preparing detailed construction cost estimates for the repair of earthquake-related damage to the facility. All AlE Evaluation construction cost estimates and updates shall utilize the unit, assembly and building model cost data listed in the 1995 editions of the Construc­ tion Cost Data Books published by the R.S. Means Companio and provide the cost estimates in the level of detail and format illustrated in Appendix I. The construction cost estimates for repairs shall cross ref­ erence the specific Means systems/line numbers of the unit or assembly utilized to develop the Construction Cost Estimate; The AlE Consultant shall certify that the estimates of the unit quantities pr~sented in the Final Report Construction Cost Estimate are comprehensive and represent a realistic es­ timate of the construction repair elements for the project ~ are the best professional estimate of costs for repair elements that are not listed in the Means data bases .

•

2.8

VaIne Design/Vrune Engineering The AlE Consultant shall apply the concept of Value Designll when developing the AlE Evaluation re­ pair or replacement concepts. As part of Value Design, the potential cost impact of all facility repair andlor replacement design concepts shall be compared with the immediate and life-cycle benefits re­ ceived by the County - both operational and functional - of any other alternatives that were considered. The AlE shall Systematically apply and document the application of value engineering (VE) principles when developing and analyzing proposed concepts. VE analyses shall employ the County's preferred value engineering protocols and procedures - including life cycle cost analyses - on all ma­ jor concept development decisions .

•

Current and applic:lblc: refers to codes and ordinances thJt can be expected to be in effect when the rcpair or repl3Cemcnt construction documents are submincd for permining.

9

"Non-stand:lrd" codes are those codes specific to a IOCJI agency or jurisdiction and which :lrC not based upon nationally recognized codes. such as Uniform Building Code. Uniform Plumbing Code. Uniform EkctricaJ Code. etc.• or codes of state agencies having jurisdiction over permitting of thc design of facility-related construction

10

Othcr cost estimating sources and data may be used if acceptably documcnted and approved for use by the County.

II

Under the Value Design philosophy. the County expects Project Architects/Engineers to system3tically conduct.:u1d docu­ ment basic economic Jnalyses [0 justify all conceptual schemc:s or system-related decisions. Page 2-'

Northridge Earthquake January 11. 1994

2.9

Chapter 2 - Basic Services AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Photographs Clear, concise color photographs shall be required to document the earthquake-related damage sustained by the facility. Photographs shall be glossy color prints that are 4" x 6" in size. developed from 35mm film negatives and shall identify the date and time of the photography - preferably with a camera that automatically includes time and date information on photographs. Photographs shall be composed to clearly illusrrate the damage observed and include an easily discerned reference article or scale. Arrows, labels and other visual aids shall be used on the phorograph to indicate and emphasize the earthquake­ related damage observed. The location of the damage in the photograph shall be identified and refer­ enced on a reduced-scale copy of the building floor plan. Appropriate film rypes and filtering to adjust for lighting conditions shall be used. Photographs that are over-lunder-exposed shall not be acceptable.

2.10

Procedures For lVleetings And Approvals The AlE Consultant shall comply with all established procedures for meetings, reviews, deadlines and approval procedures per the Agreement and this Manual. During the Project. the AlE Consultant shall meet with the PM on a periodic basis to discuss and resolve issues pertinent to the Project. These meetings shall serve to review the status of all work-in-progress, concept assu!!1ptions, schedules and cost estimates and- expedite tire receipt of needed County decisions and/or direction. The attendees at these meetings shall be as approved by the PM and may include. but not be limited to, the AlE and any necessary consultants, the PM. and an~' other consultants and third party contractors of the County approved by the PM. Unless otherwise directed in writing by the PM, the AlE shall briefly document (in letter format) the de­ cisions and directions received during these meetings and submit them to the PM within three (3) business days following the conclusion of each meeting. Figure I on the following page presents an ex­ ample of the format to be used. Transmittal of the minutes by facsimile transmission (FAX) to the PM shall be acceptable. The AlE shall attend all other meetings as may be reasonably necessary to discuss, resolve and document issues pertinent to preparation of the AlE Evaluation and Report.

2.11

AlE Evaluation Submittals And Presentations When preparing the AlE Evaluation. the AlE Consultant shall develop and submit alternative concepts and proposals following industry accepted architectural and engineering design practices and use of con­ struction methods, materials and systems. At the completion of each phase of the AlE Evaluation, the AlE Consultant shall submit the required documentation to the PM for review, approval and/or other di­ rection - and, if appropriate. make a presentation of the findings. The County shall review the materials submined and prepare review comments for correction, response and/or resolution by the AlE. [See Appendix K for a copy of the Standard Review Form.] Authorization [0 proceed with the subse· quent phase of work shall be subject to an approved disposition of all County review comments by the AlE Consultant. The PM shall provide such approval as part of the wrinen authorization for the AlE Consultant to proceed with the following phase of work.

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

Chapter 1. - aasic Scrvices AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rcv. Date: 9/1/95

Project Meeting #3 Downtown Juvenile Hall Repair 1234 Broadway Street Los Angeles, California 90005 LACOII-A127 Specs# - 9876 - DSRtI - 80765

e.

Date:

January 22, 1994

TIlde:

2:00p.m.

Place:

County orlos Angeles-Internal Services Department, SSO S. Vermont Avenue 11 th Floor Main Conference Room Person 2, User Group

Person 4, User Group

Person 6. Architectural Representative

Person 8, Engineering Representative

Present: Person 1. ISOIPMO Person 3. ISOIPMD Person S. ISOlDcsign Review Person 7. User Group New Business

Action Bv:

Discussion:

...

Due By:

1.I

The following handouts were distributed: a. ISO Design Schedule and Adenda b. AlE memo of January IS. 1993 c. ISO Analysis of Project Costs

Information Only

1.2

Item S in the ISO Project Design Schedule should be "January 4" as stated in the contract. Item 7 "RFP Package" requires development of descriptive data and sub mittal on March 12, 1993. The required data includes: a. Floor plans, sections. all elevations, site plan. list of all

critical equipment for each building in order to allow

ISO to prepare an RFP.

Architect

"'··oo

215/93

.... L

Figure 1 - Typical Meeting Minute Format

2.11.1 Submittals As identified elsewhere in this Manual, the AlE Consultant shall develop and submit various Interim Re­ potts of its findings and recommendations. These findings will be reviewed by the PM and other agencies as deemed necessary by the PM. All submittals shall comply with the Agreement and this Manual unless specifically directed otherwise - in writing - by the PM. Cost estimates shall be revised (if appropriate) in each submittal - final andlor interim - to reflect the continuing refinement of infonnation and/or changes in repair concepts or solutions. Interim Reports shall reflect the development and refinement of the project by including all calculations and related documentation necessary to describe the methodologies and assumptions em­ ployed. The Final Report shall adhere to the County's Word Processing specifications and Report • Format 3S defined in § 4.4 of this Manual.

Northridge Earthquake January 11. 199"

Chapter 2 - Dasic Services AlE Ev:tiu:Jtion Services Manual

Rev. Ollte! 911195

Submittals may bl! reviewed by the County and other agencies as deemed necessary by the PM. Com­ ments and questions relating to the submittal shall be returned to the AlE Consultant on "marked-up­ copies of the original submittal (along with the review comments fonn) within five (5) business days following receipt of the submittal. After the AlE Consultant has received the review comments from the PM. a comment review meeting may be scheduled if the nature of the review comments warrants such further clarification. This meeting will be chaired by the PM and may be attended by other County rep­ resentatives to establish a clear understanding of those comments and any implications. The AlE Consultant shall address and resolve all COUnlY review comments and submit the corrected documenta­ tion before proceeding with the subsequent phase of work. The A/E Consultant shall be responsible for the coordination and resolution of all comments. The AlE Consultant shall coordinate the resolution of any conflicting comments with the PM. Changes or correc­ tions not completed because of opinion or interpretation differences between the AlE Consultant and the County shall be identified as such and shall be resolved prior to the AlE Consultant's receiving permis­ sion to proceed with rhe following study phase ofrhe AlE Evaluation. Any additional services necessitated by decisions made in the meetings shall be approved in writing by the PM and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

2.11.2 Repo.rt Su_bm~ttals - All Study Phases Submittal Dates - Within the time frames stipulated by the Agreement. the AlE Consultant shall submit all required reports, calculations and cost estimates for County review .

•

Acceptance or Submittals - The County shall determine if a submittal is complete and acceptable for review within two (2) business days from its receipt. Rejection of Submittals Due To Incompleteness - If the County rejects a submittal due to incom­ pleteness. the PM will prepare and deliver to the NE Consultant a written report specifying the reasons for its rejection within three (3) business days from receipt of the submittal - unless more (or less) time is otherwise reasonably requi~ed and agreed upon by both parties. This report shall consist of comments specifying the reasons for disapproval of the Final Study Phase Submittal and identify the required standards that must be met before acceptance of the submittal and authorization to pro­ ceed with the next study phase. The NE Consultant shall, at its own expense. i.e.• no additional fees. make any corrections deemed necessary to correct or complete the submittal to comply with the scope of work and required stan­ darcis as defined in the Agreement and this Manual and resubmit it within a stipulated time frame acceptable to all parties. The County's review times for all submittals shall commence when the PM has received the como/ete submittal for review. Approval/Disapprcval of Submittals - Upon acceptance of an Interim or Final Report submittal. the County, within the number of business days from the d~J.[e of acceptance of the submittal as stipu­ lated in the Agreement or this Manual, shall review the submittal and either :lpprove it or disapprove it and proceed as provided in the following paragraphs: Approval If it is detennined that the! submittal confonns to the scope of work and requirements as defined in the Agreement :lnd the requirements of this Manual, the County shall authorize. in writing. the , A/E Consultant to proceed with the next study phase.

Northridge Earthqu3kc: January 17. 1994

Chapter 2 • Basic Services AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Rejection Based on Deficiencies If it is determined that the submittal - or any portion thereof - does not comply with the s;:op~ of work and requirements as defined in the Agreement and the requirements of this Manual, .ne County shall reject the submittal and deliver to the AlE a written report ofits deficiencies within the agreed upon review period - unless more time is otherwise reasonably required and agreed upon by both parties. This report shall consist of comments specifying the reasons for rejection of the submittal. The AlE Consultant shall, at its own expense, i.e., no additional fees. make any corrections deemed necessary to correct or complete the submittal to comply with the scope of work and reo quired standards defined in the Agreement and this Manual and resubmit it within a stipulated time frame acceptable to all parties. The County's review times for all submittals shall commence when the PM has received the complete submittal for review.

as

2.11.3 Interim Report Meetings As directed by the County Project Manager. the AlE Consultant shall meet and review Interim Reports with the County staff andlor any other groups identified by the PM. At these meetings, the AlE Consult­ ant shall summarize the findings documented in the respective Interim Report and claritY any questions or concerns. The location and time "for these meetings shall be determined by the PM and incorporated into the Project Schedule at the start of the project. Upon completion of the study, the NE Consultant shall make a Final Presentation of its Report, findings . and recommendations and respond t~ and resolve any questions or concerns.

2.12 Certification ofthe AlE Evaluation Report In the Final Report submittal, the AlE Consultant shall certify in writing that: • the NE Evaluation has been conducted following industry accepted architectural and engineering design practices and standards. • all architecturaVengineering calculations have been reviewed and approved by qualified, regis­ tered professionals. • all field surveys have been executed by personnel with appropriate training and qualifications.

+ the work of all involved technical disciplines has been coordinated by the AlE Consultant. • the Submittal conforms to the scope of work and requirements as defined in the Agreement and the requirements of this Manual. In witness thereof, the AlE Consultant shall affix his registered professional architect/engineer seal or stamp.

2.13 Invoicing Instructions Separate invoices shall be submitted for the work performed on each building being evaluated. f.H in­ voices shall identify the building by LACO # and the project by building name and.,DSR number. All invoices shall indicate current charges by task and DSR number. remaining fees to complete each t.ask and scheduled completion date for each task.

Pag~

2·8

NorthridCf: Earthquake January 17, 1994

Chapter 1 ~ Basic Services AlE Evaluation Servic:a Manaal

Rev. Date: 9/1195

On projects iCSentified by the PM as having an insurance claim pending by the County, the AlE shall also be required to identify and separate on the invoice those costs not eligible for reimbursement by the In­ . surance Carrier, i.e., services specifically oriented towards reimbursement by FEMA. These shall include. but not be limited to: •

Development of Hazard Mitigation Initiatives and the associated Cost Estimates (§ 3.3.3).

•

FEMA Meetings, OES Meetings, etc.

The PM shall provide the AlE Consultant with a listing and clarification of costs to be separated on in­ voices for projects involving insurance: claims.

.. .

Nortbridle Earthquake January 17, 1994

Chapter 1 - Basic Services AlE EvaluaUon Services Maaual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

This Page Intentionally Blank

Pac. 2-10

3. INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELlNES FOR PRODUCII0N OF AlE EVALUATIONS

AND REpORTS Chapter T opics 3.1 General .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Phase I -

Earthqualcc Damage And Structural Repair Documcnullian ........................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Phase IA -Initial Damage Description and Documentation ..................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1.1 Determination of Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1.2 Initial Inspection ................................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.2 Project Kick-Off Meeting ............................................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.3 Facility Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

­

3.2.4 Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluation .................. ;........................................................................................... 3-7

~-

...

3.2.5 Structur:J.1 Anal)r.!:is..................................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.5.1 Loss of Structurnl Capacity Description .......................................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.5.2 Ph:l.Se fA Submirt31 .......................................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.6 Phase IB . Structurnl Damage Repair Concept Developm·ent. ................................................................................... 3-12

3.2.6.1 Historical Structure Status Review ........................; ...........,.................................................. _......................... 3-12

3.2.6.2 Structural Damage Repair Analysis ................................................................................................................. 3-12

3.2.6.3 Phase IS Submittal and County Review ................ :......................................................................................... 3-1 ~

3.3 Phase 11- Facility Rc:pairlReplacement Concept Deve!opment... ................................................................................. 3-15

3.3.1 Facility Repair Concept Development ....................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3.1.1 Code Compliance............................................................................................................................................. 3-15

3.3.1.2 Facility Repair Conceprs ........................................ ~.. ~ ...................................................................................... 3-17

3.3.1.3 Facility Repair Concept Approval ................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.3.2 Facility Repair Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................................... 3-19

3.3.2.1 Total Project Cost Estimate: (TPCE) ................................................................................................................ 3-21

3.3.2.2 Facility Repair Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 3-21

3.3.3 Hazard Mitigation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.3.3.1 Hazard Mitigation Proposals ........................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.3.3.2 Hazard Mitigation Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................................... 3·22

3.3.4 Facility Replacement Program ................................................................................................................................... 3-23

3.3.~.1 Damaged Facility Program .............................................................................................................................. 3-23

3.3.~.2 Facility Rc:placement Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 3-2~

3.3.~.J Facility Replacement Sch.:duh: ........................................................................................................................ 3-2~

3.3.5 Pha:;c: II Brie/ing and Rc:view .................................................................................................................................... 3-25

Northridge Earthquake January 17. 1994

3.1

Chapter J - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. D:ale: 9/1/95

General The AlE Evaluation provides the County of Los Angeles with a mechanism for determining the optimum course of action for return ing a facility damaged during the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake to its pre-earthquake functional capacity. This detennination will be based upon the feasibility of repairing structural damage sustained during the earthquake, the overall costs to repair andlor restore the facility to its pre-earthquake functional capacity and the impacts and implications on service delivery while the repairs are made. The County's AlE Evaluation process provides a means for assuring the development of the analyses and documentation needed for making and justifying cost-effective and timely decisions - and receiving reimbursement for eligible costs. The AlE Evaluation process shall be conducted as a systematic process in two separate phases. This process r~qu;us the review of specific work products generated by the AlE Consultant and the written approval of the PM to proceed with any subsequent work products or phases of work. Figure 2 on the following page presents an overview of the project process and phases. PHASE 1- EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE AND STRUCTURAL REPAIR DOCUMENTATION The first phase of the AlE Evaluation shall consist of two elements - Phase fA and Phase lB. These elements shall document and quantify the extent and magnitude of damage sustained from the January t 1, 1994 Northridge Earthquake and its associated aftershocks. This documentation shall quantify (with appropriate calculations) the degree of structural damage to the facility and the cost to repair the dam­ aged structural members/elements and structural system and all related damage in compliance with current applicable codes. The following summarizes the work elements and products of these phases.

Phase IA -

Initial Damage Description and Documentation

•

Define the scope of work required forthe AlE Evaluation (§ 3.2.1.1).

•

Describe the facility and its uses (§ 3.2.3)

•

Identify, quantify and document all earthquake-related damage to the facility (§ 3.2.4).

•

Completely quantify and document all earthquake-related damage to the facility structure I: (§ 3.2.5).

•

Describe (in detail), quantify, calculate the loss of structural strength (where possible) and docu­ ment the specific damage to individual damaged structural elements and the structural system as a whole. Describe (in detail) the impact this damage has on the structural capacity and integrity of the individual element, system and any potential implications for life-safety considerations.

At'the end of Phase IA. the AlE Consultant shall submit the documentation identified above to the County for its review, approval and direction prior to initiating Phase lB.

IZ

As detennined by (he PM. the AlE Consultant"~ Stcuctur:!l Engineer and/or the: County Building Official (or his designated representative). the removal and/or relocation of other building system elements. improvements or equipment to allow ac­ cess to :md inspc:ction of s(ruc(ural members may be nccc:ss:lI'Y (0 insure the complete identification and documc:ntation of S(ru cttlr:1I dam:lgc:.

Nortbrid&e Eanbquake Janu8rY 17. 1994

Chapter 3 • Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Phase IA

•••••••••••••• ···_ _ :Toi···'····

I_::~:_-_"_"'_~"'·"'-_"'_"'_"_-. ~ ,.,;,;;..r'~-

. ". ':_-:_"=.. .

Phase II

I

...... '-,

Phase m



. o

\

_01_.. . . . . . . _

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .... A

fl.,",".

..... A _ C... C_~

Figure:2 • AlE

Evaluatio~

Page 3-2

Process

Northridge

Ellrthquak~

Chapter J - Instruccions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services ;\Ianual

January 17, 1994

Rev. Oate: 911195

~

Phase IB -

Structur:11 Damage Repair Concept Development

•

Define if the facility is a "historical structure" to which any repairs and/or alterations (§ 3.2.6.1).

•

Based upon the results of the structural damage analysis, identify and discuss alternative structural concepts to pennanentlyll repair the structure to its predisaster designl4 capacity in compliance with current codes and standards and recommend (and justify) a repair concept from the alterna­ tives discussed (§ 3.2.6.2).

•

Identify additional studies and testing that may be necessary to complete the AlE evaluation and define the scope of work necessary to restore the facility to its pre-earthquake functional capabil­ ity (§ 3.2.6.3).

Phase I shall conclude with a review and presentation by the AlE Consultant of its findings and recom­ mendations. Phase II - Facilitv RepairlReplacement Concept Development - Phase II of the AlE Evaluation shall develop, document and estimate the cost of the repair concepts considered to restore the damaged facility ••...so that it can perfonn the function for which it was being used as well as it did immediately prior to the disaster" IS - including compliance with current building codes and ordinances. The work. elements and products developed during this phase shall: •

Idenl'ify, develop, analyze and document practical alternative conceptual level plans, ROM cost estimates and schedules for the repair of all non-structural earthquake-related damage (§ 3.3.12) based upon the approved Structural Damage Repair Concept.

•

Identify. list and cite (where appropriate) all Federal, State ~d local building code and ordinance requirements, jurisdictional agency requirementS. standards and guidelines applicable to the de­ sign and construction projects for recovery from earthquake damage (§ 3.3. \.I).

(

•

Prepare for presentation and review the alternative and recommended repair concept(s) developed (§ 3.3 .1.2).

\]

l~

•

Following approval of an acceptable repair concept{s), prepare detailed cost estimates (§ 3.32.1).

•

Prepare a project schedule for the repair of the damaged facility (§ 3.3.4.3)

•

As directed by the PM, develop, analyze and document (as a separate section) hazard mitigation opportunities (§ 3.3.3).

As defined in.J.J CFR 206.201(g). "Permanent Work means that restorative work that must be performed through repairs or replacement. to restore an eligible facility on the basis of its predisaster design and current applicable standards." As defined in .J4 CFR 206.20 I(h). "Predisaster Design" means the size or c:lpacity of a facility as originally designed and constructed or subsequt!ntly modilic:d by changes or additions to the original design. It does not me:l1l the c:lpacity at which the facility was being used at the time the major disaster occurrcd if different from the most recent designed c3pacity. For example. if the damaged fou:ility was origin311y designed to accommodate a population of 100 inmates - but was holding 120 inmates 3t the time of (he disaster. only those: repairs necessary to accommodate a population of 100 inmates in compli­ ance with current codes and standards are eligible: for FEMA assistance: however. this may involve increasing the cell size from il typical.J8 sq. ft. per double occupancy cdl found in many old.:r designs to [he current minimum standard of 70 sq. ft. per double occup:mcy cell in the repaired facililY - thereby increasing Ih.: size of the facility. Do not include any im­ provc:ments [0 building arcas or systems that arc no! required by codes or standards!

Northridge Earthquake January 17. 1994

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rey. Date: 911195

•

Prepare. when required. a facility progr.1m that defines the space requirements, outlines the design criteria for an equivnlell' replacement'· facility and estimates the cost of replacing the facility (§ 3.3.4).

•

Prepare for presentation and review the recommended repair and/or (wilen required) replacement concept(s) developed. scope(s) of work and costs with the appropriate county staff for the selec­ tion and approval of a repair or replacement concept (§ 3.3.5).

•

Prepare for presentation and review a final report that documents and validates the development of the selected repair and/or replacement concept(s), scope(s) of work and costs (§ 4.3).

The work elements and phases described are intended to develop conceptual level solutions with mini­ mal definition of execution details. Detailed desifn solutions and d",wings are neithe, 'tlqui,ed or desired as part of tIre AlE Evaiuatioll Report subminals - except for those structural engineering analyses and repair proposals where illustrations and/or calculations are specifically required in this manual or are necessary to illustrate and/or demonstrate a problem and/or solution.

3.2 Phase I - Earthquake Damage And Structural Repair Documentation Phase I of the AlE Eva[uation shall focus on documenting all earthquake-related damage to the facility, determining and quantifying the loss of structural capacity, developing alternative plans and concepts to repair the damage and a rough-order-magnitude (ROM) estimate of the cost to repair the structure.

3.2.1 PhaselA - Initial Damage Descrjption and Documentation Phase [A will determine the initial scope of work and direction for the AlE Evaluation, document and quantify the level of building damage and quantify - ~ith calculations - the magnitude of structural damage and loss of structural capacity to the facility.

3.2.1.1

Determination of Scope of Work The AlE Consultant shall obtain from the PM all availab~ materials relevant to the facility and/or known damage caused by the January 17,1994 Northridge Earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks. This may include, but not be limited to, copies of: •

Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation (PES E) Inspection Reports.

•

Any Geotechnica[ and Seismic Analysis Studies perfonned for the facility.

• Any Hazardous Materials Surveys conducted at the facility and site. • Any work orders, purchase orders or contracts for the repair of earthquake-related damage. • Any outstanding maintenance work orders or requests for repair of earthquake damage. • Any available documentation including record drawings, technical constrUction specifications, calcu[ations and engineering reports in the condition in which they exist in the County's tiles. The AlE Consultant shall review these materials and, based upon this review, submit a plan to the PM for a britl(lnitial Inspection of the damaged facility. The Initial Inspection shall provide the AlE Consultant

16

Replacemcnt. in the context of this manual. shall specifically mean providing a duplicate of the damaged facility that is nominally idcDlkal in size. function and quality - but which complies with all current and applicable building codes and ordinances. P:ageJ....

Northridge Earthquake

January 17. 199~

Chapter J - Instructions llnd Guidelines AlE Ev:.lu:alion Servicrs Manual

Rev. Date:: 911195

with an opporrunity [0 examine the type and magnitude of damJge (0 the facility and. in conjunction with its review of County-provided materials. serve JS a basis for defining the required project scope of work. The plan for this Initial Inspt.:ction shall identify a limited number of AlE Consultant team­ members by name. position. diSCipline and level of involvement who are proposed to conduct the Initial Inspection. AlE Consultant team-members conducting the Initial Inspection shall be licensed profes­ sional architects and engineers. The PM shall review and approve this plan prior [0 scheduling and approving the AlE Consultant's initial inspection of the facility.

,\

3.2.1.2

Initial Inspection Following the PM's approval of the AlE Consultant's Initial Inspection plan, the AlE Consultant and PM shall arrange for access to the damaged facility to directly observe the magnitude and extem of the earth­ quake.related damage. The AlE Consultant team-members shall utilize this Initial Inspection to record brief discipline-specific descriptions of the earthquake·related damage and estimate the professional fees that will be required to prepare the AlE Evaluation - with emphasis on the identification of earthquake· related structural damage '1 . Observations shall be recorded on a form provided by the County (See Ap­ pendix F) which. in association with the available County-provided materials. shall provide a basis for developing and approving the AlE Consultant's scope of work, fees and contract. The AlE Consultant shall prepare and submit a completed Scope of Work form (provided by the County PM), work p'lan and outline schedule (§ 2.5) alld prop~osed fee to perform and document the NE Evalua­ tion. This s~bmittal shall include a letter that brieflv justifies the proposed scope of work and fees based upon the review of the County-provided materials and damage observed and recorded during the Initial Inspection and copies of any forms used to record field observations. Any services that are not listed on the Scope of Work form but are perceived as required by the NE Consultant shall be brieOv (three pages or less) summarized and justified. If, based on observations made during the Initiallnvestigati4'n and re­ view of the County-provided materials, the AlE Consultant finds that the County-provided materials and information are inadequate, inaccurate or raise any issues which may ultimately impact on the concepts proposed to repair, restore or replace the damaged facility, the scope of work shall identify the additional services, surveys and information that may be required, The letter proposal shall be presented to the PM within three (3) business days after making the Initial Inspection of the bUilding. The AlE Consultant and PM shall meet on the following day and complete the negotiation of a contract - including any modifications to the proposal necessary to address the spe­ cific needs and requirements of the Councy's AlE Evaluation process as defined in this manual and the specific project requirements. The proposal shall specifically include consideration and definition of the services required to identify and develop a minimum of three different. alternative repair concepts to re­ pair the earthquake-related structural damage and a project schedule (§ 1.5) incorporating sufficient time for the required County reviews and approvals". The applicability and acceptability of the proposed scope of work and project schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the PM and County Building Of­ ficial (or his representative) prior execution of the contract.

to

17

If. during this site visit or any subs~quc:nt site visits. :l.ny orth.: AlE Consultant's team-members observes (or perceives) any structural damage or indications or structural damage to th.: fal:ility that may create: (or represent) a potentially hJ.Z:IIdous or Iifc-Ihreatening condition that is subsequently contirmed - I!vc:n on a preliminary ba:;is - by the Structur:ll Engineer. the AlE Consultant and/or StNIt:lurnl EII(!;nur .fhaIlIMMEDlrfTELY notifY the PM and Cllttntv BuiJdin~ Official (or his d~s;gna'~d representllt;"II!J oftl't! ohst!rvnlion, loctltion and hn:ardous characteristics. If requested by the Count)" Build­ ing Official (or his designated representative). the AlE Consultant's Slructur:!I Engineer sh:1I1 accompany them to the: point ofobservation and assist with the: CounlY Building Official's (or his d..:signllte:d representlllj\'e's) inspC:ction.

"

The: PM shall provide I!stimJtcs of all review times by th..: County and/or jurisdictional agencies for incorporating into the: AlE C'nn5ult:lf1t's scht:dulc.

Northrid&e Euthquake January 17. 1994

Chapler 3 - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

The AlE Consultant shall commence the AlE Evaluation following execution of its contract with the County and receipt of a notice-ta-proceed.

3.2.2 Project Kick-Off Meeting Preparation of the NE Evaluation shall be initiated with a Project Kick-OtT Meeting. During this meet­ ing. the NE Consultant shall advance any unresolved issues and. ifnot satisfactorily resolve.d during the meeting. notify the PM in writing immediately following the Kick-OtT Meeting.

3.2.3 Facility Description The AlE Consultant shall prepare a comprehensive Facility Description that. as a minimum, verifies and/or completes the information stipulated in the County-supplied form (See Appendix L). This de­ scription shall include. but not be limited to: . A. Name and address of the building. B. County of Los Angeles Building Number (LACO #) and County Specification Number (Spec #). C. Building ownership information - leased, owned, acquired (and date acquired), etc. D. Building construction date(s)" and date(s) of any significant modifications or events that may have affected the structural system and current "historic structure" status of the bUilding.

- .

-

E.

Building size -

in building gross square feet (BGSF).

F. Building construction type (code classification) and a brief description of building materials and s~le.

G. Number of levels or floors - including identification of basement and penthouse enclosed spaces and building gross square feet per floor or level, number of elevators/escalators, etc. H. Overall building height and the specific floor-to-floor heights between all floors and/or levels. I. General use and occupancy (code classification) of the building and identification (with descrip­ tion) of any unique functions, employee count, building improvements or features that could significantly impact the repair and/or replacement costs for the facility. i.e .• ornamental features. interior jmprovements (courtrooms, operating rooms, detention facilities, bie-medical waste con­ tainment facilities, etc.), building design, etc.

J. Reduced scale (onto an 8 112" x 1In page) typical floor plan of the building including overall floor dimensions and a bar scale. K. Current 4" x 6" building.

19

color photographs of the building exterior illustrating the general character of the

By definition. any building (or portion thereof) detennined to have been designed and/or constructed prior to December 31. 1944 is a potential "historic structure" and any repair and/or restoration program must be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Ofl"i.:er (SHPO). The: NE Consultant shall be: responsible: for coordinating and verifying any elements of "historic" signifil:ance identified by the SHPO.

Page 3-6

I

-,.J

Northridce Earthquake January 17. 1994

Chapter J - Instructions and Cuidelines ,.\/E Evaluation Services Manu:al

Rev. Date: 9/1195

3.2.4 Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluation:o The Detailed Building/Site Condition evaluation shall be prepared concurrently with. and as part of. the Facility Description. The AlE Consultant shall perform a detailed inspection of the damaged facility to document its post-earthquake condition and gather any additional data required to prepare the AlE Evaluation: l . The PM and AlE consultant shall mutually detennine the method and level of detail of documentation necessary to adequately identify specific area(s) and location(s) of damage a~d pennit re­ view agencies and other parties to easily find the observed damage, i.e., room number, column/grid-line references. location on County-supplied floor plans or nOHa-scale sketch plans, etc. A '"log" listing and describing all earthquake-related damage, including color photographs of all observed damage, at the level of detail defined in the Agreement. shall be prepared to document the observations. If required, elevation and section sketches shall be prepared to illustrate any conditions (or implications) not readily apparent from the descriptions of the observed damage, photographs andlor floor plans illustrating the damage locations. Observable damage that existed prior to the Northridge Earthquake shall be specifi­ cally identified when in the proximity of earthquake-related damage. Zl The building and site element and system conditions to be inspected and documented for each floor or level of the facility ~including basements and penthouses) shall include, but not be limited to: Structural SYstem ElementsD • • • • • • • •

Foundations RoofsIFloors (Vertical Loads) ColumnsiPilaster/Corbels Diaphragms/Horizontal Bracing Shear WallsNertical Bracing Moment Frames Precast Connections All Seismic Bracing (Ceilings. Lighting, Fire Sprinklers, Walls, etc.)

• Other

:zo

Prior to perfonning the Detailed Buildil'g/Site Evaluations, the AlE Consultant is advised to review the Post Earthquake Safety Evaluation Team Manual for recommended protocols and procedures when working in damaged facilities. All AlE Consultant staff should have available for use during the on-site evaluations a camera (with close-up capability and time and date stamps). hard hat.. flashlight (with spare batteries) and tape measure.

%1

As part of documenting the damage to the facility, the NE Consultant shall validate. examine and record the status of all emergency repairs made to the facility and all other subsequent repair of earthquake-related damage needed to allow the fa­ cility to provide its occupants with a functional and habitable e:nvironmenL

If. during this site: visit or any subsequent site visits. any of the AlE Consultant's tearn-members observes (or perceives) any structural damage or indications of structurul damage to the facility that m"ay create (or repreSent) a potentially hazardous or life·threatening condition that is subsequently confirmed - even on a preliminary basis - by the Structurul Engineer. rhe AlE Consultant and/or Structural Enr:in.:er shall IMMEDIATELY notify the PM and County Building Official (or his duignated representative) oUh.: observation. location and ha;ardous characteristics. If requested by the County Build­ ing Official (or his designated representative). the NE Consultant's Structural Engineer shall accompany them to the point of obs~rvation and assist with the County Building Official's (or his designated representative's) inspc:c~ion . lJ

.

To completdy access and inspect the building's structurnl members and document earthquake-related damage m3Y require remov:lI of ()ther building improvements. clements and/or equipment The AlE Consullllnt shall immediately identify to the PM in writing rhose 3r.:3.$ where removal of co\·erings. equipment, etc., is necessary and. following appro v31. coordinate the: ~~" ••,< "'M\' ,,,,-1 ;n<~"r!;nr' ,I) ,~ II) minimi7e disruotion to the: occupant's operations.

Northridce Earlhclu:akt Janu...y 17. 1994

Chapter J - Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Non-Struc:turaVArc:hitcc:tur:l1 System Elements • • • • • • • • • • •

Par;)pets Ornamentation Canopies Signage (Building andlor Site) Building Exterior Walls. i.e., Brick, Masonry, Plaster/Stone Facing. Glazing. Metal Panels, Con­ crete Panels, etc. ExteriorlBuilding Entrance Doors and Window Openings Floors. Decks andlor Coatings Roofing System24 ElementslDetails Of Historic NaturelSignificance CSC Title 24/ADA ComplianceX' Other

Site Civil & Utilitv System Elements Asphalt Drives &: Parkway Concrete Pavement Sidewalks Fences Retaining Walls Irrigation System Exterior Lighting - Building, Site, Parking Area, Decorative, Etc. On-Site Utility Distribution Systems, i.e., tunnels/trenches. wells, piping, above/underground stor­ a~ tanks. etc. • CSC Title 24/ADA Compiiance 2S • Other • • • • • • • •

Interior Architectural Svstem Elements • • • • • • • •

Interior Walls Incerior Doors Ceilings Floor Coverings Furnishings Equipment CBC Tide 24/ADA Complianc~ Other

Mechanical System Elements • •

24

HV AC - distribution, supply, pumps, motors, anchors/restraints, etc. HVAC Package Units

Specitic attention shall be directed towards identifYing any form of water damage (andlor repair) to building improvements andlor equipment that C:1n be attributed to damage sustained - directly or indirectly - during the Northridge Earthquake andlor its :ltlershocks. This would include water damage: from leaking roofs. burst pipes, leaJcing windows or walls. etc. This infonnation shall be summarized in a sepan.le report thal identifies only earthquake-related water damage; however. the same infonnation shall also be incorporated into the basic Detailed BuildinglSite Condition Evaluation report of e:uth­ quake-related damage to the faciiity. While inspecting the facility to identify building/site areas. elements and systems that sustained earthquake damage. the NE Consultant tcam-members shall identify and document any potential non-compliancc with cac Title 24 or ADA require­ ments in are:lS h:1ving C3CthquaJ.:e damage or :along primary route(s) of access. i.e., aisle and door widths. elevator controls. restrooms. drinking founlains. electrical outlet heights, warning enunciators, ramps, etc. PageJ-8

--

Northridge Earlh"uake January 17. 199-4

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Chapter J • InstrUctions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manua'

Air Handling Units Ductwork/Grills Cooling Towers Chillers Main Boilers Water Heaters Energy Management/Controls Smoke Exhaust System Stairway Pressurization Fire Pumps Water Pumps Sewage Pumps Water Storage Tanks (building and/or site) Fuel Storage Tanks Liquid Gas Tanks (oxygen, nitrogen. butane/propane, hydrogen, etc_> Toxic Waste and Treatment Fume Hoods Scrubbers Radiation Other

Plumbing 5vstem Elements

• Water Piping • Waste and Vent ~iping • Stann Drains an~ Piping • Gas Piping

• Special Piping S),stems

• Sanitary Sewer

• Water Services

• Gas Services • Fire Water Distribution • CBC Title 24/ADA Compliance

15

•

Other

Electrical SYstem Elements •

Main Switchgear

• Main Distribution • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Main Transfonner(s) Secondary Transfonner(s) Emergency Generators (and fuel system) Batteries and Battery Racks Uninterruptible Power System (UPS) Emergency A TSlDistribution Low Voltage Systems/Controls Utility System Motors (Pumps. HVAC, Fans, ElevatorsIEscalators, etc_> Lighting System and Fixtures Energy Management Systems/Controls Electric Services/Convenience Outlets Telephone/Communication Computer LAN/WAN CBC Title !4/ADA CompJiancelS

•

Other

Rev. Date: 911/95

Northrid&e Earthqu3kc: January 11. 199-' • • • • • • • • •

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/119S

Fire Alarm Fire Sprinkler Fire Stairs Exit Lighting Emergency Communications ElevatorslEscalators Security CBC Title 24/ADA Compliance!' Other

Hazardous Materials!6 • • • • • • • • •

Asbestos (Location & Description) Lead (paint. plumbing solder, etc.) PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) Contaminated Oils Mercury Bio-Medical Waste Solvents/Reagents (Cleaning products, acids, caustics, chemical spills, etc.) Radioactive Contamination AbovelUnderground Tanks & CollectionlDistribution Systems Other

Hazard !'\1itigation!1 • • • •

Ceiling suspension system reinforcement/strengthening. Spot asbestos abatement. •. ­ Utiliry distribution system br:l.cing (electrical buses. air distribution ductwork, pipes, etc.). Utiliry equipment bracing (transformers, motors. panels/switchgear, etc.). • Wall bracing andlor reinforcement, • Plumbing (corroded, worn, brittle, etc.) The findings and observations from this level-by-Ievel Building/Site Condition Evaluation shall be documented for each item listed for each floor - including documentation, if applica.­ ble, that no damage was observed. As part of the documentation, the AlE Consultant shall identify. (by type and location) and describe any potential need for materials sampling ami testing":""" including destructive testing.

Documentation of the Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluation shall include the: •

Dates the building was inspected.

• Name. title. firm association and survey role of all survey team members.

The building HAlMA T assessment provided by the PM will identifY any known presence of Hazardous Materials: how­ ever. if any exposure to H:u:u-dous Materials is identified or suspected. do ~ discuss the observation with buildi"g occupants 3nd I;\IMEDIA TELY contact the ERPSS Team at (213) 427-1306 to report the observation and ::r:r,',,' '1",;,;. fic:ltion by the County. As part of the validation of this infonnation. the AlE Consultant shall include identifir.;;.,jor c f :;;-:1 potentially Hazardous Materials along the Title 24/ADA primary paths of tr:1vel to reach the earthquake darnzg:d V;o:.f-:;,~s of the building. .' 17

The Initial Inspc.:tion shall also identifY potential opportunities for Haz:ud Mitigation. This includes identifying situ;; ,;r;;;! where repairing llnly dam;lged ;Ire:! building elements andlor systems 10 current code requirements will· leave the remaining areas in the building suse.:ptibk to the: same (or comparable) damage during a future, similar earthquake. Pace 3-10

Northridge Earthquake January 17, 199'" -

Chapter J - Inscruccions :Jnd Guidelines ,.\/E Evaluation Services ;\lanual

Rev. Dace: 9/1/95

•

IdentiTic:ltion and highlighting of damage to the building :1Odlor its systems observed by team members during the Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluation - including a brief narrative description and color photographs of the damage keyed to an identifiable reference position andlor located on a reduced scale plan of the floor or building elevation drawing.

•

Preparation of "Crack Maps" [See Appendix H] on copies of County-provided building elevation drawings or sections Q!. AlE Consultant prepared sketches - if deemed necessary by the PM and AlE Consultant. The "Crack Maps" shall identify and illustrate areas where shear cracks are evi­ dent andlor observed, including those which appear to be continuous from floor-to-floor or on multiple floors. and shall be used to help document. analyze. assess and communicate the cumu­ lative effect oflocal and wide-spread structural system damage to the building.

•

Identification and highlighting of any potential or suspected areas of earthquake damage that were inaccessible to the survey team, i.e., existing walls or furring (building improvements) or furnish­ ings concealing piping, mechanical equipment, ducting. furring (over structural walls or columns), and which may require the Coumy to direct further. intrusive testing.

•

Presence (or suspected presence) and identification and documentation of all potentially hazard­ ous situations observed - including exposure oflto hazardous materials and/or Iifelsafety threatening conditions. .

The findings and observations of the inspection shall be documented and submitted to the County for its review and.incorporated into the Final Submittal of this phase. Documentation of-any repair solutions

and/or drawings are neither required nor desired as part oft/ris submittal.

3.2.5 Structural Analysis A structural analysis shall be performed to quantify and describe, in detail, the damage to and loss of structural capacity (vertical, lateral and torsional) of (where possible) the individual structural members damaged by the earthquake, and the associated loss of structural integrity in the building structural sys­ tem as a whole~·. Unless otherwise directed in writing by the County,:9 the AlE Consultant shall perform a comprehensive structural analysis of the damaged facility to detennine if it can be safely restored per 44 CFR 206.226(d) Cl)lO to be in compliance with all required building codes. Structural requirements specifically Section 104. ­ shall be those listed in the 1991

uec -

3.2.5.1

Loss of Structural Capacity Description The AlE Consultant's structural engineer shall describe. quantify with defensible and logical calculations (where possible) and document the structural damage and loss in structural capacity to all individual structural members damaged by the earthquake. Those calculations s/Iall be submitted to tlte Countv

21

If. as a result of the structural analysis calculations. the AlE Consullant's Structural Engineer finds structural damage (or indications of structural dam3ge) to the facility that may create (or represent) a potentially hazardous or Iife-thrC3lening condition. 'he AlE Consultant and/or Structural Enginet!r shalllMMEDlATELY notify the PM and Countv Bui/ding Wcial (or his dt!signauJ representative} D{rhe o/ul!rvnlion, location and hazardous characteristics. If requested by the County Building Official (or his designated represent:ltivc:). the AlE Consultant's Structural Engineer shall accompany them to the site and assist with the County Building Otlicial's (or his designated representative's) inspection. The extent of dam3ge to some facilities may be: delem1inc:d to be so massivl! - either from direct obs~rvation and/or from the Post-Earthquake Safety EV31uation - that Ihis task may not be required.

)0

CFR 4-' 206.226 (d) (I) st:ltc:s .." facility is considered repairable when disaster damlges do not exceed 50 percent of the COS! of replacing :1 facili:y (0 its pre·disaster ':Clndition. and it is fcasible to repair the facility so that it C!ln pc:rt"onn to the:

Northridge Earthquake January 17.1994

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

(or i/,f review and aDarol'aJ arior to developing and analvr.inr: alll' en/ential concepts to rl!pair tilt: damaged members and building structural system. As directed by the PM and/or County Building Of­ ficial (or his designated representative), additional inspections and calculations may be required prior to acceptance of the documentation,

3.2.5.2

Phase IA Submittal All materials developed during Phase IA of the project shall be submitted to the county for its review and approval. This submittal shall include all calculations of pre- and post-earthquake structural capacities and a comparison with current code requirements. Based on the County's review and acceptance of these calculations, the PM and AlE Consultant shall verify and modify (if appropriate) the approach and scope of work for the remaining elements of the project. Only thosl! eanl'quakl!-damaged structural ell!ments proven by calculation to not comply witl, current, applicable codt!S shall be I!ligib/e (or (unl'l!r analysis and rl!pair considuation - including any analysis o(tlll! impact o(damagt!S and reDairs on tl,e entire structural system.

Ti,e AlE Consultant s"all not proceed witlt Pllase IB until directed in writing by thl! Plt-l

3.2.6 Phase IB - Structural Damage Repair Concept Development ~en J!irected

by the County in writing. the AlE Consultant shall proceed to develop and document. if practical._il minimum of three (3) alternative concepts to cost-effectively repair the earthquake-damaged structural members of the building and/or building structural system in compliance with current, applica­ ble codes and ordinances. Included in this development of concepts will be the documentation of any "rough-order-magnitude" (ROM) estimates of the costs'to implement the alternative repair concepts used during the decision-making process.

3.2.6.1

Historical Structure Status Review Prior to proceeding with the development and documentation of ~ structural (or other type of building) system repair, the AlE Consultant and PM shall consult with CDA T and (if necessary) SHPO to establish (or validate) the "historical structure" status of the building. If the facility is identified by SHPO as having features of historical or architectural significance that need to be preservedl " the AlE Consultant shall be apprised of the relevant historically significant features or elements of the building and direGted by the PM to develop a minimum of one (1) altel'l1ative plan that avoids altering or damaging the histori­ cally significant elements or features and, wherever possible, preserve the building's historically significant features to the greatest extent possible. This plan must comply with Section 110 of the Na­ tional Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 78] and/or, if listed on the California Register of Historical Resources [PRC 5024.1 (d) (I)], will be subject to review by the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO).

3'.2.6.2

Structural Damage Repair Analysis The AlE Consultant shall prepare a narrative description of the feasibility and processes for repairing all earthquake-damaged structural elements in the building. The NE Consultant shall identify a recom­ mended approach that successfully restores the structurn! integrity of the building in compliance with all

11

Guidelines for prescrvalion of historic places arc documented in 36 CFR 78. Section I 10 of the National Historic Preserva­ tion Act 31111 PRe S024.I(d)( I) which created the Califomia Register of Historical Resources. Appendix K pro\'ides an over,iew of the process to be applied to the preservation of facilities designated as a "historical structurc", P:age 3-12

Northridge E3rthqu3ke January 17. 1994

Chapter J - Instructions 3nd Guidelines

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

applicable st·ructural codes and ordinances of [he relevant jurisdictions. i.e.. OSHPD. OSA. County of Los Angeles. etc. This narrative description shall be supported by all calculations. drawings and/or il­ lustrations necessary to prove the need for the proposed repairs and repair methods. The documentation shall: •

present analyses for three different concepts - if practical.

•

identify and document the most cost-effective approach (based on a rough-order-magnitude cost estimates) to repair the earthquake-related structural damage and restore the structural integrity of damaged structural elements and associated structural systems to their predisaster design capacity.

•

identify any impacts on the functional use of the damaged areas during and after the repair of the structure. i.e .. need to relocate functions during the repairs. inability to use the repaired space for its original design purpose because of code or operational considerations, etc.

•

identify the basis for selecting the recommended repair scheme.

[0

repair the damaged structural elements and systems

The AlE Consultant's narrative description shall characterize and discuss the most cost-effective con­ cepts and methods applicable for the repair of damaged structural elements that comply with current, applicable building codes - including the impact (and related construction work) on any supported and supporting elements and any critical ties associated with the damaged structural elements. The narratwe description shall identify and- des<;ribe any effect the required repairs have on associated or otherwise undamaged elements of the structural system and/or its foundations. i.e .• additional loads on foundations, shear walls, moment frames. diaphragms. etc. Where the proposed repairs affect the struc­ tural system and cause a potentially unsafe tondition in the building's structural system - or anv part of l/tal structural sutem - the AlE shall pr.epare a repair scheme that mitigates the resulting potentially unsafe condition(s). The narrative shall also identify and describe any and all conditions where proposed repairs to the structural system andlor ind~vidual structural elements require the removal, dislocation or dismantling of other building systems or elements in order to repair a structural member. All narrative descriptions must include a detailed "chain of logic" discussion that succinctly documents the logical process and basis leading to the development and recommendation of the repair concept(s) proposed. This narrative shall also identitY all applicable code sections and sub-sections that support the logic and resulting recommendation for the repair concept for earthquake-related structural damage to the facility. [See Appendix G for examples of both a text and coordinated matrix}. All proposed repairs mU.rt conform 10 current, applicable building codes. This section of the narrative shall list all applicable codes associated with the subsequent repair, rein­ stallation andlor replacement of building systems or elements impacted by repairs to the structural system by section and sub-section. It will also identity any anticipated requirements for hazardous mate­ rial abatement associated with the proposed repairs. All structural calculations used to justify or validate the requirement or basis for the proposed concepts shall be documented in the narrative. Where a geotechnical evaluation is the basis for any of the pro­ posl!d concepts and calculations. copies of the geotechnical report(s), test results and recommendations shall be included in an appendix to the Final Report. Where destructive m:lterials testing is required to establish the current characteristics and capabilities of structural system elements, copies of the report(s). test results and recommendations shall also be included in an appendix to the Final Report. The pro­ posed repair concepts together with calculations and structural analyses shall be reviewed with the County's Building Ofticial (or his representative) to valid;ue its compliance with all ~quired codes and ordinanc~s. Adjustments to the proposed n:pair concepts suggested by the County,Building Official (or his designated representative) that are required for code and ordinance compliance shall be m:lde by the AlE Consultant prior (0 any subsequent submittals of work to the County for review and approval.

..

Northridce Earthquake January 17. 1994

Chapter J - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

If the facilil~ or sile is identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer to have features of historical or architcctuml significance that should be preserved. the impact of the recommended structural repaii and restomtion progmm on the referenced elements or features shall be described and. if possible. an al­ ternative progmm that preserves and avoids altering or damaging the historically significant elements or features of the building to the gre:ltest extent possible shall be defined. The AlE Evaluation narrative shall identify each

floor/level or area that requires the repair of structural

elements or systems and recommend appropriate repair concept(s). The documentation shall also define the con­ struction activities and sequence associated with the Structural Repair Concept repair of the earthquake-related damage to structural ele­ undiClnai mpact ments and/or the system, any approximate amount of time required to implement the recommended repair concept(s) ~I/fte and the potential impact on functional occupancy and use Coat of the facilities during the repairs. Where repair and re­ Funding modeling activities occur in facilities that provide EliI,Iibility essential or critical services to the community - and Fade ~o",pliance which must remain in use - the AlE Consultant shall identify measures to help minimize the disruption to Oilier functions and operations during the repair, i.e., minimiz­ TOTAL ing the impact of construction noise, material deliveries and staging. noxious odors, etc. Rating.:

3.2.6.3

Alternatives Concept

A

Concept B

Concept C

2

3

1

1

3

2

3

2

1

1

3

2

2

1

3

2

3

1

2

3

t

13

11

11

1 . Worst

3 • Be.t.

Phase m Submittal and County Review

Figure 3 - Decision Matrix The AlE Consultant shall prepare and present to -the County a report of the Phase IB fIndings and recommendations. This shall include, but not be limited to the: • Initial Inspection observations. • Facility Description. • detailed description of damage cause.d by the Northridge Earthquake and aftershocks. • calculations and analysis of the loss of structural capacity and system integrity as a result of the Northridge Earthquake and its aftershocks. • discussion of the analysis, fIndings and feasibility of repairing and utilizing the existing facility's structural clements. • rationale for selection of the alternative and recommended repair schemes. • a summary of the cost. schedule and operationaVfunctionaVservice delivery implications of the proposed facility repair alternatives. • documentation of all materials prepared for required analyses and updated cost estimates_ • Preliminary Repair And Restoration Plan Recommendation -

including costs.

• R~placement Facility Cost Estimate.

To assist the County in its validation and selection of the AlE Consultant's recommended repair con­ cept. the PM may require preparation and presentation of the applicable decision-related elements in a Decision Matrix to detennine which structural repair concept(s) best meet the needs of the County. An example ofa simplified Decision Matrix of the type and format required is illustrated in Figure 3.

•

Northridge Earthquake

January 17. 199-'

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services :'.lanuJIII

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Decisions that result from the Phase ( presenr:llion may require the PM [0 redirect the AlE Consultant's subsequent approach and associated scope of work for completing the AlE Ev:lluation - including changes in the types of consultants and technical disciplines needed. testing and survey requirements (geotechnical. asbestos. materials. etc.). and schedule.

TIle A/£ Cmrsultant sltall trot proceed witlt Phase II until directed in writing bv tI,e PM.

3.3

Phase n - Facility Repair/Replacement Concept Development Based upon the structural system repair concept(s) selected during (or following) the Phase I Presenta­ tion and Review. the AlE ConsulUnt shall. upon receipt of written directions from the PM, proceed to develop and document a conceptual program and scope of work to repair all remaining eanhquake­ related damage to the facility. This program shaH identify repair concepts and the repair work required to restore all earthquake-damaged building areas. elements and systems. i.e., architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing. civil. etc., per 44 CFR 206.126(d), the 1991 Uniform Building Code, other applica­ ble codes and ordinances. and all jurisdictional regulations and policies, on a floor-by-floor basis. Alternative concepts to repair the earthquake-related damage for each of the building elements and sys­ tems - if reasonable and practicable - shall be identified, documented and presented. Where applicable and approved by the PM. the AlE Consultant shall also propose (in a separate chapter) eligi­ ble, cost-effective Hazard Mitigation initiatives. The following sections define the minimum. acceptable requirements for the evaluation and documenta­ tion of the programs and cost estimates to be prepared during Phase II (Facility Repair/Replacement Concept Development) of the AlE Evaluation.

3.3.1 Facility Repair Concept Development The AlE Consultant shall. as directed by the PM, develop and document alternative concepts and de­ tailed estimates of the costs to repair earthquake-related damage sustained by the non-structural elements and systems of the building. i.e .• architectural. mechanical, electrical, erc. All alternative repair concepts considered and developed by the AlE Consultant shall be in compliance with the 1991 Unifonn Building Code and ordinances and not t/rose building coda to which the facility was initially daigned or con­ structed. The alternatives shall identify and quantify on a floor-by-floor basis, the work required to repair each of the earthquake-damaged systems or areas. Only those repairs directly related to eanh­ quake damage or repairs REQUIRED (or code compliance shall be discussed or referenced in the

documentation. All reports must include a detailed "chain of logic" that succinctly documents the logical process and ba­ sis leading to development of the repair concepts presented - including a listing of aU applicable code sections and sub-sections to support the logic and resultant alternatives. (See Appendix G for examples of both a text and coorainared matrix]. Floor plans (electrostatic copies of County-supplied building floor plans. Not-To-Scale sketches, etc.) "ross-referencing the impacted areas and systems effected by the repairs described in the "chain of logic" shall be provided. The basis and logic for all statements. conclusions. recommendations and/or alternative concepts prepared and presented as part of the AlE Evaluation shall be supported with documentation and references to the appropriate observations. codes and/or reg.ulations.

3.3.1.1

Code Compliance All repair concepts considered and developed by the AlE Consultant shalf comply with the current appli­ cabk codes and standards [hat must be observed in order to acquire the required building and occupancy

permits from applicJblc: jurisdictional and regulatory agencies.

Northrid&e Earthquake

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

January 17. 1994

Rev. Date: 911195

3.J.1.1_. JurisdictioQal Agency Standards. Guidelines and Applic:able Codes

Prior to initiating the development of repair concepts for the damaged facility. the AlE Consultant shall prepare a listing of the jurisdictional agencies that must review and/or approve the facility plans and a list of regulatory codes. standards and guidelines that will apply to the repair and/or replacement of the site and building. These shall be listed by: • Governmental level, i.e., federal. state. county, municipality, etc. • Applicable codes -

including current version and projected date of any proposed changes.

• Approved standards - identifying County for use on County projects.

the most recent version acceptable and approved by the

3.3.1.1.2 Code Compliance Analysis The A/E Consultant shall: • Obtain, review and evaluate all available building plans and specifications for the damaged facil­ ity. •

Determine and obtain the relevant codes and ordinances applied during the facility's original de­ sign and construction.

•

Review the codes and ordinances to which the building was designed and compare them with cur­ rent, applicable codes. ordinances and/or other jurisdictional requirements.

•

List and describe each change in the code requir~ents bl section and identify any corrections or alt.;r:Itions necessaryJl and possible for compliance with present codes and requirements.

The AlE Consultant shall have appropriately qualified and licensed professional staff inspect" the darn­ aged facility to validate that the conditions and construction are as portrayed in the available building plans and specifications and compare them with current, applicable code and construction requirements. This survey shall document as a minimum: • Dates inspected. • Name, title, finn association and review/survey role of all review/survey team members. •

Identifying and locating on a reduced scale plan all code variances by building floor. level and/or site area that are observed or identified by team members. IdentifY the code section applicable to each variance and include a brief narrative description of the deficiency keyed to an identifiable reference position located of the reduced scale plans.

•

Identifying the presence (or suspected presence) of any hazardous materials or conditions in (or adjacent to) areas that do not comply with current applicable codes and/or ordinances.

The AlE Consultant shall document the findings of the code compliance analysis. The narrative docu­ mentation shall identify and compare differences between current applicable codes, code sections and local ordinances that will apply to the repair of the facility with those in effect when the facility was originally designed. The AlE Consultant shall also verifY that applicable codes were applied during prior design and enforced during construction - and/or any subsequent alter:Itions.

Jl

Not all changes may require :lItc:ration or modilication to achie:ve the intent of the: present code, i.e., instances where the: original facility design and construction exceeded the minimum code/design requireml!nts or where prior code/design re­ quirements c:xc;:~Jc:d current coJe/design requin:ments.

J)

The NE Consultant may. the: Detaih:d Inspcction.

3:1

Sl!t forth in the: Agreement or as directed in writing by the PM. conduct this survey as part of

P:age 3-16

Northridge: Earrhquake

Chapter.l - Instructions and Guidelines ,\/E Evaluation Services Manual

January 17. 1994

3.3.1.2

Rev. Date: 9/119S

Facility Repair Concepts Unless otherwise directed in writing by the County:? the AlE Consulrant sh
During any and 31t phases of dC:\'c:!opmenc of the AlE Evaluation. the ..vE Consult:lnt shall t;.e expected LO .:onduct my site visils nec
This must illdutl..: campliane..:

Wllh 3/1

Californi:l Building Code requirements - in pal1icuLu. Title 2-'.

10

validate

Northridge E:arthquake January 17, 1994

Chapter J - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services :\t.nual

Rev, Date: 9/1195

shall be: pro\ltde:d to the PM imme:diately following the meeting and included in the Phase II Submittal. Any adjustments to the program and/or concepts required for code and ordinance compliance. as identi­ fied by the Building Official (or his designated representative) andlor representative(s) of applicable jurisdictional agency(s). shall be made by the AlE Consultant prior to submittal of the final Phase II AlE Evaluation documentation.

If the facility or site is identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer to have features of historical or architectural sign i ficance that should be preserved, the impact of the recommended repair and restora­ tion program on the referenced elements or features shall be described and. if possible, an alternative program that preserves and avoids altering or damaging the historically significant elements or features of the building to the greatest e)(tent possible shall be defined. 3.3.1.2.1 California Building Code Title 24 And ADA Compliance The accessibility requirements section of Title 24 of the California Building Code (CBC) and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 (ADA) mandates that virtually all repairs or alterations incorpo­ rate some invesanent in improvements to provide better accessibility for the handicappedJ6• The amount and extent of investment required is a function of the value of specific, qualifying costs for the repair andlor alteration work being performed. Based on the "order-of-magnitude" costs identified during Phase [B. Phase II and the "triggers" for CBC Title 24 and ADA compliance as interpreted by the County and directed by the PM, the AlE Consultant shall incorporate into the facility repair program elements to provide andlor improve handicapped acces­ sibility within the budgetary and code compliance guidelines provided by the PM. This program shall be defined iii a narrative description of recommended alterations needed to fulfill the applicable ADA and Title 24 requirements. The narrative description shall define the areas andlor types of alterations neces­ sary for code compliance on each tloorllevel or site area, the construction activities required. estimated time-duration to make the alterations. added time (if any) to implement the proposed measures and the potential impact on functional occupancy and use"ofthe facilities during the alteration work. 3.3.1.2.2 Code Compliance Program Unless otherwise directed in writing by the COU!ltf9 , the AJE Consultant shall prepare a narrative de­ scription of a recommended program to update" the facility to meet all current. required. California Building Code Titles (15. 17, 24, etc.), County codes and local zoning/development codes applicable to repair of the earthquake damage. This Code Compliance Program narrative shall identify the alternate repair concepts that were considered to bring the facility into compliance with the current, applicable codes. recommend the most suitable concept and document the basis (or selection of the recommended approach. [f additional studies are used (or are required) as a basis for selecting the recommended ap­ proach or concept(s), copies of the report(s). observations, test results. applicable code sections and recommendations shall be included in an appendix.

J6

Title 24 of the CBC includes a variety of building-related code requirements ranging from life-safety to energy conservation to handicapped accessibili!y requirements - all of which must be addressed in the concepts and programs developed to re­ pair the earthquake-related damage to the: facilities. The handicapped accessibility portion of CBC Title 24. as interpreted by the County Building Ollicial. requires an additional invesrm~nl O(UD 10 10% 0(011 quali(vilrg pro;ect costs (or accu­ sibilin' (hal/dicap) jmprm'ements on virtual/I' all repair proj~cr:r: however, when the "hard" costs incurred to repair earthquake-related damage sustained throughout th..: facility. less th..: costs of repair work c:xempted 'by the Building & Saf.:!)' Division, meet or .:xceed the -triggering" mechanism for application of California's Titlc: 24 of the Building Code, the facility repairs shall be extended to any applicable areas of the facility outside the immc:diate area of earthquak.: dlll11ag.:. The County PM shall advisc the AlE Consultant if thc "triggering mechanism" has been excc:c:dcd or Itte dollar value and/or e..~tent of Tille 24/.-\0'\ conlpliancc 10 be incorporated in the: repair program. P:age 3-18

_ Northridge Earth'lu:lko:

Janu:ary 17. 191).1

3.3_1.3

Chapter J - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evalu:ltion Sen-ices ;\1:Inu:a1

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Facility Repair Concept Approval The AlE Consultant shall documcent and present to thl! County for review and approval the various repair concept(s) developed and the repair concept(s) recommended. The documentation shall include the nar­ rative description of the approaches. code considerations and references. construction repair activities and sequencing and basis for selecting the recommended repair concept. The AlE Consultant shall modify (if appropriate) the repair concepts based on the County's review, acceptance and/or direction regarding the approaches and/or recommendations.

Tile AlE Consultant sllall not proceed witll {urtller development o(pro;ect cost estimates 01' otller proj­ ect elements until directed in writing bv tile PI"'.

3.3.2 Facility Repair Cost Estimate The AlE Consultant shall prepare detailed estimates of the cost to repair the damaged building and site elements and systems (and directly associated J7 damage) as described in the approved repair program. The cost estimates shall be presented in the level of detail and fonnat identified by the County. The County's cost estimating fonnat, level of detail required, process and its use are more fully explained and illustrated in Appendix I of this Manual.

The AlE sl,;/I not include anv costs. discussions or recommendations re:arding tire repair of building damage identifled (01' observed) durin: tlte "Detailed Building/Site Condition Evaluations" as not caused bv ti,e Northridge Earthquake in the report documentation and cost estimates unless tile • methodologv used to repair proximate eartllquake-related damage requires its removal, replacement and/or destruction - and sllall state tltat tile cost estimate submitted does not include anv costs not di~ rec/lv associated HI;th tile repair o(eartllquake~related damar:e. Separate cost estimates shall be prepared for the repair of each of the building elements identified as damaged. Repairs shall be made in confonnance with currem applicable codes and the concepts and ap­ proaches defined and documented in Phases IS and Phase II of the AlE Evaluation. i,e., structural, mechanical. electrical. plumbing. architectural. etc. These cost estimates shall utilize the formats illus­ trated in Appendix I of this Manual and unit cost data published in the 1995 edition of Means Repair and Remodeling Cost Datal l - adjusted by the location factor closest to the site. Repair costs shall be grouped by building system and identify (by floor and/or area) on a "line-item" ba­ sis the "basic" costs to repair or restore each major building element or component - including all demolition costs and directly associated}7 repair costs. All "line-items" shall include a brief description of the activities and sequence involved and identify the specific Means systems/line numbers of the unit or assembly utilized as well as unit costs. unit quantities. job condition adjustments l9 and the IOtal cost

)7

1.

The costs incurred to restor: building elements or systems that Jre damaged or removed whil~ repairing earthquake-related damage arc to b~ considered as "directly associated" costs_ For example. the costs to repair damage associated with the failure of th.: structur:l1 elements. i,e.. glass in damaged ~uilding walls. pipes burst by the collapse of structur:ll members and the associated water d:unage to other building systems. removing building impro\'ements to repair damaged elemcnts, etc.. are to be considered "Jirectly associated" repair costs. Thl!sc costs shall bl! identified and listed as separate line items in the cost estimates JIld rcpnJc:d as "basic" repair costs. As stal.:d pr.:,-iously. other .:ust estimating sources and data ma~ be: used if a.:.:eptabl~ documentcd the: Cllunty_

and approved t"llr use by

Northridg~ Earthqu:lke Jan... ry 17. 19q4

Chapl~r

J - Instruetions :lnd Cuid~lin~s

,\/E EV:llualion S~rvic~s :\lanual

Rev. Date; 9/1195

for l!ach lino= itcm. U~e o( "Lump su"," all(ICalioll.f (or tI,e repair o(/wilding .f}'Stl!ms Oil Qn 'Ja:;;, ficoa;" fir hlli/cliu,! hasis (llt/,er 111(111 (or "General COI,clititm.vAdmillistrative" costs) shall not be acnpiCif};e.

Additional costs incurred for code compliance shall be incorporated in the "basic" costs to re;:-~i: ;:~ re­ store a building element or component. For example, replacing earthquake damaged. non-ADA compliant door hardware with ADA compliant hardware, replacing undersized and exposed electrical wiring with code-compliant insulated wiring in conduit when rebuilding a damaged wall. epoxy grouting and reinforcing a shear wall with shotcrete or bracing, etc. shall be considered a "basic" repair cost.

Costs (or tile provision of additional building elements or tire replacement and/or modification orele­ ments in areas not directly damaged by tlte eartltguake- but otherwise reguired for code complianct! and receipt ora building or occupancy permit - SHALL BE INCLUDED AS SEPARATE LlNE­ ITEMS IN EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE BUILDING SYSTEM GROUPINGS AND THE ESTIMATED COST FOR THAT ELEMENT IDENTIFIED AS "Required B'I Coden, For example, provision of an additional shear wall to supplement an existing, damaged shear wall, replacement of a electric panel servicing (but not located in) an earthquake-damaged area to meet current code require­ ments, replacing an air handler to increase air changes in an area to meet current requirements, etc. shall be identified as "Required By Code". The listing of line-items for additional elements needed for code compliance shall reflect the steps and sequence described in the proposed repair program (§ 3.3.1.2, Paragraph 4). If the code requirement is part of the CBC Title 24 Accessibility Requirements and the ADA, the line-item for this element shall identify it as "Required By T241ADA". The cost estimates shall also identify and include the estimated costs to repair any "inferred" damage -. thar-was identified by the survey team as inaccessible, i.e., piping concealed by existing buildir.g im­ provem!nts or equipment, mechanical equipment. ducting, furring, etc., and for which the Cour;;:-; erc not authorize removal of the obstructing equipment or improvements or further intrusive testing_ For {u­ cilities identified bv lite P;'\If as Itaving an insurance-claim pendinf{ by lire County, the AlE ConslI/tant

u!: shall also be required to prepare a separate estimate oUlre cost to repair all water damage id€ directlv related to (or associated wit") damaged caused by (or as a result 00 the earthquake (§ 3.2.4, Footnote 24).

If the building is detennined to have features or elements of historic or architectural significance, any additional cost allowances to retain the desired features or elements shall be defined and added as 3. g]zu­ rate line-item labeled "Historic Preservation Costs" and a more detailed estimate of costs associated with the preservation effort shall be prepared. If the presence of asbestos containing (or other hazardous) materials was reported in the Cour;ry's Haz­ ardous Materials Survey, the Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation and/or subsequently verified (or identified) during the Det~iled Building/Site Condition Evaluation, an appropriate allowance fer ine rr:­ pair and/or containment (remediation) of Hazardous Materials in the damaged areas shall be included as a "line-item" - unless removal and disposal of the Hazardous Materials in the adjacent undamaged area is more cost effective or is necessary to safely repair and restore the damaged portions of the building. Likewise. if the Structural Assessment indicates additional geotechnical surveys may be necessary to validate suspected adverse soil conditions. the cost for it shall be listed as a separate line-item and in­ cluded as an indirect cost. This allowance shall include estimates of unit quantities and unit costs. All line-items shall be subtotaled and appropriate allowances for sales tax. general conditiujj::;, CClr.ff;;(.­ tor's overhead and contractor's profit added as individualline-irems. An allowance for conso-uctior. (.():.I escalation, calculated to the midpoint of the scheduled construction period. shall be i~entifierl as a :f.p~­ rate: line-item. The sum of these line-items shall constitute the "hard" cost to repair the; f.:;rih(~l!"I-r, caused damage. N" liI,e-ifl!m(f} (IIr "Ctllrfill!:ellcie.~" sllllll he i"c/udell.

Page J-20

.J

Northrid,,~ E:trthqullk~

Janu:ary 17. 1994

3.3.2.1

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Total Project Cost Estimate (TPCE) . The A/E Consultant shall identify and calculate the magnitude of:lJl indirect costs that will be incurred in the repair and restoration of the building. These shall include, but not be limited to: •

architecturaVengineering 30d other professional design fees.

•

other professional fees associated with the repair and restoration of the facility.

t

all plan check and processing fees.

t

surveys, testing and quality control inspection fees.

t

project/construction management fees.

The AlE Consultant shall also confer with the PM and relevant County staff to identify and document all County operational and support costs incurred during the repair and restoration program. Typically, these shall include any expenditures that would not typically be incurred during normal Departmental or facil­ ity operations such as occupant relocation costs (if necessary), temporary lease costs., furniture/equipment replacement costs, service delivery considerations, unrecoverable losses in em­ ployee productivity, lost staff time and staff over-time, lost equipment use opportUnities, etc. and any other increased costs of service delivery or operation olO • These costs shall be developed on a separate. itemized basis and summarized for application by the County dun;g its future evaluation of options relative to the damaged facilities. All costs shall be devel­ oped concurrently and on an interactive basis, Le., the AlE Consultant shall provide relevant information to the PM and occupants who will provide evaluations of the operational and cost impacts to the AlE Consultant for incorporation into the cost estimate sheets. The indirect costs shall be documented in the cost estimate utilizing the format illustrated and described in Appendix 1. Costs shall be categorized as either "hard" costs or "soft" costs' as defined by the County. The costs incurred to repair earthquake-related facility and site damage shall be the sum of the "hard" and "soft" cost line-items.

3.3.2.2

Facility Repair Schedule The AlE Consultant shall also identify the approximate length of time required for the design and con­ struction of proposed conceptual repairs to the facility - including appropriate times identified by the PM for reviews and approvals by all County and jurisdictional agencies.

3.3.3 Hazard Mitigation Program Hazard Mitigation (HAZMIT) seeks to reduce the vulnerability of a site, building, structure or infra­ structure to future damage or occupant injury during similar seismic events or conditions. It involves the correction or abatement of potentially hazardous conditions identified as a part of the repair effort wmch are ineligible for funding under the general program guidelines. However. when it can be established that the public welfare :lnd interest would be best served by correction or abatement of a potentially haz­ ardous condition. :lltem:lte project funding for the necessary mitigation measures can be authorized as an eligible cost.

40

The preponderance of th~ opc:r:nil1nal. functional and related cost infonnation will be provided by the County for inclusion

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 199.&

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Scrviccs Manual

Rev, Date: 911195 J

Development of Hazard Mitigation proposals and cost estimates shall proceed concurrently with the de­ velopmenJ of Total Project Cost Estimate (§ 3..3.:!.1) . .

3.3.3_1

,

Hazard Mitigation Proposals For the purposes of the AlE Evaluation. Hazard Mitigation is defined as any appropriate, feasible, cost­ effective repair(s) andlor improvement(s) which are not strictly required by current building or life­ safery codes but which can reduce the risk of loss of life or damage to the building in future disasters ­ including risks associated with hazardous materials and environmental pollution. The AlE Consultant shall identify, on a preliminary basis. any potentially hazardous conditions not ad­ dressed in the Code Compliance program. As specifically identified and directed by the PM, the AlE Consultant shall prepare a narrative description of a Hazard Mitigation proposal to correct those potential situation(s) or condition(s) under which the damage would occur (or recur). The HAZMIT proposals shall identify the measures by general system or type, i.e.• ceiling, piping, ducting, etc., and general area of the building, i.e., first and fourth floor, louvers on the southeast side of the penthouse. entire building, transformer vault. etC. and reference the potential consequence(s) of not implementing the proposal andlor changing the condition. The Hazard Mitigation Proposal(s) shall be submitted in a separate chapter of the AlE Evaluation Final Report. Each Hazard Mitigation proposal shall be developed and documented separately and shall in­ clude, but not be limited to: • Identification and description of condition to be mitigated._ • DellCription of the damage sustained or hazard posed as a result of the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake and subsequent aftershocks. • Description of future situations or conditions un'der which similat damage would potentially occur or recur and clearly state the potencial consequence(s) of failure to correct the hazard and condi­ tions. • Conceptual level description of the proposed mitigation measures. This description of each proposed HAZMIT measure shall define the construction activities, estimated time-frames and sequence for the construction or alteration work by floor/level or site area, additional time (if any) required to implement the proposed HAZMIT measures and the potential impact on func­ tional occupancy and use of the facilities during the work. Where appropriate, the AlE Consultant's documentation shall identify specific difficulties associated with the remodeling of facilities that provide essential or critical services to the community - and which must remain in use - and what mitigation measures ilI"e necessary to minimize the disruption to functions and operations during the remodeling. i.e.. construction noise, material deliveries and staging. noxious odors, etc. If the facility or site is identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer as having features of histori­ calor architectural significance that should be preserved, the impact of each hazard mitigation measure on the referenced elements or features shall be described and, if possible, an alternative program to avoid altering or damaging the signifitant elements or features shall be defined.

3.3.3.2

Hazard Mitigation Cost Estimate The AlE Consultant shall prepare separate, detailed cost estimates for eaclr of the Hazard Mitigation proposals. The cost estimates shall be presented in the level of detail and forma~ identified by the Counry. The County's cost estimating format. level of detail required, process and its use are more fully explained and illustrated in Appendix I.

Page 3-22

-­

,

Northridge Earthquake January 17.1994

Chapler J - InSlructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

The costs for Hazard Mitigation proposals shall be developed following the same format and level of detail as that employed for the repair cost estimates; however, where Hazard Mitigation proposals are considered. thl: costs for these programs and cost impact of disruption to operations shall be the incre­ mentnl differential to the costs of the earthquake-related repairs. For example: •

If the cost to brace the 40% of an integrated ceiling system damaged by the earthquake is S4,OOO and would disrupt the occupants for three days and the cost to brace the entire integrated ceiling system would be S6,000 and would disrupt the occupants for four days. the cost and disruption attributable to Hazard Mitigation for the undamaged 60% of the integrated ceiling would be $2,000 and one day of disruption.

The AlE Consultant shall work with the PM and relevant County staff to help identify, calculate and document the magnitude of all indirect costs that will be incurred during implementation of the proposed Hazard Mitigation measure(s). These include professional design and management fees and additional operational, support and service delivery costs directly attributable to the alterations. If additional spe­ cial surveys are necessary to validate potential problems or deficiencies, the costs shall be listed as a separate line-item(s) and included as an indirect cost.. Examples of the typical costs that are to be con­ sidered are illustrated in Appendix I. These costs shall be developed on a separate, line-item basis and summarized for use by the County during its evaluation of available options. The AlE C~msultant shall also calculate the cost effectiveness of each hazard mitigation proposal. Cost effectiveness shall be computed by dividing the potential future damag~ repair cost3- by the cost ofthe proposed mitigalion measure - less any costs for repair of damages sustained in the recent disaster. Potential future damage repair costs are computed by extending the unit cost of current damage repair over the el\tire system, including those portions of the system which were not damaged. A proposed HAZMIT measure shall be considered cost effective when the calculated ratio is 1.0 or greater.

No line-items {or

"Contin~encies" shall

be included.

3.3.4 Facility Replacement Program When the repair cost for permanent work" on the facility approaches or exceeds specific, pre-defined ra­ tios (or percentages) relative to the cost of constructing a completely new, functionally equivalent facility, the County's interests may be better served by constructing the new facility rather than repairing the damaged facility. Based on the total project cost estimate (TCPE) provided by the AlE Consultant to repair the building. the applicability of eligibility criteria (as interpreted by the County) for FEMAlOES reimbursement and the County's long-tenn capital acquisition strategy, the AlE Consultant ~ be di­ rected to develop alternative concepts and costs for replacing the earthquake-damaged facility.

3.3.4.1

Damaged Facility Program A replacement facility shall be defined as equivalent to the pre-disaster design of the existing facility ­ with identification of adjustments to the size. equipment and system necessary to provide functionally equivalent space in compliance with current codes and ordinances per 44 CFR 206.201 JZ. The

••

"Permanent Work me:lt1s that restorative work that must be: pcrfonned through rep:tirs or n:plaeement. t.o restore: :m eligible: facility on the basis of its predis:l.Stcr design :lI1d current applicable standards,"

42

~Prl!disaster Design·' mean,; the:: size or capacity of J facility :lS originally designed and constructed or subsequently modi­

/ie::d by changes or additions to the original design It docs not mean the cap;lI.:ity at whieh (he facility was being use:d at the , " _.... -- .. -- ,,/ : •. ," ,Y,·,,,n' (e"", rlh' mo\! recc:n( designed '::lp:lcity,

Northridge Earthquake January 17. 199..

Chapter J - Instructions :and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

"equivalent'·..facility·s size shall allow sufficient space to accommodate the original design/functional capacity of the building and be in compliance with all current applicable codes and ordinances - in­ cluding are3S or functions located outside the facilil}'. i.e.• parking. utilil}' centers. landscaping/setback. etc. To establish the size of an "equivalent" replacement facility's interior space. the AlE Consultant shall re­ view and validate the general applicability and compliance requirements of current codes and, if necessary, adjust current space provisions to comply with current codes and standards. i.e.• aisle widthslaccessibilil}'. restrooms. work station accommodation. clearances around e!ectrical and/or me­ chanical equipment, stair widths, mechanical shafts, place(s) of refuge, etc. Any proposed changes in the size o(rhe replacement faci/ilV trom that of the damaged facility shail be specificallv required by code and the apolicable code and section referenced. All sizes shall be expressed in terms of building gross square feet (BGSF) and include space required for code and ordinance compliance - interior and exterior.

Wilen so directed in writing bv tile PM, the AlE Consultant shall proceed to prepare a brief architectural program outlining the characteristics of the replacement facilil}' together with an accurate estimate of the cost to replace the damaged facility.

3:3.4.2

Facility Replacement Cost Estimate The AlE Consultant shall prepare an estimate of the cost to replace the damaged facility with a similar facility - with appropriate adjusttnents to the replacement facility'S size or characteristics - based upon the of size defined iR the Qamaged Facilil}' Program (§ 3.3.4.1). This cost estimate shall be based upon the ~ost per square foot of floor area for the l}'pe building and construction listed in the 1995 edi­ tion ,of the R.S. Means Square Foot Costs. The AlE Consultant's cost estimate shall utilize the R.S. Means cost calculation model that most closely resembles the specific building type for the damaged building and adjust the square foot costs for size, number of floor levels (stories), etc. Appropriate ad­ justments shall be made for any basement areas, floor heights and building perimeter variances from the model utilized. All assumptions employed in developing the Facility Replacement Cost Estimate shall be .documented and submitted to the County for its review and, upon approval, shall be documented in the Final Report.

3.3.4.3

Facility Replacement Schedule The AlE Consultant shall also identify the approximate length of time required for the design and con­ struction of a functionally equivalent replacement facility - including appropriate times identified by the PM for reviews and approvals by all County and jurisdictional agencies.

This is (he facility's capacity from a building occupant's operational and functional utilization perspective - and not nec­ essarily its design capacity to withstand earthquak~s. conserve energy, etc. II does not include anv improvements to building areas or rvstems that are not required bv codes ?r standards! For example, if the damaged facility was originally designed to accommodate: 3 population of 100 inmates - but was holding 120 inmates at the time: of the disaster. only those repairs nec.:ssary (0 accommodate a population of 100 inmates in compliance with current codes and standards should be mad.:; however. this may involve: increasing the cell size from the typical ~8 sq.. Ft. Per double occupancy cell (found in many oldcr designs) to the currcnt minimum standard of 70 sq. Ft. Per double occupancy cell in repaired/replaced lacility ­ thereby increasing the size of the facility.

Pale 3-24

Nortbridce Earthquake

January 17, 1994

Chapter J - Inslructions and Cuidelines AlE EVlIlu:acion Services Manual

Rev. Dace: 9/1/95

3.3.5 Phase II Briefing and Revie,v The AlE Consultant shall prepare :lnd present to the PM the findings. recommendations and all docu­ mentation prepared during the Facility RepairlReplacement Concept Development Phase of work and make a presentation summarizing: •

the characteristics and costs of the repair concept(s) developed and recommended - including identification of any adjustments in size, materials or cost required for code compliance ..

•

the impact and cost of cac Title 24 and ADA compliance in (or associated with) the earthquake­ damaged areas.

•

the extent, impact and cost of a complete code compliance program -

if so directed by the PM.

• the extent. impact and cost of the hazard mitigation measures identified and developed rected by the PM.

as di­

• the updated Replacement Cost Estimate including identification of any changes in size or cost re­ sulting from code compliance. This presentation shall identify the ad­ vantages and disadvantages of each concept or measure and provide the basis for selectin,$ the recommended concept. As directed by the PM, the AlE Consult­ ant may be required to prepare a Decis!on Matrix to assist the County in its evalua­ tion, validation and selection of the NE Consultant's recommendations and con­

cepts. The Decision Matrix would include and/or address the appropriate

decision-related elements necessary to as­ sist the County in determining the concepts and/or recommendations thac best meet the County. An example of a simplified Decision Matrix is included on

the following page in Figure 4.

Altematlves Concept A

Concept C

Replace I

Replace

4

5

1

3

Concept B

I

"

functionaf Imllact

2

Time

4

2

3

,

1

Cosl

4

5

3

1

2

Funding

Eligibility

4

3

5

1.5

1.S

1

2

4.5

3

4.5

2 3 20

2 J 21

2 3

4.5 3

4.5

2'.5

19

19.5

Code

Compliance Otller: Parking Environmen TOTAL

Ratings; 5 - Bnt,

I-Worst

Figure 4 - Decision Matrix

3

-

Nonhridae Earthquake January 17, 1994

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

This Page Intentionally Blank '

Pa,e 3-26

4.

PROJECT DOCUl\1ENTATION

. AND PRESENTATIONS Chapter Topics 4.1 Project Documentation ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-\

4.2 Interim Report Submittals ................................................................................................................................................. 4·1

4.3 Final Report....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.2 Table of ContentsfT'able of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................ 4·3

4.3.3 Detailed Documentation .............................................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.3.4 NE Report Preparation Guide And Review Check List .............................................................................................. 4·5

4.3.5 Other Documentation and Services ............................................................................................................................. 4·5

4.4 Report Fonnat ................................................................................................................................................................... 4·5

4.4.1 Report Covers.. ...... ~ ......... _........ _................................................................................................................................ 4-5

4.4.2 Reproducible Masters .................................................................................................................................................. 4·6

4.4.3 Reproduction/Binding ................................................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.4.4 Photographs .......................................... ~ ...................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4.5 Word Processing Software....................~ ..................................... :................................................................................ 4·7

4.5 Final Report Presentation .................................................................................................................................................. 4·7

4.6 Project Files ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-7

Northrid&e Earthquake January 17, 199"

Chapter", - DocumentaCion and Presentations AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/(/95

4.1 . Project Documentation The AlE Consultant shall prepare and submit Interim Reports and a Final Report that derail and docu­ ment the process followed in developing and selecting the County's Facility Repair or Facility Replacement Program. This documentation shall be clear and concise, illustrated with tabular listings. graphics and other information that will assist in its review and comprehension and future use as a deci­ sion-making and preliminary design tool. Any recommendations (Or additional work not directly related to tl,e repair of earthquake-related damage shall be specificallv discussed Will, and approved by tl,e PM prior to incorporation in the Final Report. The salient points of the Final Report shall be summarized in a five (5) page Executive Summary. TI,e Executive Summary shall only include key findings and recommendations - but be sufficiently com­ pletl! to aI/ow its use as a "stand-alone" document. The remaining content of the report shall be organized by and separated into applicable sections as described in the following paragraphs and illus­ trated in Appendix E. These sections shall include documentation and discussions of all items relevant to the development and selection of the recommended Program and shall reference and include in ap­ pendices the specific data, analyses and materials presented to the County that contributed to. resulted in andlor otherwise supports the AlE Consultant's finding and recommendations and the County's decision. A copy of tOe AlE Evaluation Report Review Checklist. used by the County as an initial guide for vali­ dating the completeness of Interim and Final Report submittals. is presented in Appendix C for the AlE Consultant's reference and use.

4.2

Interim Report Submittals To help facilitate and suppOrt the County's decision-making process and to help with the review of the Final Submittal, the AlE Consultant shall prepare and submit interim reports to the County as directed by the PM andlor as identified in Chapter 3. As a minimum, these interim submittals shall include, but not be limited to: • Initial Inspection Letter - which shall consist of a letter format document that briefly summarizes the observations of the AlE Consultant during its initial inspection of the facility and include, as an attachment. copies of all field notes and associated sketches or analyses made by the inspection team-members. •

AlE Consultant Proposal- including scope of work, work plan and outline schedule.

• Phase fA Submittal·) - which will include the Facility Description (§ 3.2.3), Detailed Build­ ing/Site Condition Evaluation (§ 3.2.4) and Structural Analysis (§ 3.2.5) - including the Loss Of Structural Capacity Calculations required by § 3.2.5.1. • Phase 18 Submittal 4 ) - which will include the materials required for the Historical Structure Status Review (§ 3.2.6.1), the Structural Damage Repair Analysis (§ 3.2.6.2. fully documentoW all requirements listed in § 3.2.6.3 and include the Decision Matrix if so directed by the PM.

4)

To help expe:dite the tVE Evalu:ltion process. the: material:; required may be submitted (0 the Counti' in a "rough" form. i.e.. brief transmitt31 kiter summ3rizing any findings or observ3tions with copie:s of the required supporting documentation. field notes. calculations, etc. organizcr.! and clearly labc:led as alt:lchmc:nts. :

a

All narr:ltivc descriptions .l/1J di~cLJssions shall comply with Ihe /omlltting requiremcnts of § 4...1. § .f...l.2 and § 4.·U. Copies of hanJ-\\ri![ell tiell.! nOl.:s 3m.! cakulali0ns ~hall be acce:ptabl.: - unle:ss deemed i/le:gibl.: by the PM. Provision of ~I~M-n,"";" ,·"/nr ,:oni.:s of the colur photographs n:quin:t.I by § 2.9 and § -1...1...1 shall lisa be lcccptabJ..: for this submiu:lI.

Northridge Earthquake January 11, 1994

Chapter" - Documentation and Presentations

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

• MEPA Program Submittal - which will include the materials required for the Facility Repair AlT.llysis (§ 3.3.1), including the analyses and identification of the California Building Code Title 2~ and ADA Compliance Requirements (§ 3.3.1.1) and all other local, applicable code compliance requ irements. •

Hazard MitigationfTPCE Submittal -which. if appropriate, will include thl; materials developed for the Hazard Mitigation Program (§ 3.3.3) and Total Project Cost Estimate (§ 3.3.2.1).

• Replacement Program Submittal - which, if appropriate, will include the materials required for the Facility Replacement Program (§ 3.3.4). . All submittals shall be include a Cover letter or letter of transmittal that contains an executive summary. This executive summary shall highlight (and cross-reference by page number) the salient findings in the report. The AlE Consultant shall submit eight (8) review copies and one reproducible-quality copy (including color photographs or color reproductions of the color photographs) of all Interim Submittals.

4.3

Final Report Upon completion of the AlE Evaluation, the AlE Consultant shall provide the County with a Final Re­ port documenting all findings and recommendations. This report shall reflect, refine andlor modify the concept - or combination of concepts if so directed by the County - selected for repairing or replacing the earthquake-damaged facility. The Final Report shall be clear, concise and sufficiently detailed to support and validate the repair or replacement concept selected by the County during the FEMA and in­ surance-claims process, i.e., include credible and persuasive narrative discussions, illustrations, calculations. photographs, etc. The Final Report shall include, but not be limited to, the materials listed in the following sections. The number of copies of the Final Report to be provided shall be specified in the Agreement; however, three (3) copies of the Final Report shall contain a front page with signature/approval blocks for the ap­ propriate clienrluser group representatives and other concerned parties and must contain original color photographs - or photographic duplicates of the originals.

4.3.1 Executive Summary An Executive Summary that includes a: • Facility Description - a summary paragraph describing the facility. i.e., location, size, current occupancy status (red-tagged, emergency shoring still in place. demolished), etc. • Current occupants and use of the building • Earthquake Damage Description a summary paragraph describing the structural damage sustained by the facility - !Ii:!r­ Iig/rted witl. a black border around tile paragraph. a summary paragraph describing the non-structural damage sustained by the facility. • Earthquake Damage Repair Program a summary par:lgraph describing the proposed approach to repairing the damage sus­ tained by the facility'S structural elements to comply with current code - I.igfllig/lted willi a black border around lIlt! paragrapll. .

Page 4-2

Nortbridce Earthquake

January 17, 1994

Chapter" - Documentation and Presentations AlE Evaluation Services i\-lanual

Rev. Date: 911195

a summary paro.graph describing the proposed approach to repairing the non-structural damage sustained by the facility to current code compliance. •

Earthquake Damage Repair Cost') Estim:lte a summ:lry par:lgraph quantifying the cost to repair the damage to the facility's structural elements to current code compliance and the added cost for other alterations to the structural necessary for code compliance -lligllliglll~d with a black bord~r around the paragraoh. a summary paragraph quantifying the cost to repair the non-structural damage sustained by the facility and the added costs for Title 24 and ADA code compliance.

+

Code Compliance Requirements (if applicable) Code Compliance Program - a summary paragraph describing the repairs and altera­ tions required outside the damaged areas of the building for code compliance and issuance of a building penn it. Code Compliance Cost - a summary paragraph quantifying the costs for repairs and al­ terations outside the damaged areas of the building that are required for code compliance and issuance of a building permit.

+ Hazard Mitigation Program (if applicable) -

a one paragraph summary description for each po­ tential hazard mitigation projects that are "cost effective" including the estimated cost for each individual hazard mitigation project.

•

Facility Replacement Program (if applicable) - a summary paragraph defining the cost, the size and characteristics of a functionally equivalent facility to re'place the earthquake-damaged facility.

•

Facility Restoration Schedule a summary paragraph identifying the duration of the repair for all earthquake-related damage to the facility and the additional time required for applicable code compliance work and hazard mitigation. a summary paragraph identifying the time required to construct a replacement facility and identifying the duration of key tasks that wOlIld be involved, i.e., site location, de­ sign, construction, relocation, etc.

The Executive Summary shall not el(ceed five (5) pages, unless approved in writing by the PM, but shall be sufficiently complete to allow its use as a "stand-alone" document. A preferred format for this sum­ mary is illustrated in Appendix D.

4.3.2 Table of Contentsrrable of Exhibits The Final Report shall contain a Table of Contents ol6 and Table of Exhibits that lists and references (as applicable) materials in the Report by specific Book Number, Chapter/Section Number and Page Num­ ber. 47 All report content and materials - including appendices and attachments - must be paginated as

.,

All cost estimates must identit~ :IS separate costs the estimated "son" and "operationa\"' costs that are associated with and will be incurred during implementation of the proposed repairs. A COMpleted FEMAlOES Compliance List Form (Se:e Appendix OJ shall precede: the Table: of Contents and Table of Ex­ hibits of each submiull.

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

o

,

Chapler" • Documentation and Presenlalions

AlE Evalualion Sen' ices Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

.-,

described in· § ~.~. The Table of Contents shall be preceded by a completed copy of the OESIFEMA Compliance List illustrated in Appendix B. The Table of Contents shall be immediately followed by a completed copy of the A/E Report Preparation Guide And Review Checklist illustrated in Appendix C.

4.3.3 Detailed Documentation The body of the Final Report shall provide a description of the objective, process and apPrI?ach used in determining the program that best meets the needs of the County of Los Angeles. It shall include, but not be limited to: • A detailed Facility Description - including its identification as a "historic structure" ifapplicable - following the standard County format illustrated in Appendix L. • A narrative discussion characterizing and quantifying the damage sustained by each of the build­ ing systems listed in § 3.2.4 (by system and/or professional discipline) - including the identification and listing of temporary or interim repairs that have been made. •

Documentation of the damage to the building's structural elements and systems - including cal­ culations quantifying the loss of strength to individual structural members - and the approach and scope of work required to the damaged structural members and structural system to comply with current applicable codes.

• Documentation that defines the repair approach and scope of work - including the alternative concepts and approaches considered - or Replacement Facility characteristics for each of the other building systems listed in § 3.2.4 (by system and/or professional discipline) with: Identification of all applicable State Titles, local codes and ordinances. Sufficient documentation to generate a. Rl:pair DSR for Repair projects. An outline Architectural Program having sufficient documentation to generate a Re­ placement DSR for Replacement projects. This documentation shall be sufficiently detailed to reflect and support the decisions and direction of the County relative to the approach and concept(s) selected and document the key reasons and considerations for selection. • Cost estimates reflecting the final decisions and directions provided by the County and any changes in the selected Repair or Replacement program. • ,A preliminary project schedule showing the sequence and timing of all major activities necessary to implement the selected program. This schedule shall include, but not be limited to: FEMAlOES Review and Funding Approval. Architectural Program preparation and approval- if appropriate. Budget approvals. Selection of a project design team. Development and approval of design and construction documents. Submittal and receipt of County and other jurisdictional agency approvals.

Bidding and selection of contractor/constructors.

Facility construction and/or remodeling.

Relocation :lnd occupancy of the facility • A separate section that defines and documents the Hazard Mitigation program and all directly as­ sociated, incremental costs. .

Page 4....

,

'

Northridge E.uthquake January 17. 1994

•

Chapter" • Documentation and Presentations AlE Evalulltion Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Appendices containing additional. relevant detailed information and documentation.

The AlE Consultant shall provide the PM with eight (8) bound copies of the Final Report for preliminary review and approval by the County. The specific number of copies of the approved Final Report to be provided shall be specified by the PM at the start of the project. Three copies of the Final Report shall contain a front page with signature/approval blocks for the appropriate client/user group representatives and other concerned parties and shall contain original color photographs - or photographic duplicates of the originals. All other copies of the Final Report may utilize reproducible color copies qf the photo· graphs.

4.3.4 AlE Report Preparation Guide And Review Check List The AlE Consultant shall submit with the Final Report a completed copy of the AlE Report Preparation Guide And Review Check List (See Appendix C) identifying the section and page number where t~e listed materials are located.

4.3.5 Other Documentation and Services In addition to preparation of the Final Report, the ArE Consultant shalt, if requested in writing by the PM. assist th...e County with the preparation of any projecHelatcd DSR(s) and/or insurance claims. The AlE Consultant and/or his sub-consultants shall render any requested technical assistance or advice re­ quired for preparing the DSR(s) and/or insurance claims and shall. if requested in writing by the County PM, attend any meetings as a participant on behalf of the County to respond to technical questions or is· sues (§ 2.2. Page 2·2). The AlE Consultant shall also review meeting minutes from these discussions and advise the County of any potential discrepancies, errors or incorrect interpretations during the pro· ceedings. The scope and level of these services shall be defined in the Agreement or a Supplementary Agreement.

4.4

Report Format All Interim Reports and the Final Report shall adhere to the following criteria.

4.4.1 Report Covers The covers of all submittals shall include: • Report Title • Name of the Building •

Project Name and Phase

•

Facility/BuildingiLACO Number

• Damage Survey Report (DSR) Number • FEMA P.A. 10. Number • Clic:nt Name (County of Los Angeles. Department of Public Works. Project Management Divi­ sion)·'

••

An dectronic cop~' of thl! DPW Logo :lOd Cover version of WordPerfect.

fOn'Tlac C3.fl

be provided in a format compatible with the County's current

Chapter" - Documentation and Presentalions AJE Evaluation Services Manual

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

•

Report Submittal Dale

•

Name and/or Logo of the NE Consultant or Finn

Rev. Date: 9/1195

4.4.2 Reproducible Masters A reproducible master copy of each report shall be prepared and provided by the AlE Consultant as out­ lined herein: I.

8 1/2" x II" reproducible white bond paper for masters.

2. Color of text or characters - Black 3.

Patching or "Cut and Paste" revisions of final documents will not be accepted.

4.

Word Processing - Production on a letter or 300 dpi laser quality printer in a Helvetica (or com­ parable) font at a 10 or 12 point size.

5.

Page Fonnat: Top margin - shall be I" from the top edge of the paper. The top border shalt contain a "header" with the facility name centered on the top line of the header and the Damage Survey Report Number on the line below Side margins - shall be at I" from the outside of the paper and 1I,s" from the bound side of the paper. Bottom margin - shall be at 1" from the bottom of the page. The bottom border shall contain a "footer" with the FEMA P.A. ID. Number centered and the page number at the edge of the margin, justified from the outside edge of the page.

6.

Handling - Keep masters clean. Do not bend or fold.

7.

All Reproducible Masters shall only be printed on one side of the paper production on both sides of the paper.

8.

but formatted for re­

Reproducible copies of all illustrations used in the Report shall be provided in an 8 11" X II" format~9.

9.

All Chapters and Appendices shall be separated by tabbed dividers with legible, descriptive la­ bels on the tabs.

4.4.3 ReproductionlBinding All reports shall be formatted. paged. numbered and bound reproducing all copy on both sides of the page. All pages shall be numbered with left pages "even" numbers and right pages "odd" numbers. New chapters/sections shall always commence on an "odd" numbered (right-hand) page.

49

r·

If required for clarity or d.:t:lil. dr:l.wings prepar.:d :lS part of the structur:l.l system repair :malysis may utilize I X IT sheels that :lrC folded md bound into the Final R.:port. Dr:l.wings depicting othl!r :lrchitectur:l.1 and engine.:ring design solu­ tions or schemes shall only be induded in Final Report if so directed in writing by the: PM. Page 4-6

Northridge Earthquake January 11. 1994

Chaprer -l - Doc:umenralion and Presentations A/£ Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Dace: 9/1/95

4.4.4 Photographs Ch:ac. concise color photographs shall be required to document all observed earthquake-related damage sustained by the facility. All photographs shall be glossy color prints, 4" x 6" in size. produced from 35mm negatives and shall identify the date and time of the picture~O and the location in the building of the damage being photographed shall be identified and referenced on a reduced-scale copy of the build­ ing floor plan. All original negatives of pictures used in the Final Report shall be submitted to the County upon completion of the project.

4.4.5 Word Processing Software The AlE Consultant shall submit complete finished report documents on 3 1/2" high density floppy disk in word processing software or files directly translatable to - including all formatting. tables and il­ lustrations - WordPerfect 5.1 or the version of a word processing program that is specified in writing by the County unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

4.5

Final Report Presentation _. Upon conil>letion and acceptance of the AlE Evaluation by the County, the AlE Consultant shall be pre­ pared to make a fonnal, final presentation to the County and/or any other groups as directed and identified by the PM. The presentation shall review the Report's documentation of findings, conclusions and recommendations and clarify any remaining questions or concerns. .

.

The final presentations shall be clear and concise, illustrated with graphics, tabular listings and other in­ fonnation that will assist in its comprehension and use as a decision-making tool. It shall be supported, as appropriate, by graphic illustrations and aids such as flip chares, overhead projection view-graphs (or transparencies), 35 mm slides, computerizedlVCR screen projections and 8-112" x II" (portrait orienta­ tion) presentation summary packages. All materials shall be in a format suitable to use in presentations to public groups or other public officials. Copies of the presentation materials shall be provided to the PM for review and approval prior to the scheduled session.

4.6

Project Files All data used or developed for the project shall be provided to the County on MS-DOS compatible floppy disks for its future use and/or reference. Word-processing files shall be in a format fully com· patible with the version of a word processing program specified in writing by the County. Spreadsheet files shall be in a format fully compatible with the! veriion of Excel specified by the County. Documen­ tation or data produced and provided in other software fonnats shall require the provision of a licensed. registered copy of the applicable software package for subsequent use and retention by the County. Copies of all AlE Consultant project notes. files. reference materials and records assembled and used in the preparnrion of the AlE Evaluation shall be organized, assembled and provided to the County in the! same condition as that found in the AlE Consult:mt's working files. These files shall be the property of the County and receipt of these materials is mandatory prior to approval of AlE Evalua.tion Final Report. •

10

Us..:

l\f

.:am..:ras \\ hich aU[OlIlJtically place tim.: and dal.: stamps on pho(ogr:lphs is preferred.

Northridle Earthquake Janua.,. 11. 1994

Chapter 4 - Documentation and Praentations AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. DatJ:: 911195

This Page Intentionally Blank

Page 4-8

,

5. ApPENDICES Topics Appendix A -

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

Appendix B -

OESIFEMA Compliance List

Appendix C -

AJE Report Preparation Guide and Review Checklist

Appendix D - Executive Summary Format Appendix E -

Sample Table of Contents

Appendix F -_ Inspection Survey Form Appendix G -

Coordinated Text and lVlatrix

Appendix H ~ Crack Maps Appendix I -

Cost Estimate Format

Appendix J -

Historical Structure Guidelines

Appendix K -- Standard Review Form

Appendix L -

Standard Facility Description

.

__

.-. . . .

-

Appendix A­ Glossary Of AbbreViations And Terms

Northridge Earthquake January 17, 199-'

Chapter oS - Documentation and Presentations AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

4.4.4 Photographs Cl~ar, concise color photographs shall be required to document all observed e3rthquake-related damage sustained by the facility. All photographs shall be glossy color prints, 4" x 6" in size. produced from 35mm negatives and shall identify the date and time of the picrure'o and the location in the building of the damage being photographed shall be identified and referenced on a reduced-scale copy of the build­ ing floor plan. All original negatives of pictures used in the Final Report shall be submitted to the County upon completion of the project.

4.4.5 Word Processing Software The AlE Consultant shall submit complete finished report documents on 3 112" high density floppy disk in word processing software or files directly translatable to - including all formatting. tahles and il­ lustrations - WordPerfect 5.1 or the version of a word processing program that is specified in writing by the County unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

4.5

Final Report Presentation -. Upon corrq,letion and acceptance of the AlE Evaluation by the County, the AlE Consultant shall be pre­ pared to make a formal, final presentation to the County and/or any other groups as directed and identified by the PM. The presentation shall review the Report's documentarion of findings, conclusions and recommendations and clarify any remaining questions or concerns. .

­

The final presentations shall be clear and concise, illustrated with graphics, tabular listings and other in­ formation that will assist in its comprehension and use as a decision-making tool. It shall be supported, as appropriate, by graphic illustrations and aids such as flip charts, overhead projection view-graphs (or transparencies). 35 mm slides, computerizedlVCR screen projections and 8-112" x t 1" (portrait orienta­ tion) presentation summary packages. All materials sltall be in a format suitable to use in presentations to public groups or other public officials. Copies of the presentation materials shall be provided to the PM for review and approval prior to the scheduled session.

4.6

Project Files All data used or developed for the project shall be provided to the County on MS-DOS compatible floppy disks for its future use and/or reference. Word-processing files shall be in a fonnat fully com­ patible with the version of a word processing program specified in writing by the County. Spreadsheet files shall be in a format fully compatible with the veriion of Excel specified by the County. Documen­ tation or data produced and provided in other software formats shall require the provision of a lkensed, registered copy of the applicable software package for subsequent use and retention by the County. Copies of all AlE Consultant project notes, files, reference materials and records assembled and used in the preparation of the AlE Evaluation shall be organized, assembled and provided to the County in tho: same condition as that found in the AlE Consultant's working files. These files shall be the property of the County and receipt of these materials is mandatory prior to approval of AlE Evalu3.tion Final Report. •

50

Us.: ,If .::am.:r:lS \\ hich ;lutom:nically place rim.: and oal<: sramp~ on phologr:Jphs is prdc=rrc=d.

Northridee Earthquake January 1'7. 1994

Chapter" • Documentation and Presentations AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. DatI:: 9/1195

•

This Page Intentionally Blank

Page 4·8

Northridcc Earthquake

January 17, 1994

Appendix A -

Closs:lry of AlJbrevi:acions and Terms AlE Ev:lIuation Services :\I:lnulil

Rev. Date: 91l/9S

Glossary Of Abbreviations And Terms

ADA. ..............•....•........................... Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991. Many of its requirements are incol1'O­ rated into Title 24 of the California State Building Standards Code as adopted on March 5, 1993 and made effective on April I, 1994. Additional Services ....................... Any and all services performed by the AlE Consultant or AIE-hired'Consultants as more fully described in the Agreement.

AlE......................•...•....................... A licensed California Architect and/or Engineer from any licensed discipline.

AlE Consultant.............................. T he finn, or combination of firms joined contractually for execution of the Agreement, which can provide the licensed personnel and services required for an AlE Evaluation as defllled in this Manual. . AlEDS ............................................ Architect/Engineer Design Section. Construction Quality and Contracting Division, Depamnen,t of Public Works of the County of Los Angeles. AlE Evaluation .............................. An assessment of the damage caused by the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earth­ . quake and subsequent aftershocks and the development of conceptual schemes and cost estimates of the options available to safely and cost·effectively repair the damaged facility to be functionally equivalent to its pre-Earthquake capabil­ ity (and in accordance with current applicable codes and standards) and restore the provision of similar County services from it - or replace it with a code­ compliant, functionally equivalent facility, Agreement ..................................... A contract between the AlE Consultant and County for project-related profes­ sional design services during the AlE Evaluation - also referred to as the ArchitectlEngineer Agreement or Design Services Agreement.

AP ................................................... Arch itectural Progr:tm. A document defining facility needs, space configura­ tions, operational and functional adjacency/loeational requirements, specific building standards and systems, quality levels, construction costs and project schedules required in the design and construction of the facility. It is one ele­ ment of the Program. BGSF.............................................. Building Gross Square Feet. The total amount of enclosed space in a facility as measured from the interior of the building exterior walls or glass-lines, in­ cluding all utility areas, 'vertical shafts, life safety spaces and corridors, public spaces, walls and columns. Board ............................................. Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeks.

B&S ................................................ Building and Safety Division, (Plan Checks and Building Penn its), Department of Public Works (DPW). County of Los Angeles. CAO ............................................... Chief Administrative Office of th~ County of Los Angeles.

CBE ................................................ Community Uusiness Enterprise. The common acronym used throughout this Manual th:lt refers too !'viBEs, \VI3Es, DBEs. and DV8Es as defined in this Manu:!!'

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

Glossary of Abbrevialions and Terms AlE Evalualion Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

CDAT .............................................. County Disaster Assistance Team. A section in the Chief Administrative Office that coordinates the Northridge Earthquake disaster recovery effort for the County of Los Angeles. CEQA ............................................. California Environmental Quality Act as amended on March I, 1986 and adopted and supplemented by the County of Los Angeles in the "Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines" on November 17. 1987. Client Department ........................ The County of Los Angeles Department having primary responsibility for exe­ curing the project. Cluster Management .................... A mechanism for assigning a "cluster" of projects grouped by geographic area or specific departments to a Cluster Project Manager with executive oversight and support from PMD Project Managers and the Consulting Project Managers. Construction Cost ......................... The total amount paid for fees, labor. material. constructor general and adminis­ trative expenses. overhead and profit to construct the Project - including all sitework, utilities infrastructure and related facilities and structures (See "Hard" Costs). Cost Estimate ................................ The estimated construction and/or repair and restoration cost of a Project as more fully described in this Manual and the Agreement and presented in the formats illustrated in the Cost Estimate Appendix. All costs estimates shall utilize the unit. assembly and building model cost data listed in the 1994 edi­ tions of the Construction Cost Data Books published by the R.S. Means Company. Other cost estimating sources and data may be used if acceptably documented and approved for use by the County. County.........•.•..............•................. The County of Los Angeles, California.

County "Ett Team......................... The executive level of County management directly associated with the Project (Department Heads. CAO, DPW Director. CDA T, AlE. etc.) who will provide general guidance and direction for the development of operational and fiscal al­ ternatives and approve the final project alternative. CPM .............................•......_.......... Critical Path Method of project scheduling using an automated Network Analysis System (NAS). CQCO ............................................ Construction Quality And Contracting Division, Deparonent of Public Works of the County of Los Angeles. CFR ................................................ Code of Federal Regulations. Most of the FEMA regulations and require­ ml!nts pertaining to the County's eligibility for recovery assistance are found in Title 44 of the Code. OBE ................................................ Disadvantaged-Owned Business Enterprise. A Small Business Concern (as defined by Section 3 of the Small Business Act) that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more disadvantaged individuals, whose management and daily busi­ ness operations are controlled by one or more of these individ~als who own it, is a domestic business with its home office located in the United States and is not a br:1nch or subsidiary of a foreign corporation, firm or business and performs a commercially useful function.

Paa.:e A - 2

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

Gloss:u'Y of Abbreviations :lind Terms "-.IE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

Detailed Inspection ....."': ................ A detailed inspection and documentation of all earthquake-related damage sus­ tained by a facility for purposes of determining the most cost-effective means of repairing or restoring the damaged facility to its Pre· Earthquake operational condition in compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Director.......................................... The Director of the Department of Public Works. County of Los Angeles, or his authorized representative. Disabled Veterans ......................... Individuals who are veterans of the United States military, naval or air service and have a service-connected disability of 10% or more and, for purposes of contracting with the County of Los Angeles, are residents of the State of Cali­ fornia. Disadvantaged Individuals ........... Individuals who are socially or economically disadvantaged by their color, na­ tional origin. gender, physical disability, mental disability, long-term residence in an environment isolated from the mainstream of American society or some other cause beyond the individual's control. DPW ............................................... Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles

DSR ................................................. Damage Survey Report. An on-site assessment and documentation of damage sustained to a facility by a FEMA representative for use as basis for funding facility repairs.

a

DVBE ............................................. Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise. A business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more disabled veterans, is certified by the State Office of Small and Minority Business, is a domestic business with its home office lo­ cated in the United States and is not a branch or subsidiary of a foreign corporation. firm or business and performs a commercially useful function. EEO/AA ...............: ......................... Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action provision of Executive Order I 1246 as amended. ERPSS ............................................ Earthquake Recovery Project Support Section. A project-specific taskforce

and PMD section established by DPW to assist with management of the

County's Post-Earthquake repair and recovery work.

"E" Team Reviews ........................ Significant milestone project meetings during which members of designated County "E" teams review and discuss the data and options developed during the current phase of work and provide further direction. reach decisions or select an option for further development or implementation synonymous with "County" reviews in most cases. Executive "E" Team..................... The executive level of management directly associated with the Project

. (Building OccupantsITenants, CAO, DPW, CDAT, AlE, etc.) [hat will provide guidance and direction regarding operational/technical requirements, review AlE Evaluations to assure total consideration of operational/tecllnicallfiscal is­ sues, provide guidllnce in the development of alternative concepts and recommend a concept to the County "E" Team. FEMA ............................................ Federal Emergency Management Agency

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994

Closs:sry of Abbrcvi:ltions :and Terms AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

"'Hard" Costs .................................. Th~ total amount paid for fees. labor. material. constructor general and adminis­ trative expenses. overhead and profit to construct the Project - including all sitework. utilities infr3Structure and related facilities and structures (See Con­ struction Costs.). HazMit ...•.•..••••............................... Haz:lrd Mitigation. Any appropriate, feasible, cost-effective repairs and im­ provements which help reduce the risk of loss of life or injury and limit similar, future damage to facilities which were damaged in the current disaster. Hazard Mitigation measures can exceed code requirements and stiil be recommended for the site, building structure or infrastructure. IDAR ..... _•...•••~............................... lnitial Damage Assessment Report. An initial report on the condition of a damaged building, damaged areas and preliminary determination of the build­ ing's occupancy status. Indirect Costs ................................ The County costs associated with repair/remodeling or replacing of a facility, i.e., administration and project management, permit and development fees, relo­ cation expenses, QAlQC testing, financing and accounting costs, legal costs, etc. On FEMAlOES projects, these costs also include any extraordinary costs that are incurred directly or indirectly as a result of the disaster, i.e., temporary facil­ ity relocation and occupancy costs, furnishing and equipment replacement costs. utility and communication installation and operation costs, miscellaneous costs (operating supply replacement, public relations costs), etc. Jurisdictional Agencies ................. All governmental or other agencies having regulatory authority and responsibil· ity under the law with respect to the design and construction of the project. LCPD ............................................. Life Cycle Project Delivery. The systematic and systemic management by a single entity ofa project from its inception through completion and occupancy. Location Factor............................. An adjustment factor applied to costs in a Construction Cost Data Base that modifies Construction Cost Estimates to more closely reflect local costs and conditions. LSMD ............................................. Leasing and Space Management Division, Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles. ManuaL......................................... The County of Los Angeles AlE Evaluation Services Manual dated Sept.ember I, 1995 and included in the Agreement. MBE ............................................... Minority-owned Business Enterprise. A business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more minorities, whose management and daily busi­ ness operations are controlled by one or more of the! individuals who own it, is a domestic business with its home office located in the United States and is not a branch or subsidiary of a foreign corporation, firm or business and performs a commercially useful function. Minority ......................................... Individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the United States and who are persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of AtTica !l! origins and culture (regardless of race) in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba or Central and South America or whose appearance. surname, speech/language (including all dialects) indicates origin or ancestry in the Philippines!!.!. origins

P:lgc A -",

Northridcc Earthquake January 17, 1994

Glossary of Abbrcviations and Terms AlE Evaluation Sen'ices Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/9S

in any of the Far East. Southeast Asia. Indian subcontinent or Pacific Islands or origins in any of the original peoples of North America. OES ................................................ Office of Emergency Services nor's Office.

a branch of the State of California Gover­

PESE .............................................. Post Earthquake Safety Evaluation. A report documenting the initial inspec­ . tion and evaluation of the damages sustained by County facilities from the Northridge Earthquake and its aftershocks. PDT ................................................ Project Oelivery Team. The staff from all client depanments. ISO, tenant departments, ArchitectiEngineer, consultants, building inspectors, construction managers. constructors. jurisdictional agencies and others directly involved in the project on ;t daily basis and empowered by their executive management to make decisions to safely deliver a high-quality, functional project on schedule and within budget. PM .................................................. Project Manager. A designated County Representative providing direction to the AlE Consultant and acting as liaison between the AlE Consultant. the County and its Departmem(s), Agencies and other Agencies/Organizations in­ volved with the project. PMD ............................................... Project Management Division, Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles. Program ......................................... The definition of space needs; architectural design criteria and project budgets relative to development of a specific County facility as documented in an ap­ proved Facility Services and Archirecrural Programs. ProjecL.......................................... The project as described in and for which the AlE Evaluation services are con­ templated under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

QAlQC ........................................... Quality Assurance/Quality Control is the systematic and systemic application of a plan that incorporate standards, policies, procedures and measurements and reflects a philosophy that insures the total quality of the project throughout the life cycle of project evaluation, design and construction. A QAlQC Plan ensures that the AlE Evaluation will meet the needs of the client and tenant departments and the County and is well coordinated and technically sufficient. QBS ................................................ Qualifications-Based Selection. A process for the selection of professional architectur31. engineering and other project consultants based on professional qualifications, experience, expertise. staffing, work plan and other evaluation criteria ;timed at selecting a firm or entity which offers the best value and serv­ ice to the County. Implementation of this project is governed by Chaprer 10, § 4526 of Division 5 of Title I of the Government Code - commonly known as the Mini-Brooks Act. RFP ................................................ Request for Proposal

RFSQ.............................................. Request for Statement of QU!llifications

"Soft" Costs ................................... The costs associated with supporting the construction and occupancy of a facil­

icy. i.e.. adminiscr:ltion and project managemenc. permit and developm<:nt fees,

Northridce Earthquake Jaauary 17. 1"4

Glossary or Abbrevi:ations and Terms AlE Ev:alualion Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

reloc;lIion expenses. QA/QC testing, etc. On FEMA/OES projects. these costS also include any extraordinary costs that arc incurred directly or indirectly as a result of the dis:lster. i.e.. tempor:lry facility relocation and occupancy costs, furnishing and equipment replacement costs. utility and communication instal­ lation and operation costs. miscellaneous costs (operating supply replacement, public relations costs). etc. Synonymous with "Indirect Costs". Staff"E" Team .............................. The staff from all client deparnnents, tenant depamnents. CAO, COAT, OPW, AlE Consultants and jurisdictional agencies directly involved in the project on a daily basis to help compile, develop, review and/or coordinate the assembly of sufficient background information, technical and operational requirements nec­ essary to assure that complete AlE Evaluations are prepared - and provide periodic briefings to the Executive "E" Team on project related issues and prog­ ress. Stafford Act ................................... Legislation providing Federal Assistance for the repair, restoration, reconstruc­ tion or replacement of certain public and private non-profit facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster. Tenant Departments ..................... All County entities or other agencies listed as occupiers or users of the damaged facility. TQM............................................... Total Quality Management is the total commionent for continuous improve­ ment which involves everyone on the Project Delivery Team (PDT).. It permeates every aspect of the POT and makes quality a primary strategy for project success. It also involves the implementation of controlling processes to maintain and increm~ntally improve current methods and practices and promul­ gation of innovative effortS to achieve major technological advances in architecture, engineering and construction. TQS ..................... :.......................... Total Quality Service is the specific application of TQM principles, policies and proceedings by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (OPW) to achieve a TQM culture leading to continuous improvement in serv­ ices. VAD ......................................... ~...... Valuation and Acquisition Division, Department of Public Works, County of Los Angeles. Value Design .................................. The embodiment of a design culture/philosophy in which ArchitectsiEngineers systematically conduct and document basic economic analyses that consider the value of functional benefits received and the first and life-cycle costs resulting from all design decisions and design solutions to justify all project design or system-related decisions. WBE ............................................... Women-owned Business Enterprise. A business concern that is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women, whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of these women who own it, is a do­ mestic business with its home office located in the United States and is not a branch or subsidiary of a foreign corporiltion, firm or busine~.s and performs a commercially useful function.

.

.----...

._----.

- - - - - --­

•

AppendixB­ OESIFEMA Compliance List

;'Iiorthrioge E:arthquakc Jnrtuary 17, 199"

O£SJFEMA Compliance List

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Dale: 9/1195

OES/FEMA

COMPLIANCE LIST

FACILITY:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ IIEVIEWlEII

,

~CO:

you WI~L _ 0 THe MINIMUM INFORMATION REQUIRED .... OUJFI!MA IH THe FOLLOWWG IlEPQIIT AS INOlCAnII IY ",IE .oDIC SIECTION BOOK SECTION

__

AHa I'M'

PAGE

I

I I

I I

I

2 A structural analysis of the structure including loss of structural integrity as may be necessary.

I

I I

I I

I

3 CQpies of all conceptual structural calculations and sketches.

I

I I

I I

I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I

I

I I

I I

I

I

I I

I I

I

8 Description of different conceptual repair schemes considered to restore the facility to the pre-disaster basis of design and use, and

the scheme recommended to be the most cost effective with a

detailed estimate of the scheme.

I

t I

I I

I

S An accurate cost comparison if demolition and replacement of the

I

I I

I I

I

10 Any cost effective mitigation measutes not required by codes or standards.

I

I I

I I

I

11 An evaluation of the effects of the recommended repair scheme on

I

I I

I I

I

A detailed description of the damage to the facility including exact location and accurate accounting of the damaged areas supported by

photographs,

4 Geotechnical and

asbesto~

evaluations. if appropriate.

5 Copies of report. test results. recommendations. etc. when a geotechnical evaluation is performed.

, 6 Copy of all test results. test locations. contractor's license number

J

I

and certification when an' asbestos evaluation is performed.

Scope of work must idet:ltify the cost to repair damaged asbestos.

not removal of undamaged asbestos unless it is noted.

7 A copy of all applicable codes. code sections. and local ordinances which will apply to the restoration of the facility.

-

facility is recommended.

the historic character of the structure. if the structure is historic.

NOTE;

ALL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT. IF AN ITEM IS NOT PROVIDED. A NEGATIVE DeCLARATION MUST BE IN THE REPORT INDICATING WHY THE ITEM WAS NOT REQUIRED.

Nonhridce Eanhquake Janua.,. 17, I""

OESIFEMA Compliance List AlE Evaluation Services Manual

eo,

Rev. Date: 9/1J95

_

~

:rhis Page Intentionally Blank

Page B-2

._._-- ....... _ - -

AppendixC­ AlE Report Preparation Guide And Review Checklist

'"'2 •:I ., 0 C ..

.. :r

,

~.

"CCI,

-" .... "

LOS ANGELES COUNTY AlE REPORT PREPARATION GUIDE AND REVIEW CHECK LIST FACILITY'S NAME:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---._

LACO ND.: _ _ _ _ _ __

FACILITY/DEPT REP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PilON!! NO.:_-!._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PMD PROJECT MANAOER:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

E1lP PROJECT MANAGER:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

A&ECONSULTANT:_____________________

PIIONE NO.:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:

'PIIONE NO.:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

'I

"[11 -AI

Fl!MA A&E DSR NO: _ _ _ __

\(I., \(1­ ~7

..

.Q

C

x-

"

ISO REVIEWER:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DATE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

COAT REVIEWER:,_ _ _---..---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DATE: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

PI lASE REVIEWED:,_ _ __

~

."

PiC') Pi~

<

CI,

c. =.o c.. II

:I

:I

"

~

PACE

CONTENT

11)<

COMMENTS (USE ATIACIIMENT IF NEEDED)

5 i'

;;-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.­

-~

Facility Description Damage Description Repair Scbemes CosI Estimate'

:a ;;' c ..

!!.

,

PHASE lA IA~

1.0

(')

:: :r ~~

J.'ACILITY DESCRIPTION

Name, LocBlion, Year or Design And/Or Construction, OCCUPilll1 Organizalions, • Occupanc)' Category,'Use, Elc.

IA· 1.2 Size Of Facility ( Dimensions, Floors, Area, Ilcighl(S), Etc.)

IA - 1.3 Iluilc..ling Configuration: Iligh Rise, Mid·Risc, Low Rise, Irregular Shape, Etc.

IA - 1.4 Structural Design Characteristics Alii! Code:: Steel Moment Resisting Frame,

Sleeillraced Frame. Dual System, Steel framc With Concrete Shear Willis, Concrele Momenlltesisling Frame, Concrelc Shear Wall, Reinforced Masonry, Unreinforccd Masonry, Tilt-Up Concrele, Ught Metal Frame, Sofi Or Weak SIO­ ries, Shot! Culumlls~ E~c. ",~~E~ilionAnd County Revisions -

IA·I.I

"~

oII

R ~ I ______

-~--

~.

- - - - _.. _ - - - - -

_.

-------

~-

:0 IA

011 Nllr I,..·("woe ANY 1",..wC/JI'.lIJccr "'flU O. C"'..·.fltJeltArWN.'IN rlt'dN,,'.nq O. CII.Tr E.fm,..re~flt

Page I

'-2

:a • .. 0 ­ •c: :r

~i: I"AGE

CONTENT

,

IA· 1.5 Structural Design Considerations: Foundation Type, Site Geology, Soil Condi­ tions, Water Table, Etc. IA • 1.6 Architectural/Enaineered Systems, Design Codes Applied And Design Characleristics: Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Fire/Securily, ADA Compliance, Etc. IA - 1.1 llislorical Status/Significant Features

IA· 1.8 lIazardous Materials Usage: Asbestos, pcns, Mercury, Etc.

IA· 1.9' Special Area ConstructiOn/Fixed Equipment: Name, Function. AgelYear Duilt,

Manuracturer, Model Number, Size, l.ocation, Etc. • I

IA -1.0

;p

-:

() N

:i':

- .

•

P1

o,Q ..

>1:1_

'-::r .0

c:

•".

•

"

~

DAMAGE DESCIUPTION ANn nOCUMENTATION

IA·2.1 Detailed Description Of Damage tisted By Discipline AndlOr System, IE., Structural, Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Etc_) IA·2.2 State If Damages Are Earthquake Related IA·2.3 Building Plan/Crack·Map Showing Location Of Damages IA·2.3 Damage MeasuremenlS/Qullntificalion ( Uncal feet Of Cracks, Broken Win­ dows, Door Frames Sprung, Electrical Circuits Shorted, Etc.) IA - 2.4 Identify If The Damages Are To Structural £Icments Of The Building And/Or Directly Impact The Structural Integrity Of The Building IA - 2.S Cause or Structural Damages (Ex: failure or Shear Wall, Separation Of Con: neclion/Weld. Etc.) IA·2.6 Description Of Structural £Iement Loss or Strength/Integrity. Compare Un­ damaged and Damaged Conditions Using Calculations Where Possible. IA·2.7 Analysis OrThe Extent or Damllge, Impact On Lire Sarety And Operation Of The Facility IA - 2.8 Close Up Color Photos Of Damages IA ·2.9 Meeting Between AlE Consultanl And LA County Representatives

111 • 3.0

COMMENTS

(USE ATTACIIMENT IF NEEDED)

)­

PiC') \II

<

0­

;;­

::~ Co

o ;0 ::I

"

111<

5 ~.

;:;- n

a :r !~

•:a !! _.

e.c: =

STRUCTURAL REPAIR

IB -3.1 Structural Repair IU • 3.!.1 Based On The Loss Of Strength Calculations And Analysis (§3.6), Briefly Discuss Potential Repair Schemes. INote: If The B"lIdllll Is Potelllially Eligible For Ally IIIstorlc.' LlstllllS, Notify The PM 01 Th.t Pote,.,/", And Go To §4.1 To Yalldale Tile Need To Apply 111510rlca' Preservation Criteria To Tile Repairs Before Proceeding To De..,'op Any Repair Scllemes·1

!.

_ :a Il "

.

;0

~

5'

~

~

S VI

'"\

...

- .1

,

,

""2 ::I • .. 0

c: ..

.. :r

., "
~.

COMMr.NIS

Pal:C

CONTENT

-III

-.......

(USE ATrACIlMENT If NEEDED)

~

-" ~l

III· 3,1.2 JUitify And Dt5cribe In Detail The Choscn Repair Scheme And Why Thai

;

Scheme Was Selecled, I.E., Duilding/Spacc Limilations, Minimizing SirueIIIral System Impacl, Cost Effectiveness, Timing Ilmpact Of Repair5 On Operalions, Code Comeliancc, Etc. 1Il·3,1.3 If 'nlc Proposed Repllir Scheme To Permanentlyi Restore A Damaged Siructural System Element To Its Predisas!er Design' In Cempl/tll/ce Wltl, CUffe", COf/es All/I SltlllIJ,ltIls Requires Additions To - Or Mfldilicatiulls Of - System Elements, Juslify The Code Compliance Requirements Oy Doing The Following: • Quanlify nle Extent And Impact or Damages A5 Defined In The loss Of Structural Capacity Calculations ThaI Trigger The Re­ quired Code Compliance Modifications. • Lis! The Construction Melhods And Steps· Thai Would Dc Used To Repair The Damaged Element To Comply With Current Appli· cable Codes. • When The Modificalion (Or Addition) Of An Element' To Com· ply With Currenl Codes Triggers A Requirement For Other Modifications Or Additions Oulside The Immediate Area Of Dam· age, Reference And Cile The Specific Applicable Cude(SVSeclion(S) And Include Supporting Juslification, Docu­ mentation, Analysis, Calculations, Sketches, Logic, ELC. II) • 3.1.4 Indicale If FUl1her Soil, lIazardous Malerials Or Ollu:r Surveys And Reports Are Needed, III - 3.1.5 lIold Review Meeling Between AlE Consullanls And LA SlatT

~:r

.

.:l

c:

•

T n

,

)­

~(')

. "..

< C.

~ .,'::1

::. c..

o

::I

l:ul hample, Slep '1: I)cr".. liliuull'rcpallliun; Sic I' 12, !:p
CII'U,,'

,for Examplt. To 5l1uctulIlI)' Repair A t>lm'lIe", Shell Will Elemenl To Code M.y Ilequlre I:p.. _y Injecllun IIIl'he O,I,lnll 511C1I Wall And ReinTuldn, lbe Will (Ill. Sh"ICld~ 11m Ilei,," rOlcin, Rods 0, Muh, Added blltin" litc,) A"II The Addillon Of Anol"" Shell W.II Nell 1'It. D"nl,ell Shell W.II, lhls, In Tum. May l'I&lCf 'the Neeo! 1'0 Rc!Ofo/Ce OlhCl I:'Clllenli (If'II,e StIIIClur.1 System

Page J

;0 ...

. ;;. -­

1.11< It _.

..

< ~

(')

...

..,~ u _ -10'

::a ;4

.

c: ­

AI defined in 44 CFR 206,201(1). ·PCfmanenl wor~ melns 1".IICllo'lllnwolk Ihal mUll be perfolmellltllo.. ," Iepain 01 /tptlcemenl. 10 IC leslole In .Iicible rl,mly on Ihe bull of ill prcdillSlCf dc, li,n Inri CUllenl applicabte 1111I1I1,dl," AI .l)elined In 4i efR 206 2011hl. "1'''''lIIw~' J)~Jill" "1II~all' lhe Size 01 Cal'achy O( A heilil)' As Illig;""Uy lleliCII,d ,\1,,1 CUII.lluCled (II Snlts''1nclllly Mudilic~ lIy ChanCClII, Addu;nn\ I .. '110, Oi;Cill~' f)elien, "Uucs Nul Mean 'I/oe Capadly At Whld. "he I'acililY Was lIeing Used All/,e 1'illl' lhe M;ojuublc (XCUp.IIC)' CcUlnlllC Rep.i.,d l'acililY - Tllcreby h",e&lin, lhe Site Of·1 he I·., eilily, Il" NUl ,.. dude AllY Implo.elllen" To UuUdi,,& Areas Or Syslems Thai Ale Nol kequlrcd II)' Codes Or SllIIdllds'

!:.

III

.. o .....

;I:)

<

~

:Q

IJ\

'-2 u

----

PaJ:t

CONTENT

COMMENIS (USE A1TACilftlENT IF Nr.t:DED)

.,

r: ..

-­:J'

'<

Co

.,

Ill· 3.2.1 Meet Wilh PM To Validate The Eligibility And Status OfTlie Building As A !listorical Structure. IU·3.2.2 If Facility Is Over 50 Years Old And Eligible For Addition To Lists 01 lIistorically Significant Facililies, Follow The State lIistorieal Preservation

Office Guide lilies

II) • 3.2.3 Schedule A Meeting With COAT To Discuss The Impact or Proposed Re·

pair On The Ouilding's lIistorical Character Prior To Developing Any

Itepair Schemes. (Nole: CD" l' Will I'rtll'ide Tl:cllllicII/ Direcl/oll Regard·

illg All)' Po/elltial Adverse Impacts Of Repairs 011 I/iSlorict,1 Slmclllres Acceptable Aiiligalioll Measllres Thai I'resen'e Historical Featllres To Till:

Greatest Exlellt Possible.}

10 • 3.2.3 Apply Historical Struclure Checklist

~.

-n .......

-~:l"

•

10 -3.2 llistorlc:al Building Analysis

0

:I

1"1

4-:r

....

.D

r:

7:'

"III'

~

PlO PI ~. < c­

PIIASE II

C It..

•

~

...

IIQ

-

()

II - 4.0 II ·4.1 II - 4.2 II • 4.3 II • 4.4

u ::I :. c­

ADA ACCESSIDILlTV REQUIREMENTS Identiry And Reference Applicable Code Seclions Define ADA Trlgger(S) Define The Impacled Areas Define The ADA Work And Cosl

o

~ ~

n' ()

:: :r

.~~ :I

II - S.O

MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS II - 5.1 Mec:llllOlcal System Repair II - S.I.I Oased Upon The Mechanical Syslcm Damage Identified (§l.O) And 11le Proposed Structural Repair Concept (§4.1), Briefly Discllss What Pans or

The Mechanical System Need Repairs Or Will De Impacted Dy The Struc·

tural System Repairs.

11·5.1.2 Oased Upon The Repairs And Modilicalions Idenlified (§ 6.1.I), Describe In Detail The Pc:m\anenl Mechanical System Restoralion Concepts Pro·

posed And \low They Suppon The Selected Struclural Repair Concept, I.E.,

Ouilding/Space Limilalions, Minimizing Mechanical (Or Other) System 1m· .' pacl, Cost Effectiveness, Timing/Impact Of Repairs On Operations, Code

Compliance, Elc.

.

::a

::I It

It _ . 111<

~ _.

r: !::

!!.

,

,

~ • if 1:1

l!!

~

1.c2 II 0 :I ~

C ..

.. :r ., :!.

"lIge

CONTENT 11-5.1.3 If The Proposed Concept To Permanently' Repair (Or Restore) A Damaged (Or Displaced) Mechanical System Element To 115 Prcdisaster Design' III CO"'l!lIll11ce Willi Cutrell' Cullet AII/I.~·tmldllrl/t Requires Additiolls To Or Modifications Of - Syslem Elements, Justify The Codc Compliance Requirements By Doing The Following: • Reference And/Or Cite nle Specific Applicable

Codc( S)/Section(S)

• List 111e Conslruction Methods And Steps· nllll Would [le Used

To Repair nle Damaged Element To Comply With Current Appli·

cable Codes.

• When The Modificalion (Or Addilion) or An Element' To Com­ ply Wilh Currenl Codes Tri8&ers A Requirement For Other Mudilications Or Additions Outside nle Immediate Area or Dam· age Or Results From Structural (Or Other System) Repairs, Reference And Cite 11le Specific Applicable Code(S)/Section(S) And Include Supporting Justification, Documentation, Analysis. . . Calculations, Sketches, Logic, Etc_ •

j

COMMENIS (USE AlTACIiMENT , ... NE£llU)

-.

'-:r .::a c II

~

f

fa

)­

t;;n <

..

fa

~

.

'" ::. :I Q.

o ::0

:> .. III < It _.

'l;;. () ~

a :r ... g

"-~!:i

C 1.1

~

See Footnote 3. For Example, SICp 'I: DcmolhlonJPrep.,.lIoo; Slcp n: Itemu... Pipes An" natures; Slep 11; Repall Siruciulat Dam,.e; Slep 14: Replace PIpes n""talUrel. Ihace Per CUlTeAl Code lI.equircmcnll 111il lIslAnd Sequence Shall Be Followed To P,cpuc CoSlElllm.,CI Required In Section \I.

M.y R''1u''e Reslzlns The Enllre Supply APII Relum Duct S),Slcm To In"cue 1lie Number or Air ClIUI,CS Per Mlnul. Til Meel CUllent

o

!!"

-;c ~

til

Page S

Q.

..

Sec Footnote 2.

Sec Foolnolc 2.

5.

1'1

Electrical Syslem RepaIr II - 5.2.1 Based Upon The Electrical System Damage Identified (§3.0) And nle Proposed Structural Repair Concept (§4.1), Uricfly Discuss What I)arts or The Electrical System Need Repairs Or Will Be Impacted By The Structural Syslem Repairs. II . 5.2.2 Based Upon The Repairs And Modifications Idenlified (§ 6.2.1), Describe In Detail The Permanenl Electrical System Restoration Concepts Proposed

And ItolY They Suppon The Selecled Struclural Repair Concept, I.E.,

Building/Space Limitations, Minimizing Mechanical (Or Othcr) System Im­ pact, Cost Effectivencss, Timing/llllpact Of Repairs On Operations, Code

Compliance, [Ie.

II - S.2.3 Ifl11e Proposed Concept To Pennllncntlyl6 Repair (Or Restore) A Damaged

(Or Displaced)'l!lectrical System E1emenl To lis PredisaSle[ Dcsigll ll In

ID

-III -.a It -,., -Q., -Q ..

\I • S.l

For r:umplc. To Repair A Daml,e" Duel To Q!!!!.!!! Code Code.

'
; ;"

­

~2

.. 0

:I

..

r: ..

I'age

CONTENT Cenre.flall(f

""l" Cu£,tll' COIl,s d"!I. Sta"dards Requires Addilions To -

Or Modifications Of - System Elenll:nts, Justify The Code Compliance Requirements By Doing The following: • Reference And/Or Cite The Specific Applicable f Code(S )lSection(S) List The Construction Methods And Steps'! 111at Would De Used

To Repair The Damaged Element To Comply Wilh Current Appli­ table Codes.

• When The Modification (Or Addition) Of An Element I! To Com·

ply With Current Codes Triggers A Requirement For Other

Modifications Or Additions Outside The Immediate Area or Dam­ age Or Results From Siructural (Or Other System) Repairs,

Reference And Cite 111e Specific Applicable Code(S)/Section(S) And Include Supporling Justification, Documentation, Analysis, Cal~ulations, Skcl~hes, Logic, Etc. II· S.l Plumbln,-System Repair 11-5.3.1 Based Upon The Plumbing System Damage Idenrified (§3.0) And The' Pro· posed Structural Rcpair COllcept (§4.1), Briefly Discuss What Paris Of The Plumbing System Need Repairs Or Will Dc Impacted Oy The Structural System Refairs. II - 5.3.2 Based Upon The Repairs And Modifications Identified (§ 6.3.1), Describe In Delail The Pennanent Plumbing System Restoration Concepts Proposed AmI lIow TIley SUppOrl The Selected Structural Repair Concept, I.E., Building/Space l.imitations, Minimiling Mechanh;al (Or Other) System 1mpacl, Cost Effectiveness, Timing/Impact Of Repairs On Operations, Code Compliance, Etc.

COlllMEtHS (USE AlTAClIlIlENT IF NEEPED)

.. :r ., :!.

'< ~

-"

-"'".

-PI ' 0 .. '0 ..

'-::r

~

It

~

II

•

;l' ~ (') Q\

. II

I!

).

MC'l PI

<

,

..

C ..:0

=.o &:a.::a

.. :0

..

.~:t

:I ~ _.

c: ~

!.

~

:e

~ III

For F.nmpt•• To Repai, namastd f:lcellicat Oullm To ("U"'''' Code Ma) Requhc Rtslzln& The Enlirc l'anel And T'llIsCOfmcr To Provldc An l..clC.sed Number or Circuits And (lullels '1 .. M~~I 'J Jl Metl Cunenl Code..

r

to

< ~

;i' () !1 :r

C

For Eunlplc. SICp .,. Demolition/Pler,rallon; SICII 12; Ilemuve Wilin, And Fillllles; Step '1; Repair Suucl",al ()am3Ic; Slep '4: Replace Whh'l And t·i.IUlCI, Dllce Conduit Per CU"'''I Cu~~ ltc· quiremenls. This Lisl And Sequence Shan Dc Follo..ed To r"plre Cost t:slimatcs Required In S"don II.

to

tII<: II _.

..~

Sec Foulnole 1.

E.

~

II

)

""2 .. 0

~ l

.,so :r.,

'
I';j!:t

CONTENT

;4­

(USE AITAC/l1oI£NT If NUDED)

_C'1

-.::.:.1

~.,

II - D.l If The Proposed Concept To Permanently·· Rcpair (Or Restore) A Dalllaged

(Or Displaced) Plumbing Systelll Element To lis Prcdisastcr Design II /11 COnlu.1lnllce Wl,h Curre,,' Codes ","d S'rlllllQrds Requires Additions To ­ Or Modifications Of - System Elements, Justify The Code Compliance Requirements By Doing The Following: • Reference AndlOr Cite '1,e Specific Applicable

Cotle(S)/Section(S)

• List The Construction Methods And Steps·' That Would [le Used

To Repair The: Damage:d Element To Comply With Current Appli­ cable Codes.

• When The Modification (Or Addirion) Of An Element" To Com­ ply With Current Codes Triggers A Requirement For Other Modifications Or Addilions Outside The Immelliate Arell or Pamage Or Results From Structural (Or Other System) Repairs, Reference And Cile The Specific Applicable Code(S)lSection(S) And Include Supporting Justification, Documentation, Analysis, Calculations, Sketches, Logic, Etc;.

I

1\ • 6,0 II • 6. J

4-:r .D

r:

u

7:"

,

"

» p;(') C"l ~.

I I

< c:­ u " Clol u :I ::. c­

o ,., :I

" - 6.2

II - 6.3

If The Proposed Concept To Peffilanently" Repair (Or Restore) A Damaged (Or

•• \I

II

7~ U _

-7:" :I

U

,.,

See Foo'nolc 1.

~ o

for Example, Slep": OcmolitioRll'lCp...lion: S.ep 12: Remove Whine And fix lures: S.ep '1; Repair Struclurat OIAlIse; Slcp '4: Repl.ce I'lpcl Alld Filluin. nrlce Pipes Per CUllentCuclc Require. ments. Thisl.lsl And Sequcllce Sh.1t Uc followed To P.epllc COil Es.im,'ci Requircd tn Section 9.

~

Fo. fum pIe, To Repair A Dam,scd Ptumblnl EIClnenl To Cu",n/ Code May Require Rcslzlns TIle Entire I'antl And Transfurmer 1"0 Provldc All IncrelScd Humber OfClltulu APII Ou.lets To / rel="nofollow">tee. To Meet Cunent Code..

~

Page 7

_.

C ~

Sec foolno.e 1.

SCf Foolnote 2.



" (') a :r

Displaced) Architectural System Element To Its Predisaster Design'· In Compl/­

IS

,.

"111<_. "l_. "~

ARCfIITECTURAL REPAm Ilascd Upon The ArchilecturaJ Systems Damilge Identified (§l.O) And The Proposed Structural Repair Concept (§4.1), Briefly Discuss What Parts or The Architectural System Need Repairs Or Will Be Impacted 8y The Structural System Repairs. Based Upon The Repairs And Modificlltions Identified (§ 7.1), Dcscril>e In I)c­ tail The Permanent Architectural System Restoration Concepls Proposed And

How They Support The Selected Structural Repair Concept, I.E., BuildingfSpace

Limitations, Minimizing Mechanical (Or Olher) System Impacl, Cost Effective­ ness, Timing/Impact or Repairs On Operations, Code Compliance, Elc.

.

a;

-IIQ

COAlMt:NIS

..

­

~ VI

'-'2 0

II

:I ..

C ..

II

Page

CONTENT

•

• •

II - 7.0 II • 7.1 ~

.

IrQ

n

11-1.2

00

(lnc~ Witl. Current Codes A"d .rl""dt"d! Requires Additions To - Or Modifi· cations Of - System Elements, Ju~tify The Code Compliance Requiremenls By Doing The Following: Reference AndiOr Cite The Specific Applicable Code(SYSection(S). List The Conslruction Methods And SIeps10 That Would Be Used To Repair

The Damaged Element To Comply With Current Applicable Codes.

When The Modification (Or Addition) Of An mcmenal l To Comply Wilh

Current Codes Triggers A Requirement I:or Other Modifications Or Addi· tions Outside The Immediale Area Of !lamage Or Results From Struclural

(Or Other System) Repairs, Reference And Cite The Specific Applicable

Code(S)/Section(S) And Include Supporting Justification, Documentation, Analysis, Calculations, Sketches, Logic, Etc.

COMMENTS (USE ATIACIIMENI If NEEPEI) ­

:I'

'" :!. '
-A -.I" • 1"1

"'Ia:r. "'­ -II

.

.Q

c

•

,.7J:'

J

I

FIRE PROTECTION AND OTIIER BUILDING/SITE SYSTEMS Based Upon nle Fire Protection And Other Building/Sile System Damage I..kn· tified (§3.0) And The Proposed Structural Repair Concept (§4.1), BrieOy Discuss What Parts Of These Systems Need Repairs Or Will Oe Impacted By The Structural System Repairs. Based Upon Tht Repairs And Modifications Identilie,", (§ 7.1), Dc:scribe In Dc· tail 11le Permanent Architecturnl System Restoration Concepts Proposed And IlolY They Suppon 'Ille Selected Structural Repair Concept, I. E., Building/Space Limitalions, Minimizing Mechanical (Or Olher) System Impact, Cost Effective· ness. Timinglllllpact or Itepairs On Operations, Code Compliance, Etc.

;;­.... I"In PI

E.

li

..

< a­

II C II :I

:. Cl.

o ;g

:I

,.

.. .

Vl< It _.

< ~

;i' () :: :r

~:t

II :I

~

c 1:' .. !.

~ ~

o

I>

Sec 1',""lIOlc 1.

~

10

Fo, r:..rnplc. SICP II: lle/llulilinnll',epalllluR: Step 12: IIcpl~ee Oama,ed Will""w frlRlcs; SICP .1; Replace Ilomalled Willduw Casewu,k; Slep '4: l'i,eptll"rCascwo,k 'realiles Pn ('unelll Cuole Me· quiremenls. ·t his Usl And Sequellce Shan Ue "ulluwed Tu I',epa,. Cuillilli... alcs Required In Sectlun 9.

~

~

5i

III

11

for Exampte. To Repair Damaced To A Fire Cout..." To I.obby In OJder To Comply Wilh Cunenl Codc ..

Dl!!!!!! Code May

Requl:e RerOlllln, OrTh. fire Couldo. Tu Avoid ConneClilllllhc ':lre·Slain Wlih A Travd Path 'Uullu,h An newa.,,,

.J

(

""2 »:s 0.,

c ..

II . 7.3

I •

• •

(liSE

Ir The Proposed Concept To Permanently'J Repair (Or ReSlore) A Damaged (Or Displaced) System Element To Its ~redilasler Qr:Jigl!li III COl1ll1l1tlllce 1Yi11, Curr,nt Codes And Str",I/,lfIls Requires Additioos To - Or Modifications 01 - Syslem Elements, Justify The Code Compliance Requirements By Doing The Following: f\eference AndlOr Cite The Specific Applicable Code(S)lSection(S). List The CORst,uclion Methods And SICPS" That Would Be Used To Repair

The Damaged Element To Comply With Currenl Applicable Codes.

When The Modification (Or Addition) or An Elemenl u To Comply With Currenl Codes Triggers A Requiremenl for Other Modificalions Or Addi· lions Outside The Immediate Area or Damage Or Results From Structural (Or Other System) Repairs. Reference And Clre The Specific Applicable Code(S)/Sectioll(S) And Include Suppol1ln& Justification, Documentation, Analysis. Calculalions, Sketches, Logic, Etc.

ATrACIIA..:NT 't' NU:llt:lI)



~

"

'",

~ " -4::1

'-:r

..c

.0

,

,r:­

"

I I

,

COST ESTIMATE Identiry The "Rough·Order·Magnitudc" Cost Estimates Used During The Initial 1\ - 8.1 Development And Consideration or Alternative Repair Concepls. " . 8.2 ('n:pare Delailed Cost Estimates for Thc ('referred Repair Schemcs Idcntificd for Each or The Building Systems (Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumb­ ing , Etc.). List Separately 'Ille (>elailed Cost or Repairs For Each Building System. II • 8.2.1 Cost Estimates Shall Be Based On Costs Listed In The 1995 Editions Of R.S. Means Cost Estimating Guidebooks. II . 8.2.2 Cost ESlimates Arc To Be Organized And flresented Oy System And Major

Element Repaired Or Replaced. The Unit (Or Assembly) Costs Used Shall

fie Those Lisled (Alld Cross·Referenced) In The 1995 Editions Of It.S.

Mtans Cost Estimating Guitlcbooks. COSI Estimates Used fly The AlE

Consultanl From Sources Other Than R.S. Means Shall Be Documenled In

Detail. "LulnR·Sum" Calt Estimates SI,8." Nat Be AccS!tabl'­

II - 8.0

u

;r

~S: -n

COI\I~It:NIS

"age

CONTENT

•

>

;;;0 £WI :.

<

..

Q, II

=" =. :I

&I

o

a.

:I

< ~

;;' (1

­

-,r:­

..

:I

_.

C ~

:.

~

C

II

Sec Foolnote ].

II

"

For Eumple. Step '1: l)emolillonlPtcpatlllnn: Slcp 12: Replace Damased Pipes And SprlnUerllcads; Step '1; Prcssllre l'csl System Pcr Clilteni C"de Requirements. TIlls I.Isl AnclScquence Shililk I'ullowed 10 !'tcpare Cuil IiSlilllaiu Required In SeCliun 9.

~ ......

H

for Example, To Repair A Damlced Sprinkler System me_AI To ("u",nt Code ",hy Require RC5illnc The ",ulre Wiler I)IIIributlUII SystemlPlpes And PunlpS) To "",vide Sum~lcnt WalClllcllvcry To Meel To Meet Cunenl Code.

~

Pnee 9

"

:: :r 4'~

l

Sec Footnotc 2.

;0

" _.

(11< ., It

-'" III

'"-2 .. Q ::I

.,

c: ..

., .,

_._-­

CONTENT II . 8.2.3 Cost Estimates Shall Follow The List And Sequcnce Of Methodologies And Steps Described In §4.1.3, §6.I.J, §6.2.3, §6.3.3, §7.3 And §8.3.

Cost Estimates Shall Identify Each Major System Element (Or Activity Item) Involved In The Repairs On A Separate Line·llem In The Detailed Cost Estimate For Each Bulldin; System. 11·8.2.5 Cost Estimates Shall Identify Any Adlllilolllli System Element (Or Activity

Item) Required For Code Compliance On A Separate Line·ltem In The De·

tailed Cost Estimates - By Building System

II • 8.2.6 Cost Estimates Shall Not Include Any Costs For Improvements Or Addi·

tions li..ol Se.eelfleal/'/. Reallired. For COile Come.llullct In The Repair Or

Replacement Work Cost Estimates.

II • 8.3 Prc~are A Summary OrThe Cost To Repair The Building By Iluilding System. II • 8.4 Prepare An Estimate 0(111e Cost To Replace The Facility. II· 8.4.1 Replacement Costs Shall Be (lased On Unit CoslS From R.S. Means Cosl Estimating Guidebooks - Unadjusted For Any Special Building Design Features Or Improvemenls. II . 8.4.2 Replacement Costs ShallBt Based On Replacing nle Ouilding Capacity Or Size (In Square Feet). Any Increases In Size Must Be Justified Ily Specifi· cally Identifying The Applicable Code Or Standard And Its Requircments. II • 8.4.3 Replacement Cost Estimates Shall Not Include Any Costs Or Allowances For Improvements Or Expansions Of The Facility. II . 8.S Compare The Reeair Cost With 1111: Reeillcelllent Cost. II - 8.6 Review Of Cost Estimates By AlE Consultant And County Staff II • 8.2.4

.....

~

II'Q

t") Co



II - 9.0

I'AGE

COMMENTS (USE ATTACIIMENT IF NEEDED)

..

::II"

'<

ii:

-tQ

.-4 .,

_PI 'Q"

,.:: D c

-0"

,

"".

n

).

PiC) PI :. < C.

!. " c "

=. C. o ;0 "

::I

:I

n

III

<

;:;

()

S ~. ~ ::r

';cI~ ::I

!!.

HAZARD MITIGATION

For Each Of The Damaged Building Systems, Explore Hazard Mitigation

Measures (As Directed By The PM) To Mitigate Similar Damages From

Reoccurring In Other (Or The Same) Areas 0f111e Building During Future

Disasters.

11-9.1.1 Hazard Miligation Measures Should Be O.'el 4Ind Abol'~ Co~e RliquiLe­ ments.

II - 9.r.2 Hazard Mitigation Measures Should Be Cost Effective

II· 9.1.3 ~~rd ~iti~a~~~Proposals S~ollld Be Related To Earthquake Damages

­

-".

"C

II - 9.1

.-~-

~

t:I

!!

l!

~ .... .....

'Q

III

.)

_.

~

'-2 :I •

c: "0..\

•., :r :!.

rAGE

':::ONTENT

II - 10.0

COMMENTS (USE ATrACIIMENT IF NEEDEO)

'< Co -to

......Pl

-

'-0., -" ..:> ..

'-:r .&I c

FACILITY REPLACEMENT I'ROGRAM (OPTIONAL)

Define The Facility Replacement Size - In Building Gross Square Feet (BGSF) - Based On Current Size Or Design Capacity With Any Required Adjustments For Code Compliance. Specifically Reference The Codes Applied And Quantify

And Justify The Sizing hnpacl.

II· 10.2 I'repare An Estimate OfThe I{eplacernent Cost Based On The Product Orlhe

. Siu (In Ouilding Gross Square Feel) And Cost Pcr Square Foot As Defined In The 1995 Edition OfJ1Je Means Square Foot Costs Estimating Guidc For The [)uildin& TypelModel MOSI Closely Resembling The Facility Being Replaced. Specifically Identify The Model Ulilized And Any AdjuslmclIIs Applied To The Basic Costs Per Square Foot Of Floor Area, i.e., Perimeler Adjuslments, Building/floor Ileighl Adjustments, Common Additives, Elc.

.,,­

IJ· 10.1

i

H· 11.0 II· 11.1 II· 11.2

II

• ~

i

!:PlC'l PI !:.

'..

PROJECT SCIIEDULE

Q, It

i:,.

Repair Project Schedule Wilh an Acceptable Listing of Major Activities, Sequencing And Durations. Replacement Ilrojccl Schedule With an Acceptable Listing of Major Activities, Sequencing And Durations.

•::. c­ :I

o

;0

:I It 1/)< It _.

~ ~

ir ()

11 :r ~~ -,,:I _.

SUI'PORTING DOCUMENT ATION/AI'PENDICES

"C

Calculation Sheets Meeting Minutes Survey Fonnsl Field Notes Copies Of Applicable CodeslSeclions Illustrations - Sketches/Plans/Photographs

!!.

~NALREPORTFORMAT

Table of Conlents - With Page Number

Final Report With Sequenlial Page Numbers

• Final Report With Labeled Tabs/Dividers

.Final Report Contenl WITHOUT Conlradictory Statemenls

Final Report Content WITIIOUT Vague/WeaklNon-Tcchnical Language, Le., Minor Damage, May Ilave Been, etc. Final Report Contcnl WITIIOUT Unsupported Conclusion s or Recommendations

;0

~ C

•if

ISO DIVISION MANAGER_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DAT[!: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

CDATDIRECTOR_________________________________

DATE:________________

Page II

~

53 U\

­

~

Northridp Earthquake January 17, 1994

Cuide and Review Checklist AlE EYaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 91lm

This Page Intentionally Blank

Pace C- 12

AppendixD­ Executive Summary Format·

i'iorthriuge Eartbc/u3ko: January 17. (99~

Executive Summary Formal

AlE Evaluation Services ;\bnu:l1

Rev. D:lle: 911195

EXECUTIVE SUMlVIARY Facility Description

The County of Los Angeles Hall of Art is a 378,000 square foot building located near the Los Angeles Civic Center at 10 II East Temple Street. The building, constructed in 1932, is considered by the State Historical Preservation Office to appear eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic. Places and subject to compliance with 36 CFR 78, Section t 10 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Immedi­ ately prior to January 17, 1994, the building was used as a Performing Arts Center housing approximately 254 staff and a performance facility that seats roughly 1,480 patrons in space that had a current rated capacity of t ,220 patrons, During the Northridge Earthquake, the building sustained significant damage and closed after being in­ spected and "red tagged" by building officials as unsafe for occupancy, The occupants have been relocated to a temporary facility and all performances suspended pending repair of the building. The building remains closed and unoccupied. Earthquake Damage Structural

Dama~e

Investigation and analysis of the structural engine~r indicates that the building has sustained extensive damage from the basement to its roof. A repetitiv.e and consistent pattern of seismic damage was visu­ ally identified at the interior concrete encased steel columns. the perimeter concrete walls. unreinforced masonry in-fill walls at the light wells, and the interior clay tile partition walls. In addition, the exterior stone cladding showed serious signs of incipient dislodging. The observed damage was replicated in a computer-aided model of the facility using actual ground-motion accelerations recorded at an adjacent site. The model projects structural damage in areas which could not be observed without intrusive test­ ing. Based on this analysis, we recommend that th1! facility remain "red tagged" and additional intrusive investigations be performed. . Non-Structural Damage The building's MechanicallElectricallPlumbing (MEP) systems experienced significant damage during (or as a result of) the earthquake. Two (2) water pumps and five (5) air handling equipment and the di­ rectly associated piping and ductwork were moved up to three inches (3'') from their locations. Broken pipes have resulted in water damage to over 85,000 square feet in various areas of the building. The movement of the HV AC ductwork now aV.ows air leakage at most joints and connections. Over 50% of the lighting fixtures were broken as a result of the associated ceiling damage and lack of seismic support. Some electrical panels are non-functional because of water damage and the structural integrity of one motor control center was possibly destroyed. Approximately 30% of the interior, non-structural walls have extensive cracking and 50% have minor crackling as a result of the earthquake. The interior stair walls all have large. deep. vertical cracks. Ceiling tiles - both the suspended and applied tiles - fell and some earthquake damage occurred as a result of older. applied ceiling tiles falling on the lower (and newer) suspended lay-in ceiling tiles. The exterior cornice at the southeast corner of the building is cracked and could represent :1 serious public safety f:lctor. • FEMA PA.IO. No. 123-.J5678

Northridge Earthquake 17, 11)94

Executive Summary Format AlE Evaluation Services Manual

J~nu.ry

E~lrthqu:lkc

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Damage Repair Progr:lm

Structural Damage Repair Prol!ram Repairing the structural damage sustained by the facility to comply with the current structural codes can best be accomplished by ....... .

Non-Structural Damage Repair Program Repairing the damage sustained by the facility's mechanical, electrical, plumbing and architectural sys­ tems to comply with the current structural codes can b,est be accomplished by ....... .

Earthquake

Dam~ge

Repair Cost Estimate

The estimated cost for the repair and construction work required to restore the building's structural ele­ ments and systems to comply with current structural codes is 59.87....... .

The estimated cost for the repair and construction work required to restore the facility to its pre-disaster

design capacity and meet current codes is $ 1,23 .......... .

Code Compliance Requirements

Code Compliance Program

This 65 year old building requires a variety of modifications and alterations to meet current code re­

quirements and receive a permit for the repair and occupancy of the facility. The building's structural

system requires the addition of .................

Code Compliance Costs

The cost to comply with current applicable codes and receive a permit for the repair and occupancy of

the facility is estimated at $19 ............ .

Hazard Mitigation Program

Facility Replacement Progr:lm

Flicility Restoration Schedule

P:lge 0 - 2

----------

-

-----------

. .

AppendixE­ Sample Table Of Contents •

>

Northridae E:arthqu3ke January t 7. 1994

Sample Table

or Contents

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rey. Date: 911195

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUlVIMARY Facility Description .......................................................................................................................................... E • ::

Damage Description ............................................................................................................................. _.......... E • #

Repair Schemes .................................................................................................................................. ,............. E • ::

Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................................................... E • ::

Replacement Program (If AppJicable) .............................................................................................................. E -::

[ A, 1. FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1.1 J.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

General Building Description ................................................................................................................ I - ::

Structural Characterics .................................................._....................................................................... I -::

MechanicaVElectricaVPlumbingiArchitectural Characteristics ...._ ..................................................... 1 - ::

Historical Structure Status ..................................................................................................................... I - ::

Hazardous l\tlaterials Usage ................................................................................................................... I -::

Special Area ConstructionlFixed Equipment .., ...................................................................................... 1 - #­

, -4. 2. DAMAGE DESCRIPTION AND DOCUMENTATION 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Structural System ............................................~...................................................................................... 2 • ::

Mechanical System ........................................ :........................................................................................ 2 - #­ Electrical System ............................................: ...................................................................................... 2 • ::

Plumbing System ................................................................................................................................... 2 - #­ Architectural Systems ............................................................................................................................ 2 - ::

Fire Protection and Other Systems......................................................................................................... 2 • ::

Summary Table ...................................................................................................................................... 2 -::

\ S, 3. STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND REPAIR 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

JI . 4.

Structural Loss of Strength Description ................................................................................................. 3 • #

Damaged Area Structural Code Compliance RequirementS .................................................................. 3· #

Structural Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates .................................................................... _..... 3· #

Structural Repair Recommendation ....................................................................................................... :; - ::

Structural Repair Construction Proceciures ............................................................................................ 3· #

Historical Structure RequirementS (If Applicable) ................................................................................ 3 - #

ADAffITLE 24 ACCESSmILITY REQUIREMENTS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Damaged Area ADAlTitie 24Accesibility Status .................................................................................. 4 • #

Applicable: ADAlTitle 24Accesibility Code Sections and "Triggers" ................................................... 4· #

Proposed ADAlTitie 24 Compliance Areas and Program .................................................................... 4· #

ADAlTitle 24 Compliance Program Cost .............................................................................................. 4 - #

Northridl:e Earthquake January 17. 199~

Sample Table of Contents AlE EVlllu:llion Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

.,

5. MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS ANAL YSIS AND REPAIR 5.1 Mechanical Sysrem Repair Program ...................................................................................................... 5 - #

5.1. I Damaged Area Mechanical Code Compliance Requirements .................................................... 5 - #

5. (.2 Mechanical System Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates..................••.••...............: ••••.•.... S - 1#

5. (.3 Recommended Mechanical System Repairs ............................................................................... S - #

5.1.4 Recommended Mechanical System Repair Construction Procedures ...............................•.....•... 5 - #

5.1.5 Other ........................................................................................................................................... 5 - #

5.2 Electrical System Repair Program ......................................................................................................... 5 - #

5.1.1 Damaged Area Electrical Code Compliance Requirements ........................................................ 5 - #

5.1.2 Electrical System Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates .................................................... 5 - #

5.1.3 Recommended Electrical System Repairs ...............•................................................................... 5 - #

5.104 Recommended Electrical System Repair Construction Procedures ............................................ 5 - #

5.1.5 Other ........................................................................................................................................... 5 - #

5.3 Plumbing System Repair Program ......................................................................................................... 5 - #

5.l.! Damaged Area Mechanical Code Compliance ReqUirements .•••••.••••.•.•.......•............................. 5 - #

5.1.2 Mechanical System Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates ..•.....••.•..................................... 5 - #

5.1.3 Recommended Mechanical System Repairs ..............................................................................• 5 - #

5.1.4 Recommended Mechanical System Repair Construction Procedures ......................................... 5 - #

5. (.5 Other ......................................................... :................................................................................. 5 - #

6.

ARCHIT~CTURAL

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND REPAIR (

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Damaged Area Architecrrual Code Compliance ~equirements ............................................................. 6 - #

Architectural Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates ...................................................................... 6 - #

Recommended Architectural Repairs .................................................................................................... 6 - 1#

Recommended Architectural Systems Repair Construction Procedures ............................................... 6 - #

Other ........................................................•.........................................................................................•..• 6-#

7. FIRE PROTECTION AND OTHER.SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND REPAIR 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Damaged Area Fire Protection and Other Systems Code Compliance Requirements ........................... 7 - #

Fire Protection and Other Systems Repair Concepts and ROM Cost Estimates .................................... 7 - #

Recommended Fire Protection and Other Systems Repairs................................................................... 7 - It

Recommended Fire Protection and Other Systems Repair Construction Procedures ............................ 7 - #

Damage Calcu lations ............................................................................................................ '" .............. 7 - #

8. COST ESTIMATES 8.1 8.2 8') 8.4 8.5

Cost EstUnilte Summary ......................................................................................................................... 8 - #

Detailed System/Major Element Cost Summary ................................................................................... 8 - #

Addieional Code Compliance Element Cost Summary .......................................................................... 8 - #

Replacement Facility Cost Estimate ...................................................................................................... 8 - #

RepairlReplacement Cose Comparison ............................................................................. ,.: .................. 8 - #

'-

Page E· 2

... '

Northrid&e Earthqu:lkc:

January 17. 1994

Sample Table of Contents AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/9S

9. HAZARD MITIGATION 9. I

9.2

Hazard Mitigation Proposal 1# 1 .............•................................................................................................ 9 - :I

9.1.1 Description .................................................................................................................................. 9 - #

9.1.2 Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................................. 9 - #

9.1.3 Cost Effectiveness ...................................................................: ................................................... 9 - # .

Hazard Mitigation Proposal # 1 ................................................................._................................:••...•...• 9 - #

9.2.1 Description ........................................................................................._••:.................................... 9 - If.

9.2.2 Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................................. 9 - #

9.2.3 Cost Effectiveness ..: .................................................................................................................... 9 - #

10. FACILITY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 10.1 Facility Replacement Sizing And Adjustements ..••_......................................._................................... 10 - #

10.2 Facility Repalcement Cost Estimate ................................................................................................... 10 - #

11. PROJECT-SCHEDULE 11.1 Repair Program Schedule .................................................................................................................... II - #

, 11.2 Replacement Program Schedule (If Applicable) ................................................................................. II - #

APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

Correspondence/Meeting Minutes Damage Survey Forms and Field Notes Qamage Listing Log Damage Location Plans Color Photographs Crack Maps Structural Element Repair/Structural Analysis Calculations Applicable Code Sections

NOMhridee Earthquake January 11. 1994

Sa..ple Table orContenb AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Re¥. Date: '1/1195

·This Page Intentionally Blank

.' J

Page E -"

•

AppendixF­ Inspection Survey' Form'

Inspection Survey Form

c..2 •::J

0.,

­ •c: :r

Non-StructuraVArchitectural System Elements

Namc_________________________________________

~a:

Ilatc____________

•...... C"I -~ -D., -D_

-Ill

"

FloorlLcvcl,______________________-'-_____

Page __ of _ __

'-:r ..Q c:

Oulldlng Element

Location

Observatlon/()escription

QuantlfiClltlon

•

X-Ref/Associated I\ltrl

J:"

"

I Parapets

2 Ornamentation

' I

~

3 Canopies

tPI

.. Signage (Building andlor Site)

PI;' < ..

·

• -c

5 Building Exterior Walls, i.e., Brick, Masonry, Plaster/Stone Facing. Glazing. Metal Panels, Concrete Panels, etc. 6 ExteriorlBuilding Entrance Doors and Window Openings 7 Floors, Decks and/or Coatings

-II

c

o :a

::J III

1IIc::

"~

~/I

;:;. '<

1:.., ~~ •::J 3 C

8 Roofing System

!!.

9 Elements/Details Of Historic Nature/Significance 10 Olher I

II Other 12 Other '. 13 Other

1'1

::.

::. 0

"" "•F. ~

~

;a III

Inspection Survey Form

'-2 :I • ., 0

c: ..

•

Site Civil & Utility System Elements

:r

.. :!.

Namc_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

'
--I"

·111

Floor/Level Building Element I Asphalt Drives & Parkway

Dale_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

,

ObservationlDescripllon ,

,

..

location

-II

Page __ of _ __

Quantification

~:l

"':7' .:::a c:

II

X-Rd/Assoclated I\Url

7r

"

~

I

2 Concrete Pavement 3 Sidewalks ~

4 Fences

PI

PI;' < .. -'1:1

5 Retaining Walls

-" ;.c: g."

~

..,,

6 Irrigation System

:I CII

N

7 Exterior Lighting - Building. Site, Parking Area, Decorative. Etc. 8 On-Site Utility Distribution Systems, i.e., tunnels/trenches, wells. piping. above/underground storage tanks, etc. 9 ADA Compliance

"V

o

II

"

" II "I'J _a ~~ :I

c

~

I

I

II Other

12 Other '. ~ "!­

..

o

ii l!

55 UI

(

~

~ '< ft·

10 Other

13 Other

:I

CIIe

.,)

Inspection Survey Form

'"'2 :I • ., 0

C ..

•

Interior Achitectural System Elements

::r

., :!.

Name_________________________________________

'<,,­

-1'0 -.l"

Ilalf_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Floor/Level____________________________

Page_of _ _

-.



•

1'1

-.::I

..

'D_

'-::r .Cl

c:

I

Building Element

Location

Observation/Description

Quantification

.. & rel="nofollow">

X-Ref/Assodated Mtrl

7!:'

I

I

I Interior Walls

r

2 Interior Doors

3 Ceilings

~

4 Floor Coverings

.."

1'1;' < ...

5 Furnishings

-II

c: ::. " e~ 0

o

6 Equipment

:I'

:I III IIIC

"~ ~;;. '<" ::;:c.,;;'

7 ADA Compliance

• :I :s c

8 Other

.

9 Other

10 Other

11 Other

12 Other

.. '

"~ "

13 Other

14 Olher

,

~

,

~

~

--~

-

:a ~

III

Inspection Survey Form

'-2

II

0

= :r:1 II

Mechanical System Elements

Name,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Floor/Lenl__________________

D8tc_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

~S: -10

;-lIt _I")

-D" -c.,

PAgC_O( _ _

f..:r

...

.&l

Building Element

•

ObservationlDescriptloll

l.ocallon

Quanlific.llon

X-Ref/Associated

c:

~tlrl

II<'

: 1 IIVAC -

distribution, supply, pumps, motors,

anchors/restraints, etc.

2 HVAC Package Units

3 Air Handling Units

~

4 Ductwork/Grills

COl;" '< ..

.::. ;­.. 11'0

5 Cooling Towers ~

-It

c: " o :I :len enc:

~

6 Chillers

....

7 Main Boilers

"~ "~ ir '<

8 Water Heaters

~a ::II

..,

C c:

!.

9 Energy Management/Colltrols

10 Smoke Exhaust System

II Stairway Pressurization

',2 Fire Pumps

, 13 Water Pumps

~

14 Sewage Pumps

II

~

' I

..

C

"

!i

:e

~

IA

J

:s

Inspection Survey Form

'"'Z ::I

.,

• 0 c: .. • :r

Mechanical System Elements - Cont.

~i

Name,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

., 04., -" 04_ ....

-III

" C"I

Floor/Level

Datl:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Building Element

Location

ObservallonlDescription

Page __ of _ __

Quantification

'-=­

C »

X-Ref/Associated Mtrl

7J:" It

I

15 Water Storage Tanks (building and/or site) 16 Fuel Storage Tanks 17 Liquid Gas Tanks (oxygen, nitrogen,

butane/propane, hydrogen, etc.)

18 Toxic Waste and Treatment

, I

19 Fume Hoods

20 Scrubbers 21 Radiation

-

~

C"I:; < ... a-o -to

c ,..

• =.

e.

0

::I

(I)

o

::I

VIC It

~

::

;;'

~n" '<" ~g

22 Other

::I C

• 23 Other

24 Other

25 Olher

..

26 Other

27 Other 28 Other

"

"" ~

o a

ff

~

;:a tJI

Inspection Survey Form

.-...

~2

l0

• :I ~

Name________________________________________

Plumbing System Elements

.,::r

~ it

~

.......r'I ...

-~:l

•

Ilate_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FJoor/LeveJ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Building Element

Observation/Descril,tion

Location

I

Page __ of _ __

Quantification

'-::r ~ c

X-Ref/Associated Mlrl

II

7t:'

It ;

t Water Piping 2 Waste and Vent Piping 3 Storm Drains and Piping ,

,

,

... ~

4 Gas Piping

."

(11;'

...

c ..

5 Special Piping Systems

t C I ,..

~.

"'CI

n

i·:I

o

..,

6 Sanitary Sewer

0.

7 Water Services

rc ~ l ii'

8 Gas Services

:I

•

:len '<

C;;, 3:~ •a c

!!.

9 Fire Waler Distribution 10 ADA Compliance

II Other

12 Other

~

13 Other

.­

14 Olher

--

..

-

--

...

.' ~.-r~'

,

c

•

!i If

~ "

,.

)

Inspection Survey F orm

'-2

.,

•~ 0

•c :-r

Electrical System Elements

~

Name

---------------------------------

Floor/Level_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

a:

-fII

.... It

"1"1 -sa 04.,

Dnle_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Page __ of _ __

.0_

'-=­,Q

Building Element I Main Switchgear

Observation/Description

Location

,

Quantification

. c

X-Ref/Associated Mtrl

7'" to

;

2 Main Distribution I I

)

Main Transformer(s)

I

4 Secondary Transformer(s)

't 1"1

·."

PI;'

5 Emergency Generators (and fuel system)

< ..

-It

I: ,..

:.

: :. 0

6 Batteries and Banery Racks

o :a

=

It

7 Unintcrruptible Power System (UPS) 8 Emergency ATS/Distribulion

~

10 Utility System Motors (Pumps, HVAC, Fans,

Elevators/Escalators, etc,)

II Lighling System and Fixtures

12 Energy Management Systems/Conlrols "

~

~

14 Telephone/Communication

It

•c a =

9 Low Voltage Systems/Controls

13 Electric Services/Convenience Outlets

~

n' '< C~ 3:., ~

.

(I)

(1)1:

o

•

ii

... ~

~

U\

Inspection Survey Form

'-2

.. •:a 0 c: ..

• :r

Electrical System Elements - Cont.

~i:

Name_ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - . . . . , -

......C'\

-IQ

- ..

•

Floor/Level

Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page __ or _ __

...:I.,

..0 ..

~:r

..

~

Building Element

LOClllolI

ObservatlonlOcscrlption

Quantification

c:

X-Rd/Assoclated MJrl

l/:' It

f

;

IS Computer LAN/WAN 16 ADA Compliance 17 Other ~

18 Other

C'\

P1;' < ... .~

19 Other ~

..,

~

-II

II: "C'. II

::t.

Ulc:

21 Other

S ~ ;r~

22 Other

ita :a

I

011

0

o :a :a til

20 Other

11~ 4'.,

c:

!.

23 Other

24 Other

2S Other

26 Other

.

21 Other

~ ~

c

28 Other

!

~

--~

:e 5

Ul

Inspection Survey Form

'-2

II 0 :I ., II: ...

81 =" ~a:

Name_________________________________________

General Life Safety Elements

..,,, '" .,

-IIQ

Floor/Level_________________

:.{?

Oatc________________ Page_or _ __

-:l_

'-=" .J:I

Building Element I Fire Alarm 2

ObservatlonlDescriptlon

Location

Quantification

C

81

X-ReflAssociated I\Url

~

i

Fire Sprinkler

3 Fire Stairs Exit Lighting

"

> ....

111 111;' C

S Emergency Communications

III

81'0

i"~

81 ..

::. ;­

6 Elevators/Escalators 7 Security

o

::I

:I II) II)c

.. ~

~

/I

ft' '<

11: ?.,

8 ADA Compliance

;;"a ::I

c !!

9 Other 10 Other 11 Other

.

12 Other

13 Other l~

Other

.,

:a ,. ~

.

a

!! ~

:::: :a U\

'.~

Appendi~G­

Coordinated Text And Matrix

Northridge Earthquake January 17. 199~

Coordinated Test and Matrix

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

November 8, 1994 Mr. Mac E-Nunu Internal Services Department LAC + USC Medical Center 2020 Zonal Avenue, Suite 711 Los Angeles, CA 90033 Project:

LAC + USC Medical Center LACO #14946 Interns and Residents Dormitory

Subject:

Additional Information Requested by FEM.AJOES at Meeting of November 4, 1994

Dear Mr. E-Nunu: In a meeting held November 4, 1994 at the project site witn FEMA. OES. ISO, ERMST, and the County Office of Recovery, additional information was requested to better report. The group consensus was to have document the conclusion in provide a written narrative. No additional calculations, such as a dynamic analysis. is to be provided (cost is approximately $15,000 • $20,000, and_would take two weeks). The following is in response to the FEMA request: . 1.

In accordance with the County Code Compliance Policy for Earthquake Damaged Buildings dated August 11, 1994, and the Uniform Building Code Section 104, all damaged structural elements must be repaired to new building standards. and the repairs shall not result in a building which is no more hazardous than before the building was damaged.

2.

Every exterior shear wall and most interior shear walls are cracked and require repair up to 1991 USC standards.

3.

Shear wall repairs require the walls to be reinforced and the structure to be balanced so that the repairs would not create a building which is more hazardous than before the building was damaged.

1

Northrid,. Earthquake .ranuary 1" 1994

Coordinated Text and Matrix AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

"

I

, 4.

5.

The conceptual upgrade to meet 1991 USC without detailed analysis is presented herein. The quantity take-ofts are rough as used for aider of magnitude estimating. Shear Walls

A.

Problem

The existing building was designed for lower lateral forces than required by current code. Longitudinal shear panels lack shear strength to meet code. Transverse shear panels lack both shear and tensile strength to meet code. . B.

Solution

For longitudinal shear panels, add 6" shotcrete reinforced with #4 @ 12· C.C. each way at the inside of existing panels from first floor to roof. approximately 11 ft. long X 10ft. tall x 9 stories high each panel. 8 panels are required at grid-A. 9 panels are required at grid-D. The shotcrete has to be applied' at the inside of the existing shear panel so that the dowels can engage the boundary elements to develop tension in the chord members for required bending capacity to resist the overturning moment. If the shotcrete was applied at the outside of the existing shear panel, the dowels can hardly be developed for this purpose. For transverse shear walls, add 6" shotcrete reinforced with #8 @ 12- vertical and #4 @ 12" horizontal at one side of the existing shear walls from ground floor to roof approximately 40 ft. long x 10ft. tali x 9 stories high each panel. 6 panels are required at grid­ 1,7,9,11,13 and 19. Further, add 6" shotcrete reinforced with #8 @ 12- vertical and #4 @ 12- horizontal at one side of the existing shear walls in the basement walls approximately 40 ft. long x 17 ft. high each wall at grid-7,9,11,12 and 14. The reason to add #8 vertical bars is that the existing vertical reinforcement lacks adequate lap-splice length.

2 PaceG-l

· Northridce Earthquake Janua".. 17, 199",

C.

Coordinated Tnt and Matrix AlE Evaluation Services ;\Olanual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Alternate Design

An alternate design to apply shear wall reinforcement at the exterior face of the building was rejected because the parking structure at the north elevation (grid line D) covers the basement, mezzanine and ground floor shear walls. Exterior shear walls would require selective demolition. shoring and modification of the existing parking structure deck and footings where the work would occur. Furthermore, exterior reinforcement would not engage the boundary elements as well as interior reinforcement as noted previously. D.

Construction Sequence At a typical longitudinal shear wall, the fan coils, chilled water piping to the coils, condensate drain from the coils, closets, (some have small kitchenettes). VAT, suspended ceilings, lights, outlets, thermostat wiring must be removed to gain access to the interior face·of the shear wall, floor and ceiling. Protective tenting must be erected, the shear wall surface must be sand blasted (to create a rough surface for the shctcrete to adhere properly), dowels drilled and placed, rebar tied in place, then shotcrete applied to the surface. Ne'l{ shotcrele is then troweled smooth. A plaster finish is applied over lhe new $hotcrete, and plaster patching of adjacent walls as needed. rnen the new piping to the fan coils is installed per code, new electrical wiring installed, fan coils repiaced and interior cabinetry (or kitchenette) is replaced. The old cabinets and kitchenettes cannot be salvaged because they would no longer fit the space. Installation of suspended ceiling and lights follows, then painting and new flOOring. At the transverse shear walls, flooring and ceilings must be removed. Areas to receive shotcrate must be sandblasted. Dowels must be drilled and rebar placed before shotcrete is applied. Plaster finish to be applied over new shotcrete, and new finishes for the ceiling, floor and walls to be completed. This work also affects the fire alarm panels at lines 1 and 19 on each floor due to new shotcrete.

6.

Foundation

A.

Problam The existing foundation is insufficient to resist the higher lateral loads and overturning moments at the basement and in the longitudinal direction. .

3

Nortbridce Earthquake January 11, 1994

8.·.

Coordinated Text and Matrix AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

Solution

In the basement, the existing foundation consists of primarily a mat footing at the elevator core, and continuous footings at grid­ 7,9,11,12,13 and 14. Only 4 pad footings at grid- 8 & 10. It is intended to make a mat footing approximately 3 ft. deep by filling in between the existing footings to cover the entire basement so that no shoring or underpinning will be required. . The area to be filled in is approximately 2 ft. deep x 2,000 sq. ft. plus the topping slab over the entire basement (except the elevator pits) approximately 1 ft. deep x 5.000 sq. ft. reinforced with #9 @ 12­ each way at top and bottom. In the longitudinal direction. add a grade beam at grid-A approximately 5 ft. wide x 3 ft. deep reinforced with #10 longitudinal @ 6- top and bottom and #5 transverse ties @ 12- between grid-2 to 6 and grid-14 to 16. Along the north wall at grid-D, widen the existing footing by adding 2 ft. wide x 3 ft. deep footing at the inside of the building from grid-1 to 6 and grid-15 to 19 reinforced with #5 @ 12- each way, each face.

c.

Construction Sequence

All mechanical. electrical and plumbing, equipment, ductwork and piping must be dismantled and removed. Next, the floor slab must be demolished and hauled away. (This will be extremely difficult if there is no power to the elevators.) Area by area, the earth adjacent to the footings must be excavated. hauled off-site, footing reinforcement placed, new equipment pads placed, and the mechanical and plumbing equipment re-installed. Ductwork, piping. insulation, seismic mounts and bracing must all comply with current code since they cannot be salvaged. Electrical panels, transformers, motor control/ers, etc. must be tested and re-certified by a qualified firm (such as Underwriters Laboratory) if used equipment is to be re­ installed in accordance with Los Angeles Electrical Code Section 83­ 4,83-6, 83-7. Underground feeders from the primary interrupters to the transformers would have to be replaced because of the foundation work. All of the wiring in the basement would have to be replaced because it cannot be salvaged in the basement area. New wiring would be required in accordance with the Los Angeles Electrical Code Section 83-4 and 83-6.

4 Pace G-4

Northridce Euthquake January 17. 1994

Coordinated Test aDd Matrix AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. nate: 9/1195

REPAIR REQUIREMENTS

A.

a.

CODE REFERENCE

The lateral load resistance of the strucrute was reduced by more than 10% at levels 2 and 3. Code requires that the pri­ mary structural system afthe building and the seismic bracing of other components and systems shall comply with the 1992 cac requirements for new buildings.

Repair of the damaged concrete shear walls shall be designed and detailed based on the requirements of the 1992 cac for new buildings. The repaired elements must be designed to withstand the loads of the 1992 cac.

.

1)

QSHPD PIN #3, dated 7/8/94, paragraph 2d.

2)

1992 cac Chapter 23, Sections 2334,2335,2336, and 2337.

1)

1992 cac I04(b).

2)

1992 cac Chapter 23. Sections

2334,2335,2336, and 2337.

3)

1992 cac Chapter 26, Section

2625.

Part I,

Section

·

~

l

·

C.

Repair of the damaged shear walls (per a above) will increase the base shear of the building by more than 10% and is there­ fore classified as a major structural alteration.

1)

1992 cac Chapter 23, Section · 2331.

O.

As a major structural alteration (per C above), the entire building, as modified, shall conform to the 1992 cac re­ quirements using an importance factor, I, equal to 1.5.

1)

1992 cac Chapter 23, Section 2341(a)4.

2)

1992 cac Chapter 23, Sections 2334,2335,2336, and 2337.

3)

1992 CSC Chapter 26, Section 2625.

-

_.

Note: This table is provided as an example of formatting only; it is not intended to suggest interpretations nor ap­ plications of code.

.

Nonhrid,e t:.rthquake January 17, 1""

Coordl.ated Tat aad Matrix AlE Eyaluatlon Services Ma.ual

Rey. Dale: 9/1195

_This Page Intentionally Blank

PageG -6

..

.

Appendi~H­

Crack Maps

""2 ::I •

., C 0..

., ., a:

.. :r

:8J -+:8J

___[Zl

...0-1

[Zl

[><1 [><1 ~

1><1

I<

Y'

~

Location and Orientation of Cracks

0'

cg)

~~

~

, -

~

­

.-..1 n

_PI ,4)11 ,4)"\

'" .c..=­ c

:.0

...7C'

-~C>
"
In-

-.

~_I><1xl><J

--'

I f":1

,

_q

>

If

).

.....

PI PI

.

<

c

.. .,

~ Ci

r

J

I

_

v

_

"

_

I

I_JZL_[><1_~

o :I %

« _

.".

" ? ~

_-,<_

a

!. IOCI1'H a.aYA11OH

-...,.....,...

_'_~

LEGEND: -~~

@

CD

c;AAU:"1m! /:Im'fD4 .006' fOl4t'

@

CItJa ttr11M1EMW 11.0 TO 11',

GfIIa"lm!eeMlMl4t·TO ...•

.-

T Lege nd Sh wi ng 0

Cracl{ Widths

..

• -'0 M

s: •c:a

o

" n

(1)7:'

~

:Il

~

.

o ~

~

;0 VI

c...:z

g :l0 • :r •

~~ -ICI

~" _PI

Location and Orientation of Cracks I

r

. :­

~

c

'I . ...!.!!!!:..

I.-,...O?'"

..

>j)" >j)"

"';

~

I. ~

r

:n

:. =

."

~

~ :l:

I-~

o n

II ~

w

,0:

~3: ~ .. --'G

-!!!::.

n ..

II

o

-..-

o

1lA81' -..vA1IOM

..3:

-­

::I

c:

eountlUV.

!.

"o..

kf6END, @

_HI)1)'. __-\


-""""_110-'0

@

~"""'~""fQ

..

1

:c.

..

Legend Showing Crack Widths

~

~ ;:;;

VI

"

,

I /

·

.

Appendjx I - . Cost Estimate Format

Northridee E3rthqu:lke January 11. 1994

Cost Estimate Format AlE Evaluation Servicc:s Manu:al

Rc:v. Date: 9/1195

Appendix B ._. Cost Estimate Format General The AlE Consultant shall prepare a Total Project Cost Estimate (TPCE) identifying and quantifying all costs in­ curred in repairing earthquake-related damage to the building's elements. The fundamentlll intent of this task will be to help ensure the identification and validation of all eligible repair costs that can be recovered in· accordance with CFR 44, FEMAlOES and the County's insurance carrier's regulations, procedures and policies. All cost esti­ mates prepared shall be for repairs or modifications that are required to repair earthquake-related damage in compliance with current. applicable codes and ordinances - and any specific Hazard Mitigation measures directed by the PM. The Total Project Cost Estimates shall be composed of the following elements: •

Hard (Direct) Costs- The total amount paid for fees. labor, material, constructor general and ad­ ministrative expenses. overhead and profit to construct the Project - including all sitework. utilities infrastructure and related facilities and structures (See Construction Costs.).

• Soft (Indirect) Costs - The County costs associated with repair/remodeling or replacing of a facility, i.e., administration and project management, pennit and development fees, relocation expenses, QA/QC testing. financing and accounting costs. legal costs, etc. On FE~IAlOES projects. these costs also include any extraordinary costs that are incurred directly or indirectly as a result of the disaster, i.e.. temporary facility relocation and occupancy costs, furnishing and equipment replacement costs. utility and communication installation and operation costs, miscellaneous costs (operating supply re­ placement. public relations costs), etc. •

Other County/Operating Costs - County operational and support costs incurred during the repair and restoration program - such as increased service delivery costs, unrecoverable losses in employee productivity, lost staff time and staff over-time, lost equipment use opportunities, etc. and any other increased costs of service delivery or operation

Hard (Direct) Costs Separate cost estimates shall be developed for each of the categories and/or cost elements identified in Phases IA and IB of the AlE Evaluation. The cost estimates shall follow the cost estimate documentation fonnats illustrated in the following sections of this Manual. The cost estimates shall be based on unit cost data published in the 1995 edition of Means Repair and Remodeling Cost Data" - adjusted by the location factor closest to the site. Repair costs shall be identified on a "line-item" basis for all direct and directly associated H repairs related to damage sus­ tained during the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks.

,.. The cost estimates shall list and describe the cost of each component or element repaired - including demolition costs. A11 costs shall be identified on a "line·item" basis referencing the specific Means systems/component num-

Other cost estimating sources and dat::!. may be used jf acceptably documented and approv·ed t'or use by the County. Costs incurred to restore building elements d:unaged while repairing e:lrthquakc-relatcd d:un3ge 'Vc to be considered as "directly 3SSociated" costs. For ex:unple. the costs to rcpair d:1Jl13ge associated with the r:lilure of the structural elemen!s, i.e.• glass in d:unased building walls. pipes burst by the collapse: of structural members and the :JSSOciatc:d water d:1Jl1age to other building systems. removing building improvements to rep:lir d:1Jl1aged c:lc:ments. elC .• would be ··directly associ:lted·· repair costs.

Northridge Earthqu~ke J"nu:lry Ii, 199"

Cost Estimate FOrmlilt

AlE Evaluation Services M:lnual

Rev, Dale; 9/.195

bers of the unit or assembly utilized. unit costs, unit quantities, job condition adjustments lJ and the total (extended)

cost for each line item, Use of "Lump Sum" allocations is discouraged and shall be a basis for rejection Clfthe cost

estimate'·, All line'· items shall be subtotaled and appropriate allowances for sales tax, general conditions, contri?C­

tor's overhead and contractor's profit added as individual line-items.

If the building is determined to have fe:lCures or elements of historic or architectural significance, any additional cost

allowances to retain the desired features or elements shall be defined and added as a separate line-item labeled

"Historic Preservation Costs" and a more detailed estimate of costs associated with the preservation effort shall be

prepared.

No line-item [or "Contingencies n shall be included. The sum of these line-items shall constitute the hard (direct) costs to repair the earthquake-related damage to the

bUilding.

Soft (Indirect) Costs The AlE Consultant shall identify and calculate the magnitude of all indirect costs incurred in the repair of the

building structure as if executed as an independent project. These shall include:

•

architectural/engineering and other professional design fees.

•

other professional fees associated with the repair and restoration of the facility.

•

all plan check and processing fees.

•

testing and quality control fees.

•

projecllconstnlction management fees. ,

If the Structural Analysi-s and development of Structural Repair Concepts indicates additional geotechnic&; surveys may be necessary to validate suspected adverse soil conditions, the cost for these shall be listed as Sepli;-ate j;;;~­ items and included as an indirect cost. Likewise, if the presence of asbestos containing (or other hazardous) materi­ als was reported and validated during the Detailed Building/Site Evaluation Survey, appropriate allowances for additional surveys and testing, repair and/or containment (remediation) of Hazardous Materials found in the: d:a:m­ aged areas shall be included as a "line-item" with the identification of estimated unit quantities and unit coS"~ ­ unless removal and disposal of the Hazardous Materials in the adjacent undamaged area is more cost effective or is necessary to safely repair and restore the damaged portions of the building. The AlE Consultant shall also work with the PM and relevant County staff to document all eligible County opera­ tional and support costs directly attributable to the repair and restoration activities - such as occupant relocation costs (if necessary), temporary lease costs, furniture/equipment replacement costs and any other extraordin:uy facil­ ity-related expenditures not typically incurred during nonnal Departmental or facility operations.

No

lin~-item

{or "Contingencies" shall he included.

The sum of these line-items shall constitute the soft (indirect) costs to repair the earthquake-related damage to the building.

n

Apply the m~an value: list~d for job or condition 3djustmc:nts. "Lump Sum" cost estim3!eS based on written quotations from reputable sources Sh311 be: acceptable if a copy of ilv: tion is included in the: Final Report. Page I - 2

q\.iOt:l­

'.~

Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994

Cost Eltimate Format AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

Other County/Operational Costs The NE Consultant shall also work with the PM and relevant County staff to document all other County operational and support costs incurred during the repair and reslor:ltion program - such as service delivery considerations, unrecoverable losses in employee productivity, lost staff time and staff over-time, lost equipment use opportunities, etc. and any other increased costs of service delivery or operation" that are a result of the earthquake. These costs shall be developed on a separate, itemized basis and summarized for consideration by the County during its evalua­ tion of available options relative to repairing or replacing damaged facilities. All costs shall be creveloped concurrently and on an interactive basis. i.e., the NE Consultant shall provide relevant information to the PM and occupants who will provide evaluations of the operational and cost impacts to the AlE Consultant for incorporation into the applicable cost estimate sheets.

Hazard Mitigation Measure Proposals Hazard Mitigation measure cost estimates shall be developed and presented separately from the cost estimates for the proposed repair concepts. Where Hazard Mitigation proposals are considered in areas requiring earthquake­ related repairs and repair-associated disruption, the costs for these programs and cost impact of disruption to opera­ tions shall be the incremental differential to the costs of the earthquake-related repairs. For example: • If the cost to brace the 40% of an integrated ceiling system damaged by the earthquake is $4.000 and would disrupt the occupants for three days and the cost to brace the entire integrated ceiling system would be $6,000 and would disrupt the occupants for four days, the cost and disruption attributable to Hazard Mitigation for the undamaged 60% of the integrated ceiling would be S2,aaa and one day of disruption.

Cost Estimate Formats and Processes The following pages present typical examples of the templates and formats required for cal.culating and document­ ing the project cost estimates. Clarifications and instructions are presented in the sheets where appropriate.

Th.: prcponJ.:rancc of th.: opcralj"nal. fun..:tionJl and rt:lated cost information will be providc:d by the County ror inclusion in th.: repol1.

c...:z

- AlE Evaluation ­ Cost Estimate Summary

:I - ., 0 II:

..

•

::r

~a: -f'I

•~" 1'1

;0­

f~

..

.ll Ii:

,

Repair Concept

Structural And Directly Related Damage Rep:air Cosls Indirect Costs McchanicaVElectricaVPlumblng/Architectural Repair Costs Indirect Costs Title 24/ADA Compliance Costs Indirect Costs

."

..

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS TOTAL INDlItECT COSTS

"liard" Cost 5618,463

'It"

n

" Indirect" Cosl

5259,687 51,922,104 SI,I00,767 5335,311

~

$92,SSS

PI PI(')

< c

52,875,818

~~

51,453,009

-.....

AI

1'1

~

..

g. ; .

w

I1Q

!

(II.

TOTA L CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Sum or "Hard" and Indirect Costs)

54,328,881

TOTAL OWNER'S COSTS

5333,500

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE (Tl-eE)

54,662,387

I

i !

"~ " ;;" :' II ..

-... 2.. :c:

..

Replacement Cost Estimate Ilullding Size (Ill IlGSF) Means Cost per Square Foot

Estimated Replacement Cost

x

84,590 $IOJ.56 58,760,140

1

~

C II

!!

-

~ ~

III

Cust Estimate For'"~t ,\IE Evalu:uion S~rviccs ;\I:lnual

Northridge Earthquake January 17, 1994

Rc\·. Date: 9/1/95

- ­. --­

It

:I§ :;

;:: 1~1;1=1:1~1;1; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;1~1~ I~ ~ ___

.. _, _ _ I_ ..

t_ ....- -

......

..

..

IIII /; :=;: ----

li

..

!;;

l.i I_~ I.;:: ­

.~.

~5:· -:: :; =

-­

I~

~II~§ ., < ..

'-2 :s • 0., I: ~ .. :z , :!.

Structural and Directly Associated Repairs - Indirect Costs TOTAl.

'
-"""..

•

S159,687

PI

~.,

~-

'"!c:

Indirect Costs , AlE Evalualian fees ESlimated I'rofcssionlli Desil:n fefS @ "rojec./Constrllc:lion ~hanllgcmcnl @ Eslimilletl AslJulos TcUiH!: Cosl M"lcriab Testing Cusl Eslimaled Gcolechnical Slully Eslimaled l'l"n Checkll'crmil Fees @ Conslruc:tion Cost Escalation @ Occlipanillclucalion CoslS Inlerim Facilily tellst Costs EClulpmcnt Replacement Cosls Other - List:

SJ2,750

,'1I.:!O'Yo ~

~

6~o

~

1.20% 3.50%

..LJ

r.

-

IU,."

S)5,85) 527,000 _

.

"

If.;:;::ill;;:i

-

~lIn

512,667 57,171 U 7.ll6 (... S8,Oll0 5)2,000 SO

;;. i'Wi (11(') < 0

·-.......

~

_ PI

•

"'0 &>

,.

Q

~

70

-.

3

"~ ­" i'i" :

(/l ..

Structural and Directly Associated Repairs Other County/Operational Costs

a-

I

,. ~

I I t \

~

'"

"'­

,

- -- . . .

--­ --

TOTAL

1~llIcrlcncy

Hepain Lust SlliffTimc/lncfficiency CosI l.ost Equipment Use Cosl Increased Service Delivery Costs

•3:!!! :I I:

~

-""'\ r.·o be providet! ..... ......

515),000

=

I by Ihe "M.

" , '--_. \

540,000 S90,OOO

---- -- --

----

--

~

-~

\

)

,

, I

SI4,OOO $9,000

I

,,/

" ' .... .......

c..

I

Owner Costs

I

\

~

I

.. .,

.. :I

'" '"

I

7! ~

o

• N l!

~ .....

,..)

Cost Estimate Format ..\IE E":llu:llion Services ;\1:tnual

Nonhridge Earthquake Janu3rY 17. 19q~

Rev. D:lte: 911195

- .... ­ 5

!I~__ ~ !._.. I;I~I;I;I;I; ~1:1':I~I~ ;1:1:'I~I~';';:; = I!I! _,______________.J_L___ __ j

.

, "

~

!

., 11 ~ ::HH!!.!!! .. 3 ::au:uu

. ;;

-"",:"q~

~~g~~~~~~

! :r

1

i

1l

.-; ..~ ..

,;

f

.;:

5

~] c <

i

1... "1

J

~=

~.:

! II =:::: . *= 1~1~1~lilf• iii . .. ·o.~;:;~;

g:lg;,;;~;

J.' IU

nl p~

HJ .,i• ~li'tUl -Ii J.. .. ~ri -; j-=-j'J'!,i.i .iH ;,;1 ~

"l

~~-

1 :I

j';

.!

• .• -----­ .1.l_- .. .......

-T

i;i

,r .p to I

.t

! :.

~,:

Jl .!

r

~l

--II --~III -.: ~I!I!~IIIE­

MechanicallEl,~ctricallPlumbing/Architectural

c..z .. 0

Repair

::I

.,

c: :r ­ ..

.. J.

- Indirect Cost

~

'<

-11'1

- ..

-.l"

"1'1 .0., .0_

-:r

... .

J:l

TOTAL

7:'

SI,100,767

Indirect Costs

....

"'C IQ

oc

­

532,7511

AlE Evulualinn Feel Eslimlllell Prureulunal DeslRn FCCi @ Prujcct/Cunlitrucliun MllnllltCmcnt
(' 1.l1!Q.%)

:Ul:t,l.JD

~ o,~

SJlI,426 $27,000

"- 1.20%

6'~'1~

-

...-' $12,667 .... n

t

C'I C'I(,)

$22,285 ($49,000 S620,OOO SO

< co u '" ;r ..

.. C'I

g. =.

::I

"~.

.,

MechanicallElectricalfPhimbing/Architectu.oai Repairs Other County/Operational Costs ------.

--...--- ,'" ,,"

~ -- -

./~

Owner Costs

~

I

, \

\ \,

, .....

TOTAL

Emergency RCllllirs Lusl SIIIrr Timellnefficienc}, Cost Lost Equipment ~se Cusl ]ncrellsed Service Delivery Costs

I

....

-

..... ...... ,

$~

"

.......

.....

~'"'l

_ _._

-=--,

-=-on

__

_

--- --""

-.. ..

:I

r:

!.

(ru

~

be

;,v~dl

by the PM.

\,

.,

';i# ..

'-- - ­

)

,

\

I

"" "

~::.~..=.

to

.. :I

\

S37,500 $90,0110 SI4,OOO $9,000 ,

,-

" '-,

3

"1\ ,.. 0 11

I

­

en",

I I

~ ~

~

:<

o

...

II

l'

~

\0

v.

Cost ESlima!e Formal AlE Ev;lIu;uion Services ;\bnU:l1

Northridge Earthcluakc Janu:lry 17. 199~

..

c .!

C. E

.. o

(.;

-=a

. ~~ ..... -

(,J !:

g .~

t~

0(

-( Q

~ .,. N

i

1

E , A

I

~

I

i

t

!

I

~

II

~ I

I

I

Rev. D:ate: 9/1/95

Title 24/ADA Accessibility Code Compliance ­ Indirect Cost Estimate

'-2 :I •

..

0 C ..

.. :r

,

~.

'<

Q.

-III ...... /1

.....

&.

c:

".

AlE Evaluation Fees Estimated Professional Design Fees @ ."rojectiConstructioll Management @ Estimated Asbestos Testing Cost Materials Testing Cost Estimated Geotechnical Study Estimated Plan Check/Permit Fees @ Occupant Relocation Costs Interim Facility Lease Costs Equipment Replacement Cosls Other - List:

.. ~

---

4o.:r

,

Indirect Costs

CI'II

0,4) .. 0,4) ..

S92.SSS

TOTAL

."

:'\i

---------~.-.-----.--.--.--

..- -

-

SO

('\ 1.80%)

)JO...... 7

~ 6.tmo/q ~

S19.438 $8.000

­

(P~O\'id;.j

..n

SO

$3.888

' : SS.OOO

SO

S18.000

1.20%

2:

1"1 1"1() < 0

~~

;. CI o ~.

--------------------

-~----

--

:I

-------­

3

-

VI.

"••~ '11
c

T24/ADA Code Compliance

Other County/Operational Costs

",'"

/"

~/

, \

", ..... ....

-

I l-l)

__

.........

.....

$30.000

,

=

$0 510,000 $0 $20.000

~-

~

-

--

~

-­

",

-- ..........

.","" """,.­

\

\

, I

I ,/

--

•:ac

...... -~be providetl ' '" , ~y the PM.

",

.... ,

0

3:~

TOTAL

Emergency Repairs Lost StaffTIOlellneniciency Cost Lost Equipment Use Cost Increased Service 'Delivery Costs

"'-

l,

- - - -

Owner Costs

I I I \

,.""""

--- --

..

.." 3 "

"

/

I

:D

":­ c •

N ~

i

III

,)

-:­-.- .~ N

,.,Cl. c

,..

:.

~~

30­

..

!1;

i:l=

:t {

==­

~I

lU

Hi f::::

~I

fl

(11)

i

~h

~ ;:

I • ;I !- t.. !i lit I ;~ :: t I ~

::$=

;;

I I

i~i

~ I ~I

j;

iii

I I I I I I

li"­ I

I

I I I

• I • I

:\ l:~ J

-

.;

I

I

IcnuIII'\! SOlI;)!A.JOlIS UO!Jl: n lll"3 3/Y JI:W.l0.:f OlIJI:W!IS3 lSO;)

t"b61 ',L I A.ll:nUllf :nl'rnblll.lt:3 3:!P!.lIl'.lO,,",

~2

Hazard Mitigation Measure ~ Jndirect Cost Estimates TOTAl. INDIIU':CT II.\Z,\ itO MITIGATION COSTS

$269,730

'1'01011 Cosl5 I·.... r.~siolllil /ll:'si~1\ Feu "rojc( IIC lJllstrut!ioll P, IlInut:cllltlit [stimaIC!! Asheslus Tuling Cost J\'atcriliis 'l'cuint: Cost Estimated (;cutechllical Study Estimated I'hlll CIIl:dJI'crluit "'ecs Construction Cost ":'Cllllllion Occupant Relocation Cosh Flldlity I.ca~e Cosh ['luil'lIlcIII /tcl,lucemcnl eusls Olher - Lbl: -- -- ---_ ..

7.30% $

$"0.0"1 $)2.910 010,000

S

­

6.00'1.

S • I

-"

-... "..

rroJloul

'[11

-D., -c_ £-::r

,\

11

C

n

E

$4 1,II4U

516,1110

SJ,96U

54,120

SlOJ,IIUU

Inllirect Costs £~Iilllal • .t

•::> .. 0

c :r ­ .. .. :!. '< Po.

$5,69,\ SoI,680 S,OOO

$

$5,80-1 54,710 2,500

S

SI,606 SI,320 S

S

$657 S540 2,500

S

~

)0,000

­

S6,SII2

SI»)6

$95-1

' 519,198 571,000 560,000 SO

$2.730 S22,OOO $0

$'2,781

S:!fl·1 $770

SlOg

3.50~'

$0 SO SO

SO SO SO

SO $0

S-I,320 $12,600 $49,000 S60,OOO

SO

SO

--

'"

"

S26,280 S21,60U

1.20%

_._-­

C

SO

-

--

----

SJI5

----

~

[11

~(')

-

.. ­

Q

c '" ­

o~. ~ _.

'"0 10

""" ,

--,'"

::I

.. 3

"VlU _, 'II ~ "..n .,0:I

:co .. ii" :a c:

CA TION -

OTIIER COUNn'/OPERATIONAL COSTS

5228,500

Owner ('osls

._-

$~O,OOO

$ $

105,008

$

J2,5UO

S

S

91,000

S

-------

.-

-

-

C

II

A TollIl COSh

l.osl Shirr Tilllell ndfidcllCY Cost 1.0\1 Equipillelll Ihe Co~1 Incrc:hcd Srn'icc Otlivery Costs Other:

"

Proposal

20,000 10,000 10,000

SO

$511,000 S

S $

lll,OOO

20,000

S $

S

t:

II 58.500

-

. .

S $ S

5,000 2,500 1,000

SIJO,OOO

SO,QOO

20,000

60,000

$

S S

­

;g

"~

.

~ t:J

~

~ VI

I

'"

· SaO!lap!D-O OOpBA.laSa.ld a.lD1JD.I:J.S IgJ!.Io:J. S!H - fXJpuaddV

Northridce Earthquake January 17. 1994

Historical Structure Preservation Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services ,Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

County of Los Angeles Historical Guidelines for Projects with

AlE Reports or Non-Exempt Repairs

l.

Historical Identification If your building is SO years of age or older. contact CDAT Historical at (213) 974-1771 to notify them that you have a potentially historic building. FEMA and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will identify whether or not a building which is SO years of age or older is listed in or is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If a building is listed or is detennined eligible for listing it will be Ireared as an "historic" building. and will be subject to additional review by the fEMAlOES Historic Review section and the SHPO.

If your building has been identified as an historic building proceed to ~e following paragraphs. II.

Design Review

If your building has been identified as an historic building. the repair flOay fall into one of following catego­ ries: A.

Non-structural cosmetic repair Non-strucrural repairs may consist of "patch and paint" repairs that do not trigger code compliance. Some of these repairs are exempt from additional design review, particularly if they are performed "in kind" without altering the original characteristics of the material to be repaired. ­

B.

Minor structural repair Certain structural repairs may not require preparation of an in depth AlE Report. While some structural repairs may seem relatively minor, crack repair to unreinforced masonry (URM) walls is carefully reviewed. For example. use of epoxy grout in URM is discour­ aged and use of the crack repair methods contained in City of Los Angeles Rule of General Application (RGA) #1-91 is encouraged. Copies ofRGA #1-91 are available from CDA T Historical.

Northridce Earthquake January 17.1994

C.

'\pp~ftdi:t

K . Historical Structure Pre.servation Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 91.195

Structural repair Structural repairs requiring the preparation of an in depth AlE Report will require additional documentation to be submitted. If you anticipate the preparation of an NE report, contact COAT Historical to arrange a meeting to discuss the nature and extent of structural damage. Proposed repairs will be evaluated for conformance with the Secretary ofthe Inte­ rior's Standards for Rehabilitation. If an architect andlor structural engineer has not yet been engaged to perfonn the work, then your selection of a fumes) should, in part. be based on their experience in working with the Standards. Copies of the Standards are available from COAT. Contact COAT Historical for assistance in preparing a Request for Proposal or Request for Qualification. A complete description of damage and accompanying photographs is critical to all AlE Reports and particularly those involving historic buildings. The scope of work for architects and engineers working with historic buildings should include preparation of the following:

1.

Documentation of character-defining features

l

-

Historic buildings are comprised of features which help define their char­ acter. These features include the overall design and building type, construction methods and materials, and interior spaces, sequences of spaces and typical architectural details. Preservation Brief17: Architec­ tural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects ofHistoric Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character is a useful reference. A list of the ~res­ ervation Briefs and copies are available from CDAT Historical. The character-defining features' described in the NE Report should be com­ mensurate with the concept design level of the document, should focus on the features described above, and should not be as detailed as an inventory. Photographs should be sufficient to describe the building, its interior spaces. and its typical architectural details. For example, one photograph showing the typical histonc door, door frame and hardware is enough de­ tail for the NE Report. 2.

Code compliance The State Historical Building Code (SHSC) is a mandatory code which applies to all historic buildings in California. The SHBC must be refer­ enced as an applicable code in your AlE Report and should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. Copies of the SHBC are available from CDAr Historical. •

Page J- 2

Northridce Earthquake

.briua,;. 17. 1994

Appendix K

~

Historical Structure Preservation Guidelines

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Compliance with other codes including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will require consideration of the SHBC. Opening Doors to History: Access to Historic Resources for Americans with Disabilities is a publication which offers a review of alternative ADA compliance when historic buildings are involved. Copies of this publication are available from CDAT Historical. 3.

Review of structural repair alternatives The review of repair alternatives should include more than one structural system. For example, loss of strength in an unreinforced masonry (URM) building might be corrected with installation of gunite and steel rebar, a steel moment frame, or even center core drilling. The alternative which causes the least amount of damage to the historic fabric of the building and is the most cost effective will likely be scheme recommended by the re­ viewers. The alternatives must be explored in sufficient detail as to describe the impact of the solution on the character-defining features. For example, installation of gunite on the interior of a building with an ex­ posed brick facade likely maintains the most important character-defining feature, the brick wall when viewed from the exterior.

Nortbridp Eartlaquake JaD.a" 17. 1994

Appendix K - Historica. Structure Presen-atio .. Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

;.-,

..

This Page Intentionally Blank

,,-/

PlgeJ-4

ru.lO~

-

)I

ftA3!AtlH p.lBpUB1S

xIp u3ddV

....

..

'-'2 .. 0

COUNTY Of LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION QUALITY AND CONTRACTING DIVISION

. l.,:r - ... ::a

I:

~ Q: -IQ

~It

•

PI

~., ~

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION REVIEW COMMENTS

'-:r

. r

.IJ

I:

PROJECT: ____________________

SPECS. NO.

C.P, NO. _ __

Comments for

based on

ARCHITECT: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PAGE:

PROJECT MGR: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DATE: _ __

---

REVIEW ARCHlTECT/ENGJNEER:_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ __ TELEPHONE:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ review of

,

.... Plans/Specs. dated _ _ _ _ _ __ crt

.

PI III

Note: Contract Architect (A & E) is requested to return a copy of these comments with checked notation of action taken when resubmitting plans & specs.' for approval.

« .. .._ lI ..J: .."­

g. a

::I " IIIn It C ~ ji'

No.

Ref. to Plans/Soecs

i\' •

Comments

Resolution

:s

11 ~., .. iI II I:

!!.

",

It

.

~

5' ~

le

~.

VI

,

Nortbrldce Earthquake Janua'1 17, 1994

Standard Review Form AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 911195

r,

.This Page Intentionally Blank

l

J

Page K-l

UO!ld!J~s~a Al.Jn~gJl

-

'I x!puaddV

P.lgpUB1S

Northridp Earthquake January 17, 1994

_... _ .". _" Sta}ld~;d Facility Description AlE Eyaluation Services Manual

Standard Facility Description

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Earthquake Recovery Project

LACoNo: SPEC No: Facill.,. N._

""iIi.,.

Addrea: O.,. ••dZip: Sapervisorial District: Co••.,. Depar1meat: F Coatact:

Telcp...e No: EueadaJ FaciDty:

.cili.,.

BailcUaC Size (BCSF):

BaiIdiac HciI.t: Type oICoucncdaa: Coatnacdoa Dace: CUrRot OcCllpaoC)' Stacas:

SMRF: Type xnoica Impacted:

BuildioC Bacqroaad IaCorm.dOII:

Vaique Buildiac Fcahlres!FullctioaslImprllYemeats:

MisccU.acouslOther:

rn....,. (kCllpa.cylUse Hospital CUaic SIIeritfStatio.

,......s.a....

Adalt Detea....

Otllce hllllc Aslembly SdIooI .JlIYaiIe Defe.do. Coart Hoase

Floors/LcYels:

Floor-to-Floor Hciclats:

Daip Occapaacy Load:

OccupaacylAcqailitioa Date:

Historic Stnlchlre StahlS:

Iaunocc:

Starr Impacted:

W.reItoae

ParIdq Stnachlre Cealnl Plaat

.........

ea.-rcw

RaicletldaJ

DwellbIc

Vaca.t rubBe Senoicc Use 0tIIcr:

I

i

•

~

Northrid,e Earthquake Janua..,. 17. I~

Stanelard Vacility Description AlE Evaluation Services M_ual

Rev. Date: 91lJ9S

-"'t .)

.. ,

-.,;

I

-This P~ge Intentionally ~Iank

.....

../

~ Pace L-l