Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 134
Pbase IA
Pbase IA
_...... --. ._ ­ -
_......
--.
._
­
-

Pbase m

-'; : : : :.: ~ : ~ .. : : - '';'';'';~-';';'-::::: .-" Phase II
-'; : : : :.: ~ : ~
..
: : - '';'';'';~-';';'-::::: .-"
Phase II
-,
:::::--1 -=-
..--­
~
!
. -
- _.
_-----­
c--_
I
...._ ..._.....
..
,
...
,
..
....................
c:
.......
_etn. ___

County of Los Angeles

AlE EVALUATION SERVICES MANUAL

For The

Northridge Earthquake

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 All Study Phases

Report Submittals -

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

.................................................................

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

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

.................................................................

<!·-2

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

-----.- --­

5. APPENDICES

Appendix A - Appendix B - Appendix C -

Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms OESIFEMA Compliance List 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 - Appendix J - Appendix K - Appendix L -

(

Cost Estimate Format Historical Structure Guidelines Standard Review Form 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

County Policy

  • 1.4.1 ..............................................................................................................................................................

\-3

  • 1.4.2 Plan...............................................................................................................................................

Affirmative Action

\-3

I.S Projcct Liaison/Communications

1-4

.' '.

Northr-idge Earthquake January 17, 199~

1.1

General

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

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

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).

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

  • 1.2 Purpose And Interpretation Of The 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 10 County contracts.

Report on the participation of CBEs in County contracting programs.

  • 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<!nneth Hahn Hall of Administration 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

  • 1.3.2 Post-Award Good Faith Efforts

Rev. Date: 911195

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.

Northridce Earthquake

January 17, 1994

Chapter i '. Introductioa

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

"

I

Rev. Date: 9/1195

  • 1.5 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 of Public 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.

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994 Chapter i '. Introductioa AlE Evaluation Services Manual " I Rev.

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

: ..............................................................................................................................................

2·8

..

N~rthridge E:arthqu:lkc January 17. 199 ...

2.1

General

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

Rev. Date: 9/1195

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 Of AlE 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 of Los 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

..

Nortbridge Earthquake January 17. 1994

Chapter 1- aasic Servicn AlE Evaluation Services Manual

2.5

ProjecfScheduIe

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

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

Chapter! - Basic Services AlE Evalu.tion Services Manual

,

.

.

Rev. Date: 911195

  • 2.6 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

Photographs

Chapter 2 - Basic Services AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. Date: 9/1195

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

Project Meeting #3 Downtown Juvenile Hall Repair 1234 e. Broadway Street Los Angeles, California 90005

LACOII-A127

Specs# - 9876 - DSRtI - 80765

Rcv. Date: 9/1/95

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

 

Present:

Person

1.

ISOIPMO

Person 2, User Group

 

Person 3.

ISOIPMD

Person 4, User Group

Person S.

ISOlDcsign Review

Person 6. Architectural Representative

Person

7.

User Group

Person 8, Engineering Representative

New Business

 
 

Discussion:

 

Action Bv:

Due By:

 

...

1.I

The following handouts were distributed:

Information Only

  • a. ISO Design Schedule and Adenda

 

b.

AlE memo of January IS.

1993

  • c. ISO Analysis of Project Costs

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:

Architect

215/93

  • 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. "'··oo

....

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.

Northridce Earthquake January 17, 1994 Chapter 1. - aasic Scrvices AlE Evaluation Services Manual Project Meeting

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 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 complete submittal for review.

  • 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 of the 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 Topics

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

.......................................................................................................................

  • 3.2.1.2 Initial Inspection

................................................................................................................................................

3-4

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

..........................................................................................................

  • 3.2.5.2 Ph:l.Se fA Submirt31

..........................................................................................................................................

3-11

3-12

  • 3.2.6 Phase IB . Structurnl Damage Repair Concept

Developm·ent.

...................................................................................

3.2.6.1

Historical Structure Status Review ........................;

...........

,

.................................................. _

.........................

3-12

3-12

3.2.6.2

3.2.6.3

Structural Damage Repair Analysis

.................................................................................................................

Phase IS Submittal and County Review

................

:

.........................................................................................

3-12

3-1 ~

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

...

.................................................................................

3-15

  • 3.3.1 Facility Repair Concept Development

.......................................................................................................................

3-15

Code Compliance

  • 3.3.1.1 .............................................................................................................................................

3-15

  • 3.3.1.2 Repair

Facility

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

General

Chapter J - Instructions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual

Rev. D:ale: 9/1/95

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 3.2.5).

and document all earthquake-related

damage

to

the

facility

structure I:

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 cttl r:1I dam:lg c:.

Nortbrid&e Eanbquake Janu8rY 17. 1994

Chapter 3 • Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual Phase IA •••••••••••••• ··· __ :Toi···'····
Chapter 3 • Instructions and Cuidelines
AlE Evaluation Services Manual
Phase IA
•••••••••••••• ···
__
:Toi···'····
Phase m
Nortbrid&e Eanbquake Janu8rY 17. 1994 Chapter 3 • Instructions and Cuidelines AlE Evaluation Services Manual Phase

r'~-..."':_-:_"=.....

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

I

Phase II

Rev. Date: 9/1195

...... '-, o . . \ _01 _.............. _ A fl.,",". .................... .... , .. ....
......
'-,
o
. .
\
_01
_..............
_
A fl.,",".
....................
....
,
..
....
.....
A_C
...
C_~

Figure:2 • AlE Evaluatio~ Process

Page 3-2

Northridge Ellrthquak~

January 17, 1994

Chapter J - Instruccions and Guidelines

AlE Evaluation Services ;\Ianual

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).

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!

l~

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 to execution of the contract.

  • 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

of observation 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 AlE C'nn5ult:lf1t's scht:dulc.

..

:

County and/or jurisdictional agencies for incorporating into the:

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). scription shall include. but not be limited to:

.

This de­

  • 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 1 In page) typical floor plan of the building including overall floor dimensions and a bar scale.

  • K. Current 4" x 6" color photographs of the building exterior illustrating the general character of the building.

  • 19 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 penn it 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

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 Elements D

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

%1

and date stamps). hard hat

..

flashlight (with spare batteries) and tape measure.

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

Chapter J - Instructions and Cuidelines

Rev. Date: 9/1/95

Janu

17. 1994

AlE Evaluation Services Manual

 

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 System 24

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

HV AC - HVAC

distribution, supply, pumps, motors, anchors/restraints, etc. Package Units

  • 24 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

Rev. Date: 911/95

 

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 Other

!4/ADA CompJiance lS

- - Northridge Earlh"uake January 17. 199-4 Chapter J • InstrUctions and Guidelines AlE Evaluation Services

Northrid&e Earthqu3kc:

Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines

January 11. 199-'

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.

Northrid&e Earthqu3kc: Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines January 11. 199-' AlE Evaluation Services Manual •
Northrid&e Earthqu3kc: Chapter 3 - Instructions and Guidelines January 11. 199-' AlE Evaluation Services Manual •

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

threatening conditions.

including exposure oflto hazardous materials and/or Iifelsafety .

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 shall be those listed in the 1991 uec - specifically Section 104. ­

  • 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! -

the Post-Earthquake Safety EV31uation -

that Ihis task may not be required.

either from direct obs~rvation and/or

from

)0

CFR 4-' 206.226 (d) (I) st:ltc:s

"

facility is considered repairable when disaster damlges do not exceed 50 percent of the

so that

it C!ln

pc:rt"onn to the:

.. COS! of replacing :1 facili:y (0 its pre·disaster ':Clndition. and it is fcasible to repair the facility

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 preserved l " 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 [0 repair the damaged structural elements and systems

-

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.

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 repair of the earthquake-related damage to structural ele­

Structural

Repair Concept

undiClnai

ments and/or the system, any approximate amount of time mpact

required to implement the recommended repair concept(s) and the potential impact on functional occupancy and use of the facilities during the repairs. Where repair and re­ modeling activities occur in facilities that provide essential or critical services to the community - and

which must remain identify measures

in use - the AlE Consultant shall

to

help

minimize the disruption to

~I/fte

Coat

Funding

EliI,Iibility

Fade

~o",pliance

Oilier

Alternatives

Concept

A

Concept

B

Concept

C

2

3

1

1

3

3

2

2

1

1

2

3

1

2

3

2

2

3

3

1

t

functions and operations during the repair, i.e., minimiz­ ing the impact of construction noise, material deliveries and staging. noxious odors, etc. Rating.: 3 Be.t. 1. Worst

TOTAL

13

11

11

  • 3.2.6.3 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.