Los Angeles County

Metropolitan T ransportation Auth ority

Metro
One Gateway P laz a ai3.922.z oo
Los Angeles, CA gooiz-z 95z metro net _
CONST RUCT ION COMMIT T EE
JULY 17, 2014
REVISED
SUBJECT : WEST SIDE P URP LE LINE EXT ENSION P ROJECT , SECT ION 1
ACT ION: AWARD DESIGN BUILD CONT RACT AND EST ABLISH LIFE OF
P ROJECT BUDGET
RECOMMENDAT ION
A. Auth oriz e th e Ch ief Executive Officer (CEO) to award a 107 month firm fixed
price contract, subject to th e resolution of any timely protests, under
Request-for-P roposal No. C1045 with Skanska, T raylor and Sh ea, a Joint
Venture (ST S), th e responsive and responsible proposer determined to provide
Metro with th e Best Value for th e final design and construction of th e Westside
P urple Line Extension P roject, Section 1 for a firm fixed price of $1,636,418,585.
B. Auth oriz e th e Ch ief Executive Officer to execute future individual contract
modifications to Contract No. C1045 up to an amount not to exceed $1,000,000
for each individual contract modification with in th e Board approved policy of 10%
for contract modification auth ority.
C. Establish a Life of P roject (LOP ) Budget of $2,773,879,593 for th e Westside
P urple Line Extension P roject, Section 1 and No. 865518, including a cost
increase of $288,170,284 relative to th e Lonq Range T ransportation P lan.
D. Auth oriz e th e CEO to exercise Option 1, for th e crossover ventilation system in
th e amount of $3,150,000 with in six month s of Contract Award.
ISSUE
On September 27, 2012, th e Board auth oriz ed staff to use adesign-build process to
complete th e final design and construction of th e Westside P urple Line Extension
P roject, Section 1 and to solicit a contract for th e 3.92 mile dual track h eavy rail system
with th ree new stations. T h e Board auth oriz ed th e procurement under P ublic Contract
Code Section 20209.5 et seq., wh ich allows for th e negotiation and award of a design-
b u i l d c o n t r a c t t o a r e s p o n s i b l e p r o p o s e r who s e p r o p o s a l i s d e t e r mi n e d t o b e t he b e s t
va l u e t o Me t r o .
The So u r c e Se l e c t i o n Pl a n a n d Re qu e s t f o r Pr o p o s a l (RFP) c o n t a i n e d t he we i ght e d
va l u e a s s i gn e d t o e a c h c r i t e r i o n . I n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h Pu b l i c Co n t r a c t Co d e (PCC)
20209.5 20209.14 a n d t he RFP, "Be s t Va l u e " i s e xp r e s s l y d e f i n e d a s a va l u e
d e t e r mi n e d b y o b j e c t i ve c r i t e r i a a n d ma y i n c l u d e , b u t i s n o t l i mi t e d t o , p r i c e , f e a t u r e s ,
f u n c t i o n s , l i f e- c yc l e c o s t s , a n d o t he r c r i t e r i a d e e me d a p p r o p r i a t e b y Me t r o ; a n d t he
"Be s t Va l u e Pr o p o s a l " a s t he mo s t a d va n t a ge o u s Pr o p o s a l t o Me t r o whe n e va l u a t e d i n
a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t he E va l u a t i o n Cr i t e r i a d e f i n e d i n t he RFP.
The r e c o mme n d e d a c t i o n i s t o a wa r d t he c o n t r a c t t o t he hi ghe s t r a n ke d a n d mo s t
a d va n t a ge o u s p r o p o s e r b a s e d o n a "Be s t Va l u e " p r o c u r e me n t p r o c e s s . The
r e c o mme n d e d c o n t r a c t o r ha d t he o ve r a l l hi ghe s t r a n ki n g, i n c l u d i n g t he hi ghe s t t e c hn i c a l
s c o r e b a s e d o n t he c r i t e r i a i n t he RFP.
The s o l i c i t a t i o n p r o c e s s ha s b e e n c o mp l e t e d . Thi s r e p o r t p r o vi d e s a r e c o mme n d a t i o n
f o r a wa r d o f t he c o n t r a c t wi t hi n t he Fe d e r a l Tr a n s i t A d mi n i s t r a t i o n (FTA ) a p p r o ve d Fu l l
Fu n d i n g Gr a n t A gr e e me n t (FFGA ) a n d a p p r o ve d l o a n b y t he Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n
I n f r a s t r u c t u r e Fi n a n c e a n d I n n o va t i o n A c t (TI FI A ) Lo a n O f f i c e .
DI SCUSSI O N
The We s t s i d e Pu r p l e Li n e E xt e n s i o n Pr o j e c t , Se c t i o n 1 (t he Pr o j e c t ) i s t he f i r s t o f t hr e e
s e c t i o n s t o b e d e s i gn e d a n d c o n s t r u c t e d a s p a r t o f t he Lo s A n ge l e s Co u n t y
Me t r o p o l i t a n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t ho r i t y (LA CMTA ) Me a s u r e R Pr o gr a m. The p r o gr a m
wa s a p p r o ve d b y Lo s A n ge l e s Co u n t y vo t e r s i n No ve mb e r 2008 a n d p r o vi d e s a ha l f -
c e n t s a l e s t a x t o f i n a n c e n e w t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s . I n A p r i l 2012, t he t hr e e s e c t i o n s o f
t he Pr o j e c t we r e e n vi r o n me n t a l l y c l e a r e d a n d a d o p t e d b y LA CMTA Bo a r d o f Di r e c t o r s .
Se c t i o n 1 wi l l e xt e n d t he e xi s t i n g Pu r p l e Li n e b y 3.92 mi l e s b e gi n n i n g a t t he
Wi l s hi r e /We s t e r n St a t i o n . Fr o m t hi s s t a t i o n , t he t wi n t u n n e l a l i gn me n t wi l l t r a ve l we s t e r l y
wi t hi n t he e xi s t i n g Wi l s hi r e Bo u l e va r d r i ght- o f- wa y. Un d e r gr o u n d s t a t i o n s wi l l b e l o c a t e d
a t t he i n t e r s e c t i o n s o f Wi l s hi r e/La Br e a , Wi l s hi r e/Fa i r f a x, a n d Wi l s hi r e/La Ci e n e ga . A l l
t hr e e o f t he s t a t i o n b o xe s wi l l b e l o c a t e d wi t hi n t he Wi l s hi r e Bo u l e va r d r i ght- o f- wa y wi t h
s t a t i o n p o r t a l s e xt e n d i n g t o o f f-s t r e e t e n t r a n c e s .
The Pr o j e c t wi l l a l s o i n c l u d e t r a i n c o n t r o l a n d s i gn a l s , c o mmu n i c a t i o n s , t r a c t i o n p o we r
s u p p l y a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n , a n d f a r e c o l l e c t i o n s ys t e ms t ha t wi l l c o n n e c t a n d o p e r a t e wi t h t he
e xi s t i n g s ys t e m. The Pr o j e c t s c he d u l e r e qu i r e s c o mp l e t i o n i n O c t o b e r 2024.
Pr o p o s e r s we r e a s ke d t o p r i c e a n o p t i o n t o i n c l u d e a n i n t e r n a l e xha u s t p l e n u m a t t he
c r o s s o ve r , i n c l u d i n g r e vi s i o n s t o d e s c r i b e t he e me r ge n c y a n d ma i n t e n a n c e s c e n a r i o s
t ha t a r e t o b e a d d r e s s e d b y t he c r o s s o ve r ve n t i l a t i o n s ys t e m. The o p t i o n a b o ve i s n o t
We s t s i d e Pu r p l e Li n e E xt e n s i o n , Se c t i o n 1 A wa r d D/B Co n t r a c t &E s t a b l i s h LO P Bu d ge t
being exercised a t a wa rd. The need f o r exercising t he o p t io n wil l be det ermined up t o
six mo nt hs a f t er co nt ra ct a wa rd.
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
This Bo a rd a ct io n co mp l ies wit h est a bl ished sa f et y st a nda rds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds a re incl uded in t he p ro p o sed FY15 budget f o r t he reco mmended co nt ra ct a wa rd
a nd a do p t io n o f t he LOP Budget under Pro j ect 865518 West side Purp l e Line
Ext ensio n Pro j ect , Sect io n 1, in Co st Cent er 8510 ( Co nst ruct io n Pro j ect Ma na gement ),
a nd Acco unt Number 53 101( Acq uisit io n Buil ding a nd St ruct ure).
The Lif e o f Pro j ect budget reco mmenda t io n incl udes a co st increa se o f
$288, 170, 284 o ver est ima t es used f o r p l a nning a nd p ro gra mming p urp o ses. The
co st increa se ca n be sup p o rt ed by Mea sure R 3 5% Tra nsit Ca p it a l f unding f ro m
t he l ine it em f o r t his p ro j ect in t he Mea sure R Exp endit ure Pl a n, a s discussed in
At t a chment C, t he Mea sure R Co st Ma na gement Pro cess a nd Po l icy Ana l y sis.
Ap p ro va l o f t he co st increa se wil l reduce f unds a va il a bl e f o r a West side/Cent ra l
Area Sub-Regio na l Mea sure R rep l a cement p ro iect ( s) f ro m $788 mil l io n t o $500
mil l io n. No o t her sub-regio ns o r Mea sure R p ro j ect s a re imp a ct ed.
Since t his is a mul t i- y ea r Pro j ect , t he Execut ive Direct o r o f Engineering a nd
Co nst ruct io n a nd t he Pro j ect Ma na ger wil l be resp o nsibl e f o r budget ing co st s f o r f ut ure
y ea rs, incl uding a ny o p t io ns exercised.
Imp a ct t o Budget
The so urces o f f unds f o r t he Pro j ect a re ca p it a l f unds ident if ied in t he p ro p o sed LOP
Budget a s sho wn in At t a chment B. The reco mmended LOP Budget f o r Pro j ect No .
865518 wa s a ssumed in t he Lo ng Ra nge Tra nsp o rt a t io n Pl a n f o r t he West side Purp l e
Line Ext ensio n Pro j ect , Sect io n 1 a nd do es no t ha ve a n imp a ct t o o p era t io ns f unding
so urces. The Mea sure R Co st Ma na gement Pro cess a nd Po l icy Ana l y sis, At t a chment
C, describes t he p ro cess a va il a bl e t o cl o se t he ~budget ga p .
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Bo a rd ma y cho o se no t t o mo ve f o rwa rd wit h t he co nt ra ct a wa rd a nd a p p ro va l o f t he
LOP. This is no t reco mmended a s t his is a n a do p t ed p ro j ect wit h t he Lo ng Ra nge
Tra nsp o rt a t io n Pl a n a nd no t a wa rding t his co nt ra ct a t t his t ime wil l del a y t he schedul e
a nd wil l increa se t he co st o f t he Pro j ect . If t he Bo a rd do es no t a p p ro ve t he a wa rd o r
req uest s a re-so l icit a t io n o f t he co nt ra ct t he f o l l o wing co nseq uences ma y o ccur:
West side Purp l e Line Ext ensio n, Sect io n 1Awa rd D/B Co nt ra ct &Est a bl ish LOP Budget
Extensive schedule delays w ith no assurance of b etter p ricing w ithout sig nificant
de-scop ing of the P roj ect;
No g uarantee that the current p rop osers (or any others) w ill p rovide b etter
p rop osals in resp onse to a future solicitation w ith the variab le market conditions that
have b een p revalent these last coup le of years;
P otential loss of funds under the FFGA; and
P otential loss of funds under the TIFIA Loan Ag reement.
NEXT STEP S
Metro w ill issue a Notice of Aw ard, execute a contract w ith the recommended contractor
and once b onds, insurance, and p roj ect lab or ag reement requirements are met, issue a
notice to p roceed.
Metro staff has initiated discussions w ith the FTA reg arding how to address the C1045
contract amount in the context of the overall Westside P urp le Line Extension, Section 1
FFGA b udg et. To the extent required b y the TIFIA loan documents, Metro staff w ill
have similar discussions w ith the TIFIA office reg arding the Westside P urp le Line
Extension, Section 1 TIFIA loan. These discussions do not imp act the p rop osed action
of the Board to ap p rove contract aw ard and adop t the LOP Budg et p er the
recommended Board actions.
ATTACHMENTS
A. P rocurement Summary
B. Funding/Exp enditure P lan
C. Measure R Cost Manag ement P rocess and P olicy Analysis
P rep ared b y: Dennis Mori, Executive Officer - P roj ect Director (213) 922-7221
Rick Wilson, Director of P roj ect Controls (213) 922-3627
David Yale, Executive Officer, Countyw ide P lanning &
Develop ment (213) 922-2469
Bruce Warrensford, Director of Contract Administration
(213) 922-7338
Westside P urp le Line Extension, Section 1Aw ard D/B Contract &Estab lish LOP Budg et
teph n i e Wi gg'
E x ec u ti v e D i r ec to r , Ven do r /Co n tr ac t Man agemen t
~`! ~'c ''
Br yan P n n i n gto n , x ec u ti v e D i r ec to r
E n gi n eer i n g &Co n str u c ti o n
A r thu r T
Chi ef
Westsi de Pu r ple L i n e E x ten si o n , Sec ti o n 1 A war d D /B Co n tr ac t &E stabli sh L OP Bu dget
ATTACHMENT A
PROCUREMENT SUMMARY
WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION PROJECT,
SECTION 1 DESIGN-BUILD
CONTRACT NO. C1045
1. Contract Number: C1045
2. Recommended Vendor: Skanska, Tra f or and Shea STS , a Joi nt Venture
3. Type of Procurement (check one): KIFB ~RFP KRFPA&E
KNon-Com eti ti v e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Order
4. Procurement Dates:
A. Issued: June 10, 2013
B. Adv erti sed/ Publ i ci z ed: June 20, 2013 13 ubl i cati ons
C. Pre- ro osal/ Pre-Bi d Conf erence: Jul 24, 2013
D. Pro osal s/ Bi ds Due: Januar 30, 2014
E. Pre-Q ual i f i cati on Com l eted: Ma 29, 2014
F. Conf l i ct of Interest Form Submi tted to Ethi cs: Februa 3, 2014
G. Protest Peri od End Date: Jul 22, 2014
5. Sol i ci tati ons Pi cked up/ Downl oaded:
109
Bi ds/ Proposal s Recei v ed:
3
6. Contract Admi ni strator:
Bruce Warrensf ord
Tel ephone Number:
213 922-7338
7. Proj ect Manager:
Denni s Mori
Tel ephone Number:
213 922-7238
A. Procurement Background
Thi s Board Acti on i s f or adesi gn-bui l d, "Best Val ue" procurement i ssued i n support
of a contract f or the management, coordi nati on, prof essi onal serv i ces, l abor,
equi pment, materi al s and al l other serv i ces necessary to perf orm the f i nal desi gn
and constructi on of the Westsi de Purpl e Li ne Extensi on Proj ect, Secti on 1,(Proj ect).
A two-step negoti ated procurement process was uti l i z ed i n accordance wi th
Cal i f orni a Publ i c Contract Code 20209.5 - 20209.14 and Metro' s Acqui si ti on Pol i cy
f or a Fi rm Fi xed Pri ce contract.
In step one, a Request f or Q ual i f i cati on (RFQ ) was i ssued that requi red i nterested
respondents to submi t Statements of Q ual i f i cati ons (SOQ ), whi ch were ev al uated
based on cri teri a set f orth i n the RFQ . In step two, a Request f or Proposal s was
i ssued to the pre-qual i f i ed respondents to submi t separate techni cal and pri ce
proposal s.
Westsi de Purpl e Li ne Extensi on, Secti on 1 Award D/ B Contract &Establ i sh LOP Budget
Procurement Process Step One
C a l i f orni a Pub l i c C ontra ct C ode Secti on 20209.5 et seq. requi res Metro to pre-
qua l i f y desi gn- b ui l d enti ti es usi ng a sta nda rdi zed questi onna i re devel oped b y the
Sta te of C a l i f orni a Depa rtment of I ndustri a l R el a ti ons (DI R ). Metro ha s the
di screti on to a dd suppl ementa l questi ons to the questi onna i re, whi ch Metro di d to
ma tch the experi ence a nd pa st perf orma nce of respondents to the l evel of
compl exi ty of thi s proj ect.
The R FQ wa s i ssued on Decemb er 7, 2012. Four SOQs were recei ved on Feb rua ry
7, 2013. A l l f our SOQs recei ved f rom respondents met the mi ni mum pre-
qua l i f i ca ti on requi rements a nd were i nvi ted to sub mi t proposa l s.
Procurement Process Step Two
The R FP wa s i ssued on June 10, 2013, requesti ng f orma l techni ca l a nd pri ce
proposa l s i n a ccorda nce wi th the requi rements def i ned i n the R FP. A pre- proposa l
conf erence wa s hel d on Jul y 24, 2013, i n the Boa rd R oom wi th representa ti ves of
a pproxi ma tel y 268 f i rms i n a ttenda nce; numerous j ob si te vi si ts hel d f or the pri me
contra ctors a nd thei r desi gna ted sub contra ctors; a nd 367 questi ons were recei ved
a nd a nswered.
Fi ve a mendments were i ssued duri ng the sol i ci ta ti on pha se of thi s R FP; a mendment
No. 1 i ssued on Jul y 24, 2013 i ncl uded va ri ous revi si ons a nd cl a ri f i ca ti ons to
contra ct documents, techni ca l proj ect def i ni ti on documents, a nd ref erence
documents. A mendment No. 2 i ssued Septemb er 18, 2013 revi sed contra ct
documents, techni ca l requi rements a nd ref erence documents. A mendment No. 3
i ssued Octob er 17, 2013 to cl a ri f y contra ct requi rements, i mpl ement DBE ra ce
consci ous goa l requi rements, revi se techni ca l proj ect def i ni ti on documents a nd
revi se ref erence documents . A mendment No. 4 i ssued Novemb er 20, 2013 to
extend the proposa l due da te, correcti ons to the pri ce proposa l f orm, revi se techni ca l
proj ect def i ni ti on documents a nd revi se ref erence documents. A mendment No. 5
i ssued Decemb er 16, 2013 to extend the proposa l due da te, cl a ri f y eva l ua ti on
cri teri a , revi se proposa l sub mi tta l requi rements a nd pri ce proposa l f orm.
A tota l of three proposa l s were recei ved on Ja nua ry 30, 2014 i n response to the
R FP requi rements, f rom Dra ga dos / A sta l di /Southl a nd (DA S) a Joi nt Venture a ka
Dra ga dos USA , I nc. (DUSA ), Southl a nd C ontra cti ng, I nc., a nd A sta l di C onstructi on
C orpora ti on; Ska nska , Tra y l or a nd Shea (STS) a Joi nt Venture a ka Ska nska USA
C i vi l West C a l i f orni a Di stri ct I nc., Tra y l or Bros., I nc., a nd J.F. Shea C onstructi on,
I nc.; a nd Westsi de Tra nsi t Pa rtners WTP (I mpregi l o S.p.A ., Sa msung E&C
A meri ca . I nc., a nd Sa l i ni USA . I nc.). A l though the sol i ci ta ti on process a l l owed
Proposers to sub mi t a l terna te proposa l s, none were sub mi tted.
A mendment No. 6 a nd R equest f or Best a nd Fi na l Of f ers (BA FO) i ssued Ma y 2, 2013
esta b l i shed BA FO sub mi tta l requi rements, cl a ri f i ed techni ca l proj ect def i ni ti on
documents a nd i ncl uded Opti on 1. The BA FOs were recei ved on Ma y 30, 2014.
Westsi de Purpl e L i ne Extensi on, Secti on 1 A wa rd D/B C ontra ct &Esta b l i sh L OP Budget
B. Evaluation of Proposals/Bids
A Proposal Evaluation Team (PET) c onsisting of representatives from Metro
Eng ineering and C onstruc tion, Metro Operations, and the C ity of Los Ang eles,
Bureau of Eng ineering Department of Pub lic Works, was c onvened and c onduc ted a
thoroug h and c omprehensive evaluation of the proposals rec eived.
The proposals were evaluated b ased on the following evaluation c riteria and
weig hts:
Proj ec t Manag ement 25%
Tec hnic al Approac h 35%
Pric e 40%
The tec hnic al and proj ec t manag ement evaluation c riteria was assig ned a c omb ined
hig her perc entag e than pric e in c onsideration of the tunneling c omplexity and g assy
c onditions of the Proj ec t site. All proj ec t requirements were c onsidered when
developing the weig hts ab ove to estab lish that the b est value selec tion would
produc e the Proposer most c apab le of addressing the unique tec hnic al c halleng es
assoc iated with this proj ec t.
The weig hting assig ned for the following minimum fac tors c ollec tively represented at
least 50% of the total weig ht g iven to all c riteria fac tors: pric e, tec hnic al expertise,
life c y c le c osts over 15 y ears or more, skilled lab or forc e availab ility , and ac c eptab le
safety rec ord, as presc rib ed b y C alifornia Pub lic C ontrac t C ode 20209.8 (d).
Moreover, the b est value selec tion c riteria, their weig hts and relative importanc e
were provided to all Proposers as part of the RFP doc ument.
The PET met extensively in the months of Feb ruary 2014 throug h June 2014, to
thoroug hly review and evaluate the orig inal and revised written proposals sub mitted.
The PET asked for written c larific ation to questions posed of eac h team, with written
responses b eing sub mitted b y proposers to assess eac h team's tec hnic al
approac hes, and previous experienc e.
After the PET sc ored the orig inal written proposals, reviewed answers to c larific ation
requests, they had interviews with key personnel and held one-on-one disc ussions
with eac h proposer prior to issuanc e of the request for Best and Final Offers. All
three proposers sub mitted their Best and Final Offers on May 30, 2014. After the
BAFOs were rec eived the PET c ompleted its review and evaluation of the revised
proposals on June 16, 2014.
Qualific ations Summary of streng ths and weaknesses for all three proposers:
Skanska, Tray lor and Shea (STS), a Joint V enture, Parsons C orporation as lead
desig ner and C omstoc k as sy stems sub c ontrac tor
Westside Purple Line Extension, Sec tion 1Award D/B C ontrac t &Estab lish LOP Budg et
STS summary of st re n g t h s:
Hig h e st rat e d t e c h n ic al an d p roj e c t man ag e me n t re sourc e s st an d p re p are d t o
p rose c ut e work imme d iat e l y
Prop ose s e arl y c omp l e t ion sc h e d ul e savin g 300 c al e n d ar d ays
DBE g oal of 20.25% for De sig n an d 17% for C on st ruc t ion
STS an d al l ke y p e rson n e l d e mon st rat e t h e g re at e st d e p t h of c ombin e d re l e van t
e xp e rie n c e workin g t og e t h e r on maj or c ap it al p roj e c t s suc h as:
Me t ro Gol d Lin e East sid e Ext e n sion Lig h t R ail Tran sit (LR T)
C it y of LA N ort h East I n t e rc e p t or Se we r t un n e l
Exp osit ion LR T Ph ase 2
F oot h il l Ext e n sion LR T
STS an d p rop ose d subc on t rac t ors h ave an e st abl ish e d , re c og n ize d workin g
re l at ion sh ip
Sid e-by-sid e sc h e d ul e an al ysis of t h e R e g ion al C on n e c t or an d We st sid e Purp l e
Lin e d e mon st rat e s se que n c in g t h at d oe s n ot c re at e ove rl ap p in g c on fl ic t s. Th e re
are n o maj or sc h e d ul in g or p e rson n e l c on fl ic t s be t we e n Sh e a's t un n e l in g work on
t h e C re n sh aw an d t h e We st sid e Proj e c t s
STS h as ve ry g ood e xp e rie n c e in e xe c ut in g mit ig at ion me asure s t h at ad d re ss
t h ird p art y an d c ommun it y c on c e rn s
STS p rop ose s t o sup p l e me n t Proj e c t Man ag e r wit h "Val ue Ad d e d " p e rson n e l
wh o st re n g t h e n t h e ir t e am's p roj e c t man ag e me n t c ommit me n t , t e c h n ic al c ap ac it y
an d c ap abil it ie s
STS summary of we akn e sse s:
Prop ose d Proj e c t Man ag e r al so se l e c t e d for t h e R e g ion al C on n e c t or as t h e
Proj e c t Man ag e r
Hig h e st p ric e offe r
We st sid e Tran sit Part n e rs WTP (I mp re g il o S. p .A., Samsun g E&C Ame ric a. I n c ., an d
Sal in i USA. I n c .).
WTP summary of St re n g t h s:
Se c on d l owe st p ric e offe r
We st sid e Purp l e Lin e Ext e n sion , Se c t ion 1Award D/B C on t rac t &Est abl ish LOP Bud g e t
WTP and key personnel demonstrate general combined experience on a v ariety
of similar major capital projects
WTP is u tiliz ing ARUP and Mass E lectric Co. and oth er key su bcontractors w ith
experience in th e LA area and Metro
WTP su mmary of w eaknesses:
WTP Project Manager h as limited transit experience. Th e relationsh ip of th e
Project Manager to th e Depu ty Project Manager and team did not demonstrate a
strong w orking h istory
WTP's Constru ction Approach as presented in th eir detailed sch edu le does not
prov ide a realistic sch edu le for th e th ree cu t-and- cov er station sites
Constru ction Approach as presented in th eir Detailed Sch edu le su bmittal
exposes Metro to a h igh probability of cost and sch edu le risk
Dragados /Astaldi /Sou th land (DAS) a J oint Ventu re aka Dragados USA, I nc. (DUSA),
Astaldi Constru ction Corporation and Sou th land Contracting, I nc.
DAS su mmary of strength s:
Low est price offer
DAS and key personnel demonstrate general combined experience on a v ariety
of similar major capital projects
Proposes early completion sch edu le sav ing 180 calendar days
DAS su mmary of w eaknesses:
DAS Project Manager does not h av e rail transit experience and limited project
management experience.
DAS Depu ty Project Manager h as recent project management experience on a
mu lti- lane motorw ay h igh w ay tu nnel project and no major experience on rail
transit or oth er relev ant major constru ction projects.
Proposal illu strates a w eak u nderstanding of th e ov erall Project as demonstrated
by th e organiz ational discontinu ity betw een th e Project Manager, Design
Manager and key personnel, w h o w ere not familiar w ith th e details of th e
contents of th eir Requ est for Proposal (RFP).
All "Added Valu e" personnel w h o w ere in th e original proposal w ere remov ed
after th e BAFO.
Westside Pu rple Line E xtension, Section 1Aw ard D/B Contract &E stablish LOP Bu dget 10
DAS' d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i r C o n s t r u c t i o n Ap p r o ac h was n o t s u p p o r t e d by a
t h o r o u gh d e t ai l e d s c h e d u l e .
C o n s t r u c t i o n Ap p r o ac h as p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i r De t ai l e d Sc h e d u l e e xp o s e s Me t r o t o
a h i gh p r o babi l i t y o f c o s t an d s c h e d u l e r i s k .
Bas e d o n a t h o r o u gh an d i n t e gr at e d as s e s s me n t o f t h e p r o p o s al s , as p e r fo r me d an d
d e t e r mi n e d by t h e Pr o p o s al E v al u at i o n Te am, an d i n ac c o r d an c e wi t h t h e RFP s p e c i fi e d
e v al u at i o n fac t o r s an d s u b fac t o r s , t h e STS p r o p o s al o ffe r s t h e "Be s t Val u e " an d i s t h e
mo s t ad v an t age o u s t o Me t r o . Th e fi n al s c o r e s an d r an k i n g fo r al l p r o p o s e r s i s
s u mmar i ze d i n t h e fo l l o wi n g t abl e :
FIRM Fac t o r
We i gh t
Fi n al
We i gh t e d
Sc o r e
Ran k
1 . Sk an s k a, Tr ayl o r an d Sh e a, a J o i n t
Ve n t u r e STS
1
Pr o j e c t Man age me n t (1 3 fac t o r s ) 25% 1 9.83
Te c h n i c al Ap p r o ac h (3 fac t o r s ) 35% 27.42
Pr i c e (*3 fac t o r s ) 40% 30.98
To t al 1 00.00% 78.23
2. We s t s i d e Tr an s i t Par t n e r s -WTP
(Imp r e gi l o S.p .A Sams u n g E&C Ame r i c a,
In c ., an d Sal i n i USA, In c .
2
Pr o j e c t Man age me n t (1 3 fac t o r s ) 25% 1 5.63
Te c h n i c al Ap p r o ac h (3 fac t o r s ) 35% 23.04
Pr i c e (*3 fac t o r s ) 40% 35.97
To t al 1 00.00% 74.64
3. Dr agad o s /As t al d i /So u t h l an d (DAS)
a J o i n t Ve n t u r e
3
Pr o j e c t Man age me n t (1 3 fac t o r s ) 25% 1 4.53
Te c h n i c al Ap p r o ac h (3 fac t o r s ) 35% 1 9.83
Pr i c e (*3 fac t o r s ) 40% 35.01
To t al 1 00.00% 69.37
* Th e e v al u at i o n fac t o r s fo r t h e Pr i c e c at e go r y i n c l u d e d o v e r al l p r o p o s e d p r i c e , d ai l y d e l ay c o mp e n s at i o n
r at e s an d l i fe c yc l e c o s t s .
C . C o s t /Pr i c e An al ys i s
Th e r e c o mme n d e d p r i c e h as be e n d e t e r mi n e d t o be fai r an d r e as o n abl e bas e d u p o n
ad e qu at e p r i c e c o mp e t i t i o n , d i s c u s s i o n s , a fu l l t e c h n i c al an al ys i s , an d a
We s t s i d e Pu r p l e L i n e E xt e n s i o n , Se c t i o n 1 Awar d D/B C o n t r ac t &E s t abl i s h L OP Bu d ge t 1 1
comparative price an al y s is , in cl u d in g M etro' s In d epen d en t Cos t Es timate (ICE). The
recommen d ed Propos er' s price is l es s than 1 %hig her than the ICE. The
recommen d ed award is f or the hig hes t ran ked propos er bas ed on the "Bes t Val u e"
procu remen t proces s .
Bid d er/Propos er Name Total Eval u ated Pricin Award Price
O rig in al Bes t an d F in al Bes t an d
Propos al O f f er Amou n t F in al O f f er
Amou n t (BAF O )
1 . Skan s ka, Tray l or an d
Shea, a J oin t Ven tu re $1 , 672, 1 50, 91 5 $1 , 650, 941 , 000 $1 , 636, 41 8, 585
STS
2. Wes ts id e Tran s it
Partn ers -WTP
(Impreg il o S.p.A $1 , 641 , 022, 256 $1 , 596, 500, 000 $1 , 571 , 775, 900
Sams u n g E&C America,
In c., an d Sal in i USA,
In c.
3. Drag ad os / As tal d i /
Sou thl an d (DAS) $1 , 476, 446, 876 $1 , 459, 886, 068 $1 , 443, 878, 064
a J oin t Ven tu re
D. Backg rou n d on Recommen d ed Con tractor
The recommen d ed f irm, Skan s ka, Tray l or an d Shea, a J oin t Ven tu re (STS) was
f ormed f or the Wes ts id e Pu rpl e L in e Exten s ion Proj ect, Section 1 with of f ices in
d own town L os An g el es . Skan s ka is a 1 25-y ear ol d compan y an d on e of the l arg es t
con s tru ction org an iz ation s in the worl d . Skan s ka has 39 of f ices throu g hou t the U.S.,
with its Sou thern Cal if orn ia O f f ice l ocated in Rivers id e, CA, Skan s ka has over
1 2, 000 f u l l-time con s tru ction in d u s try prof es s ion al s in the U.S. an d has compl eted
1 5 d es ig n -bu il d rail an d tran s it proj ects total in g more than $4.2 bil l ion n ation wid e.
Thes e in cl u d e the AirTrain J F K L RT in New York, the Worl d Trad e Cen ter
Tran s portation Hu b in New York, the I-21 0 Gol d L in e Brid g e, an d the Expo Phas e 2
proj ect. Skan s ka is al s o the con tractor on the BART Berry es s a Des ig n -Bu il d Tran s it
Exten s ion . The Tray l or Bros . Sou thern Cal if orn ia of f ice is l ocated in L on g Beach,
CA an d it has a track record that f eatu res over 1 1 0 tu n n el in g proj ects with more than
90 mil es of bored tu n n el s , as wel l as a 50-y ear pres en ce in s ou thern Cal if orn ia.
Tray l or' s experien ce with M etro in cl u d es the M etro Gol d L in e Eas ts id e Exten s ion ,
with over 4.5 mil l ion s af e work hou rs an d z ero g rou n d l os s , an d the M etro Red L in e
Seg men t 3 Hol l y wood tu n n el s . Their tu n n el in g work al s o in cl u d es the Un ivers ity
L in k (U220) in Seattl e, an d the Qu een s Bored Tu n n el s Eas t Sid e Acces s proj ect in
New York, which was n amed the 201 2 Proj ect of the Year by the In tern ation al
Tu n n el As s ociation . Shea head qu arters are l ocated in Wal n u t, CA an d has
compl eted $21 .6 bil l ion in Cal if orn ia proj ects s in ce the 1 920s as a 1 31 -y ear ol d
d es ig n-bu il d er an d g en eral con tractor. F rom s u bway s to pipel in es an d d ams , Shea
Wes ts id e Pu rpl e L in e Exten s ion , Section 1 Award D/B Con tract &Es tabl is h L O P Bu d g et 1 2
has carved m i l es of t u n n el ou t of si m i l ar grou n d con di t i on s. The fi rm ' s t echn ol ogi cal
ex p ert i se has great l y en han ced t he effi ci en cy of t u n n el i n g, an d i t sp eci al i z es i n
u n dergrou n d work. Shea p art n ered wi t h Skan ska on t he Secon d Aven u e Su bway
an d t he No. 7 Li n e Su bway p roj ect s i n New York. Shea al so l ed t he j oi n t ven t u re
t eam on t he Met ro Red Li n e Su bway (Segm en t 2) p roj ect for Met ro i n 1995, whi ch
i n cl u ded gassy con di t i on s si m i l ar t o t he West si de Su bway . Shea bri n gs su ccessfu l
ex p eri en ce wi t h a m u l t i t u de of geol ogi cal con di t i on s i n l arge su bway an d t ran si t
p roj ect s. Parson s C orp orat i on wi l l be t he l ead desi gn er an d C om st ock i s
resp on si bl e for t he sy st em s i n t egrat i on . Parson s, based i n Pasaden a, C A, i s a
gl obal l eader i n t he en gi n eeri n g an d con st ru ct i on of m aj or t ran sp ort at i on p roj ect s i n
com p l ex , u rban en vi ron m en t s. They have com p l et ed t ran si t desi gn- bu i l d p roj ect s for
Met ro, Bay Area Rap i d Tran si t (BART), DART, t he Den ver Regi on al Tran sp ort at i on
Di st ri ct an d Mi n n eap ol i s Met ro Tran si t .
STS' s Proj ect Man ager, Mi ke Ap ari ci o, has 27 y ears of ex p eri en ce i n t he heavy ci vi l
con st ru ct i on i n du st ry , i n cl u di n g 20 y ears m an agi n g t ran sp ort at i on an d heavy ci vi l
con st ru ct i on p roj ect s an d organ i z at i on s. He has si gn i fi can t l arge- scal e desi gn- bu i l d
ex p eri en ce, i n cl u di n g t he m an agem en t of m ore t han $1. 5 bi l l i on i n desi gn- bu i l d
p roj ect s si n ce 1997. He has an ex cel l en t record for su ccessfu l l y m an agi n g
con t ract or, desi gn er, su bcon t ract or an d own er i n t erest s, sp eci fi cal l y on Los An gel es
desi gn- bu i l d t ran si t con t ract s. Mr. Ap ari ci o' s backgrou n d i n cl u des p roj ect m an ager
for t he Met ro Gol d Li n e East si de Ex t en si on Proj ect , an d m an agem en t rol es for Ex p o
2, an d t he Pasaden a Met ro Gol d Li n e p roj ect s. Ji m Kl em z , wi t h Parson s, i s t he
Desi gn Man ager/ Pri n ci p al En gi n eer, l i cen sed an d regi st ered i n t he St at e of
C al i forn i a, wi t h 36 y ears of ci vi l en gi n eeri n g ex p eri en ce on l arge desi gn- bu i l d
p roj ect s. Mr. Kl em z ' ex p eri en ce i n cl u des bei n g Desi gn- Bu i l d Sp on sor on t he F oot hi l l
Phase 2A an d t he I - 25 T- REX Proj ect . Hi s ex t en si ve con st ru ct i on su p ervi si on
ex p eri en ce i n cl u des con t ract m an agem en t an d adm i n i st rat i on , schedu l i n g, q u al i t y
con t rol , an d desi gn act i vi t i es rel at ed t o con st ru ct i on . Ri chard Wel don , wi t h Skan ska,
i s t he C on st ru ct i on Man ager, wi t h ex p eri en ce m an agi n g safet y , q u al i t y , en gi n eeri n g
an d con st ru ct i on i ssu es. Hi s ex p eri en ce i n cl u des t he East si de Ex t en si on an d hi s
m ost cu rren t assi gn m en t as t he C on st ru ct i on Man ager on Ex p o 2.
E. (1) Sm al l Bu si n ess Part i ci p at i on - Desi gn
The Di versi t y an d Econ om i c Op p ort u n i t y Dep art m en t (DEOD) est abl i shed a Race
C on sci ou s Di sadvan t aged Bu si n ess En t erp ri se (RC DBE) goal of 20%for Desi gn .
STS m et t he goal an d m ade a 20. 25% DBE com m i t m en t .
SMALL SMALL
BUSI NESS
20. 00%
BUSI NESS
20. 265%
GOAL C OMMI TMENT
DBE Su bcon t ract ors Et hn i ci t %C om m i t t ed
1. BA, I n c. Afri can Am er. 2. 96%
2. V&A, I n c. Hi s an i c 6. 21
West si de Pu rp l e Li n e Ex t en si on , Sect i on 1Award D/ B C on t ract &Est abl i sh LOP Bu dget 13
3. C2PM Asian Pac. 2.50%
4. TOGO Asian Pac. 2.95%
5. IEG ( Inno v at iv e Engine e ring
Gro up
Asian Pac. 3.53%
6. Mia Le hre r Hispanic 0.72%
7. MGE Asian Pac. 0.70%
8. Mart ini D ril l in His anic 0.57%
9. Cal if o rnia Te st in and Inspe ct io n Hispanic 0.11
To t al Co mmit me nt 20.25%
E. ( 2) Smal l Busine ss Part icipat io n - Co nst ruct io n
The D iv e rsit y and Eco no mic Oppo rt unit y D e part me nt ( D EOD ) e st ab l ishe d a RC D BE
go al o f 17.00% f o r Co nst ruct io n. STS made a 17.00% D BE co mmit me nt . To b e
re spo nsiv e t o D BE re quire me nt s, STS was re quire d t o ide nt if y al l kno wn D BE
sub co nt ract o rs at t ime o f pro po sal . STS l ist e d o ne D BE f irm as no t e d b e l o w. In
addit io n, STS was re quire d t o sub mit a D BE Co nt ract ing Pl an ide nt if y ing
co nst ruct io n o ppo rt unit ie s t o me e t it s D BE co mmit me nt . STS must updat e it s
Co nt ract ing Pl an mo nt hl y , as co nt ract wo rk is b id and awarde d t o D BE f irms. D EOD
re v ie we d and appro v e d t he Co nt ract ing Pl an sub mit t e d b y RCC.
SMALL SMALL
BUSINESS
17D .00%
BUSINESS
17D .00%
GOAL COMMITMENT
D BE Sub co nt ract o rs
Co nst ruct io n
Et hnicit y %Co mmit t e d
1. The So l is Gro up His anic 0.05%
To t al Co mmit me nt 17.00%
F. Al l Sub co nt ract o rs Incl ude d wit h Re co mme nde d Co nt ract o r's Pro po sal
Sub co nt ract o r Se rv ice s Pro v ide d
1. Al de a Se rv ice s, LLC Risk Manage me nt
2. BA, Inc. Ut il it y Engine e ring
3. C2PM Admin Pro j e ct Co nt ro l s
4. Cal if o rnia Te st ing &Inspe ct io n Te st ing Lab o rat o ry
We st side Purpl e Line Ext e nsio n, Se ct io n 1 Award D /B Co nt ract &Est ab l ish LOP Budge t 14
5. CH2M Hi l l Engi neers, I nc . Geotec hni c al Desi gn,
Tunnel Desi gn, S tr.
En i neeri n
6. Comet El ec tri c El ec tri c al
7. Group Del ta Consul tants, I nc . Geotec hni c al Engi neeri ng
8. I EG ( I nnov ati v e Engi neeri ng Group) El ec tri c al Eng
9. KDC, I nc . dba Dy nael ec tri c El ec tri c al
10 Kroner Env i ronmental S erv i c es Env i ronmental
11. L .K. Comstoc k N ati onal Transi t S y stems
12. Marti ni Dri l l i ng Corp S oi l Bori ng S ampl i ng
13. MGE S truc tural Eng
14. Mi a L ehrer
L andsc ape Arc h
15. Parsons Transportati on L ead Desi gn
16. Psomas Desi gn and Construc ti on
S urv e
17. The S ol i s Group Jobs Coordi nati on
18. TOGO Duc tbank Engr. Arc h.
19. U ni v ersi ty Mec hani c al Mec hani c al/Pl umbi ng
20. V&A, I nc . General , Ci v i l and Traf f i c
Engi neeri n
Westsi de Purpl e L i ne Extensi on, S ec ti on 1Award D/B Contrac t &Establ i sh L OP Budget 15
ATTACHMENT B
WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, SECTION 1
Funding/Expenditure Plan
(Dollars in Millions)
~
of
Capital Project 865518 Prior FY14 FY75 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 Total
Total
Uses of Funds
Construction 2. 4 12. 0 149. 5 263. 1 230. 0 406. 6 2512 114. 6 136. 0 110. 4 60. 1 1. 5 - - 1,737. 4 62. 6%
Right- of- Way 0. 9 3. 8 146. 6 22. 3 - - - - - - - - - 175. 6 6. 3%
Vehicles - - 3. 9 10. 7 11. 1 31. 9 48. 6 49. 8 42 - - - - 1602 5. 8%
Professional Services 562 30. 0 48. 4 45. 9 34. 3 33. 7 32. 5 28. 1 30. 8 31. 9 31. 8 9. 1 - 472. 7 14. 9%
Project Contingency - - 32. 3 33. 6 34. 6 35. 7 36. 7 21. 4 22. 0 22. 8 8. 5 1. 0 - - 246. 6 9. 0%
Subtotal Capital Project 59. 5 45. 8 382. 7 375. 6 310. 0 507. 9 369. 0 213. 9 193. 0 165. 1 100. 4 11. 6 - - 2,734. 5 98. 6%
Environmental/Planning 38. 5 0. 5 0. 4 - - - - - - - - 39. 4 1. 4%
Total Project Cost 98. 0 46. 3 383. 1 375. 6 310. 0 507. 9 369. 0 213. 9 793. 0 165. 1 100. 4 11. 6 - - 2,773. 9 700. 0 /
Sources of Funds'
Federal 5309 New Starts - 65. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 85. 0 1,250. 0 45. 1
Federal TIFIA Loan
Proceeds (Repaid with - - - - - 340. 7 305. 7 184. 9 24. 7 - - - - 856. 0 30. 9
Measure R 35%)
Measure R 35% 31. 3 (18. 7) 2572 267. 9 202. 5 642 (39. 5) (71. 0) 43. 7 68. 4 (29. 7) (97. 3) (100. 0) (85. 0) 494. 0 17. 8%
Lease Revenues - - 19. 0 - - - - - - 18. 7 - - - 37. 7 1. 4%
Repayment from State of
57. 8 - 6. 9 6. 1 - - 1. 5 - 24. 6 (27. 0) 5. 1 (13. 1) (22. 0) - 39. 9 1. 4%
Cap Project Loans
LTF General Revenues 1. 8 ~ 8 ~~~
TDA 4. 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 4J 0. 1
STIP Regional Improvement
2. 6 - - - - - - - - -
_
2. 6 0. 1
Program
City of los Angeles
- ~ - - - -
~~3 - - 5. 0 25. 0 22. 0 22. 0
_
75. 3 2. 7%
Contribution
Federal Section 5339 04
0. 4 0. 0%
Alternatives Analysis
Federal CMAQ - - 1. 6 7. 5 3. 0 - - - - - - - 12. 7 0. 4%
Total Project Funding 98. 0 46. 3 383. 7 375. 6 310. 0 507. 9 369. 0 213. 9 193. 0 765. 1 100. 4 11. 6 - - 2,773. 9 100. 0%
*Timing of funding sources is subject to change.
Westside Purple Line Extension, Section 1- Award D/B Contract &Establish LOP Budget 16
ATTACHMENT C
WEST~SIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION PROJECT,
SECTION 1
Measure R Cost Management Process and Policy Analysis
Introduction
The Measure R Cost Management Process and Policy (the Policy) was adopted by the
Metro Board of Directors in March 2011. The intent of the Policy is to inform the Metro
Board of Directors regarding potential cost increases to Measure R-funded proj ects and
the strategies av ailable to close any funding gaps. The Westside Purple Line Extension
(Westside Subway Extension) Section 1 Proj ect warrants such an analysis due to a
$288 million cost increase described in the report accompanying this analysis_
Howev er, the Measure R funds targeted to all three Westside Subway sections to date
amounts to $3,285.8 million (out of a total Measure R commitment of $4,074 million) .
The remaining $788.2 million is av ailable to address cost increases on this proj ect, as
described in the "Other Cost Reductions in the Same Subregion" section of this
analysis._ We are recommending this solution to the cost increase issue.
Measure R Cost Management Policy Summary
The adopted final Measure R Unified Cost Management Process and Policy stipulates
the following:
"If increases in cost estimates occur, the LACMTA Board of Directors must approv e a
plan of action to address the issue prior to tak ing any action necessary to permit the
proj ect to mov e to the next milestone. Increases in cost estimates will be measured
against the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan as adj usted by subsequent actions
on cost estimates tak en by the LACMTA Board of Directors. Shortfalls will first be
addressed at the proj ect lev el prior to ev aluation for any additional resources using
these methods in this order:
1) Value engineering and/ or scope reductions;
2) New local agency funding resources;
3) Shorter segmentation;
4) Other cost reductions within the same transit corridor or highway corridor;
5) Other cost reductions within the same sub-region; and finally,
6) Countywide transit cost reductions and/ or other funds will be sought using pre-
established priorities. "
We followed the six steps prescribed by the policy to address the funding gap and
dev eloped the following plan of action:
Westside Purple Line Extension, Section 1 Award D/ B Contract &Establish LOP Budget 17
Value Engineerinq and/or Scope Reductions
During the development of the P reliminary Engineering for the Request for P roposal
(RFP ) documents, staff conducted Value Engineering (VE) Workshops utiliz ing a VE
P anel of transit industry professionals w ith participation including the FTA's P roj ect
Management Oversight Consultant (P MOC). The VE items b elieved to have the
potential of y ielding the largest cost savings w ere incorporated into the Advanced
P reliminary Engineering (P E) designs in 2012. These items included the reduction of
underground station footprint siz es and station depths. Station room lay outs and other
architectural elements w ere standardiz ed to reduce design, construction, operations
and maintenance costs. The cross-over ventilation extended plenum design w hich is
not required as part of the normal ventilation design, w as included as an option to
supplement ventilation during periodic track maintenance w ork. The P roj ect Team also
analy z ed constructab ility issues and various construction sequencing scenarios to
reduce risks and the overall durations for tunneling and cut-and-cover underground
construction.
New Local Agencv Funding Resources
P er Note G in the Measure R Expenditure P lan, local agencies are expected to
contrib ute an amount equal to three percent of total costs for transit proj ects. Metro and
the City of Los Angeles agreed to a 3% contrib ution amount in April of 2014. That
agreement states the follow ing w ith respect to cost increases and b etterments:
"The parties understand the City 's Westside Sub w ay Extension Section 1 Share
w ill not increase even if the final LACMTA adopted life-of-proj ect b udget for the
Westside Sub w ay Extension Section 7 proj ect exceeds $2,509,100,000."
and
"Any P roj ect b etterments for each P roj ect shall b e paid b y the City separate and
apart from this Agreement and shall b e defined in and paid pursuant to the
Master Cooperative Agreement, dated January 21, 2003 ("MCA')."
P ursuant to the agreement ab ove, w e are not assuming any additional commitment
from the City of Los Angeles for the proj ect as these are not b etterments as defined in
the MCA.
Similarly , the $1.25 b illion New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement executed b etw een
the FTA and Metro on May 21, 2014 states that all cost increases are to b e b orne b y the
proj ect sponsor, not the Federal Transit Administration. P ursuant to that agreement, w e
are assuming that no additional New Starts funds can b e made availab le to cover the
cost increase.
Westside P urple Line Extension, Section 1 Aw ard D/B Contract &Estab lish LOP Budget 18
Shorter Segmentation
While s horter s egmentation is p os s ib le f or the Wes ts ide Sub way Extens ion, we
recommend agains t this s tep f or s ev eral reas ons . Section 1 was extended to
Wils hire/La Cienega due to engineering cons traints at the initial Section 1 terminus at
Wils hire/F airf ax. Shortening Section 1 would lik ely res ult in f urther cos t increas es to the
p roj ect and req uire def erral of other p roj ects . The only Section which could b e
s hortened is Section 3 . This would req uire eliminating the Veteran A f f airs Station and
mov ing the terminus to Wes twood. I n addition to higher real es tate p rices in Wes twood,
eliminating the Veteran A f f airs s tation would req uire LA CMTA to p rep are a
s up p lemental Env ironmental I mp act Statement/Env ironmental I mp act Rep ort (EI S/EI R)
due to s ignif icant p roj ect changes . A s a res ult, there may b e s ignif icant p roj ect delays
and increas ed cos ts to the p roj ect. We do not recommend s horter s egmentation.
Other Cos t Reductions within the Same Trans it Corridor
The Wes ts ide Sub way Extens ion corridor had included the Wils hire Bus Rap id Trans it
p roj ect. This p roj ect was b if urcated into two p arts , one is a limited p eak hour only
v ers ion of BRT that is already f unded with f ederal grants and the other was a more
rob us t BRT with dedicated lanes and ride imp rov ements . This s econd Wils hire BRT
p roj ect was already eliminated f rom the LRTP to deal with p rior cos t increas es .
Other Cos t Reductions within the Same Sub region
A s of March 1 3 , 201 4, the Long Range Plan F inancial F orecas t up date p rep ared in
s up p ort of the Short Range Trans p ortation Plan (als o on the J uly 201 4 agenda f or
ap p rov al), the Meas ure R f unds targeted to all three Wes ts ide Sub way s ections
amounted to $3 ,285.8 million (out of a total Meas ure R commitment of $4,074 million).
The remaining $788.2 million is des crib ed in the s up p orting F inancial F orecas t f or the
Short Range Plan as a "Sub regional p ayb ack f or Wes ts ide Purp le Line Extens ion" that
was s cheduled to occur in the third decade of the Long Range Plan (F Y 203 0 and
b eyond).
We b eliev e we can p ay f or the Wes ts ide Sub way Section 1 cos t increas e of $288 million
directly f rom Meas ure R or, if neces s ary, incur additional b ond deb t to cov er the cos t
increas e. Such additional indeb tednes s is res tricted b y the Meas ure R Contingency
Policy adop ted b y the Board in May 201 1 (and amended in A p ril 201 2). Our rev iew of
the s tatus of Meas ure R b orrowing to date (including all p lanned b orrowing) indicates
that the additional b orrowing to mak e thes e f unds av ailab le f or the Wes ts ide Sub way
Section 1 p roj ect is entirely within the p olicy cap es tab lis hed b y the Metro Board of
D irectors .
Countywide Trans it Cos t Reductions and/or Other F unds
This cos t increas e does not req uire any countywide cos t reductions or other f unds .
Wes ts ide Purp le Line Extens ion, Section 1 A ward D /B Contract &Es tab lis h LOP Budget 1 9
2
0
0
9

L
R
T
P

-
T
r
a
n
s
i
t

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
.
F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o

V
a
l
l
e
y
S
a
n

F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o

V
a
l
l
e
y

E
s
s
t
N
o
r
t
h
l
S
o
u
t
h

R
a
p
f
d
w
e
y
s
'
R
~
~
~
r~~.
.
~
~
`

,
.
,
_
.
_
?
~

O
~
~
e

y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.

:
S
a
n

F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o

U
a
l
l
e
y
~
~

~
_

i
N
o
r
t
h
l
S
o
u
t
h

C
a
n
o
g
a

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
;
:

"
-
(
u
n
d
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
'
~
t
.
~
.
,
~
~
_
~

`
a

~
'
n
.
W
A
R
N
E
R

'
m
~
a
c
e
r
~
r
E
R
Seouly!
e
d
a

R
a
s
s

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
*
F
i
;
V
N
l
s
h
i
r
e

B
R
T
L
a
s

V
i
r
g
e
n
e
s
/
M
a
l
i
b
u
S
o
u
t
h

L
o
s

A
n
g
e
l
e
s

C
o
u
n
t
y
A
r
r
o
y
o

V
e
r
d
u
g
o
'
?
~

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
n
n
e
c
r
o
r

R

p
g
g
q
p
E
N
A
C
2
~
t
f
8
I
`

G
d
d

L
i
n
e

F
o
W
h
i
l
l

L
i
g
h
t
;
o
s

A
n

a
l
e
s

'

R
a
l
f

T
r
a
n
s
i
t

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
(
u
n
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
l

_
.
_
_

-
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
E
L
,
-
M
A
N
T
E
j
M
O
N
I
C
A

~
~

W
~
y
t
s
i
d
e

S
u
b
w
a
y

E
z
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
'
R

~
~
~

~
~
~
~
,
,
.

'
~
w
t
i
s
h
i
r
e
B
R
T
-
u
s
.
s
.

,
'
~
~
g
~
'
~
9
"
'
a
"
~
s
)

_

~
'

~

~

S
a
n

G
a
b
r
i
e
l
V
a
l
t
e
y

~
.

~

/
"
Y
~
~

.
_
s
,
t
o

S
a
n
t
a

M
o
n
i
c
a
'
R
~
E
x
p
o
s
d
i
o
n

P
h
a
s
a

I

p
a
(
u
n
d
e
r
c
n
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
S
A
X
r
g
n

$
"C
r
e
n
s
h
a
w
~

g
y
m

T
r
a
n
s
i
t

C
G
r
e
e
n

L
i
n
e
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n

t
o

L
A
X
"
~
~
i
~
3

N
o
r
t
h
H
i
g
h

S
p
e
e
d

R
a
i
i

L
o
s

A
n
g
e
l
e
s
U
n
i
o
n

S
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

P
a
l
m
d
a
l
e
"

C
O
U
I
l
~
I
t
/

{
j
,
j
}

'
:
,
1
3
8
i
,
~
,

`
,
,
`
~
,
t

x
B
S
O
t
I
t
l
t
~

~
.
m
a
t
h

L
i
M
,
v
'
5
1
1
.
R
P
,
r
D
1
p

6

1
5
_
H
a
x
d

N
e
q
u
2
s
L
_
M
2
a
s
:
r
e
R
U
N
x
O
;
i
T
r
t
u
i
s
l
C
o
i
n
s
Y
a
~

3
0

1
U
,
r
e
v
J
e
~
v
4
_
~
y
J
l
2
i
n
x
t
)
G
r
8
1
c

i
;
~
l
d
l
~
2
.

1
1
$
1
3
P
t
v
i
NO
s
a
y
S
A
N
~

w
i

.
f
3
a
t
e
w
a
y

C
i
t
i
e

~
/
L
A
X

~
~
~
o
r
r
i
d
a
r
*
~

+

~
y

5
-
.
~
r
`
~

N
O
R
W
A
I
K
.
,

~
.
,
W
e
s
t

S
a
n
t
a

A
n
a
f
r
e
n
c
h

C
a
r
i
d
o
r
'
R
n
~
R
L
O
N
G
;
.

~

\
a
.
I
n
l
a
n
d

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
'
E
a
s
t
s
f
d
e

T
r
e
n
s
i
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
a

P
h
a
s
a

I
I
'
R
(
3
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
)
t
o

L
.
A
*
O
R
A
N
G
E

C
O
U
N
T
Y
~
=

M
e
n
s
u
~
e

R
f
u
n
d
c
A

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
*
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

b
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
V
S
.
S
:

V
e
r
y
5
r
n
a
/
1
5
t
a
r
t
s