Upload
trandat
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
North Metro Rail Line
Design/Build Contractor
Staff Recommendation
FasTracks Monitoring Committee November 5, 2013
2
FasTracks Guiding Principles
• Ensure every step contributes to the full vision
• Focus money available to the greatest good
• Spend public money wisely
• Maximize all funding opportunities before going to
taxpayers
• Deliver key investments in all corridors
Build As Much As We Can As Fast
As We Can Until It Is All Done!
3
North Metro Rail Line
• 18.5 Miles
• Electrified Commuter Rail
• 8 Stations
• Provides additional mobility
by expanding the overall
system
• Single track with multiple
passing tracks
• Serves Denver, Commerce
City, Thornton, Northglenn,
Adams County
4
North Metro Early Action Items
Completed Environmental Impact Statement
Developed strong partnership with local stakeholders
Completed agreement with UP to purchase rail ROW
Ordered six EMU vehicles to the Eagle procurement for NM
opening day requirements from DUS to 72nd Avenue
Expanded commuter rail maintenance facility to
accommodate ultimate North Metro needs
Completed duct bank at DUS for North Metro Line
Began ROW acquisition process – DUS to 72nd Avenue
Began design process – DUS to 72nd Avenue
Began utility relocation process – DUS to 72nd Avenue
Negotiated IGA’s with stakeholders
5
Unsolicited Proposal & RFP
• In February 2013, RTD received an unsolicited proposal
from Graham Contracting for the North Metro Rail Line
Project.
• An RTD staff evaluation team reviewed the proposal
consistent with the agency’s Unsolicited Proposals Policy
and determined the proposal had technical merit.
• On June 28, an RFP was issued for design and
construction to 72nd Avenue with options to extend further.
6
Proposals
Four proposals were received on September 23, 2013:
• Bechtel/Herzog, A Joint Venture
• Graham, Balfour Beatty, Hamon Contractors
• North Metro Transit Solutions, a Kiewit/Stacy and
Witbeck joint venture
• URS Energy and Construction, Inc.
7
RFP and Evaluation Schedule
• Release RFP
• RFP Review Period
• Proposals due
• Evaluation of Proposals
• FasTracks Monitoring
Committee
• FasTracks Monitoring
Committee Recommendation
• RTD Board Decision
• Notice to Proceed (pending
Board Approval)
• 6/28/2013
• 6/28/2013 - 8/12/2013
• 9/23/2013
• 9/24/2013 - 10/30/2013
• 11/5/2013
• 11/14/2013
• 11/26/2013
• 12/19/2013
8
Evaluation Organization
Evaluation
Committee
Technical
Subcommittee
Financial
Subcommittee
• Systems
• Utilities
• Drainage
• Structures
• General Civil and Track
• Stations
• Environmental
Compliance
• Operations/Maintenance
(if applicable)
• Freight Rail (if
applicable)
• ROW
Technical Approach
Working Group
Management
Approach
Working Group
• Project Mgmt Plan
• Quality Mgmt Plan
• Safety Mgmt Plan
• Public Outreach Plan
• Schedule
• DBE Plan
• Experience of Team
• Experience of Key Staff
Value Added
Proposals
Working Group
General
Manager
Board of
Directors
Stakeholder
Subcommittee
9
Technical Evaluation
Technical Proposal Criteria (total 45 points):
• Technical Innovation/Creativity
• Technical Approach
• Management Approach
• DBE/SBE/WIN Approach
11
Bechtel/Herzog Technical Pros
• Offers construction of the North Metro Line to 162nd Avenue by
February 2018 and Southeast Extension
• Herzog/AECOM solid local/RTD experience
• Firms overall experience is strong
• Best Value approach to sub-consultant selection
• Successful DBE outreach event
• Committed to DBE goals, committed to exceeding WIN goals, but no
percentages provided
12
Bechtel/Herzog Technical Cons
• No systems contractor proposed; lack of understanding of proposed
“direct feed” and positive train control
• Proposed Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC’s) that weren’t
accepted, then included them in proposal – including reduction of
parking, elimination of station, and at-grade crossings.
• Some ATC’s required NEPA re-evaluation, stakeholder input, but
didn’t address schedule impacts, causing risk for RTD
• Design team not co-located
• No mention of coordination with railroads
• Staffing plan to implement DBE/SBE/WIN is lacking
13
Bechtel/Herzog Technical Cons
• Bechtel/Herzog new to partnering with each other
• Meets key staff requirements, although some key staff lack D/B
experience
• References on company not as strong
• Met with key stakeholders, but plan doesn’t address all stakeholder
issues
15
GBBH Technical Pros
• Offers construction of North Metro Line to 162nd, three extensions,
NW Rail to 88th, extension of NM Line to Longmont by Jan. 2018
• BBRI solid local/RTD/D-B experience; Graham solid transit/D-B
experience
• Firms overall experience is strong; first time partnering together, but
showed cohesiveness in proposal
• Comprehensive understanding of scope & project issues
• Most technically innovative proposal – creative alternative concepts
• Systems work will integrate into existing systems seamlessly
• Provided details and technical solutions without scope reduction or
sacrificing quality
• Same systems contractor as Eagle project
• The most detailed Environmental Compliance plan
16
GBBH Technical Pros
• Live prairie dog relocation plan
• Demonstrated understanding of railroad coordination, requirements,
operations and safety
• Demonstrated understanding of ROW approach and scope
• Good collaboration approach that includes stakeholders and public
outreach
• Met with stakeholders, forming good relationship and clearly
understand their issues
• Meets key staff requirements, good references
• Successful DBE outreach events
• Commitment to 24% design and 22% construction DBE goals and
1% SBE – Commitment becomes part of the contract
• WIN proposal includes 19 professional and 47 craft positions
17
GBBH Technical Cons
• Some local resources already committed to other RTD projects
• JV partner Graham has not worked with RTD before
• Subcontracting plan lacked detail
• Didn’t specifically address quiet zones
19
NMTS Technical Pros
• Offers construction of North Metro Rail to 162nd by Jan 2018 plus
three extensions, extension of NM Line to Longmont and connection
from Central Corridor to North Metro
• Kiewit/Stacy/Atkins solid local/RTD/D-B experience
• Experience partnering together
• Firms overall experience is strong
• Comprehensive understanding of scope & project issues
• Detailed Environmental Compliance plan
• No mention of railroad coordination, but good understanding of
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) process
• ATC’s were strong and showed comprehensive research
• Clearly understood local needs and concerns
20
NMTS Technical Pros
• Strong systems contractor
• ROW team solid, but already committed to I-225
• Met with stakeholders to begin developing relationships
• Successful DBE outreach events
• Strongest WIN commitment, commitment to meet/exceed DBE
goals
• Committed to 5% SBE goal
• Strong project director with successful RTD experience
21
NMTS Technical Cons
• Lacks proof of systems compatibility with Eagle
• ROW schedule appears too aggressive
• Some local resources already committed to other RTD projects
• Lack of details in subcontracting plan
23
URS Technical Pros
• Committed to build North Metro Rail to 162nd by May 2018
• URS– Solid local/RTD EIS experience, not design or construction
• Lawrence – Solid local/RTD/D-B experience
• Clear understanding of stations
• Includes detailed environmental compliance plan
• Proposed partnering plan and over the shoulder review
• Successful DBE outreach event
• Committed to meet DBE goals
24
URS Technical Cons
• No additional extensions/projects proposed
• Didn’t take opportunity to meet with RTD during RFP process
• First time partnering together, lacks strategic partner, risk to RTD
• ROW – no RTD experience, no staff listed, no time for RTD review
• Systems plan provided, but no RTD systems experience
• No systems products specified; lack of understanding of positive
train control
• Utilities lack detail; no direct experience with DUS or Eagle; no plans
or detailed drawings
• Several key staff with perceived lack of qualifications for role
• References on company and key staff not as strong
25
URS Technical Cons
• No mention of community concerns or evolution of project since EIS
• No current management plans provided
• Staffing plan to implement is lacking
• Subcontracting plan lacks detail
26
Consensus Score of All Technical Sub-committees
Bechtel/Herzog
Joint Venture
GBBH
Graham,
BBRI, Hamon
NMTS
(Kiewit/Stacy
and Witbeck)
URS Energy &
Construction
Technical
Innovation/
Creativity
1 10 5 0
Technical
Approach
5 13 10 6
Management
Approach
4 8 7 3
DBE/SBE/WIN 6 8 9 5
Total Score 16 39 31 14
Total Technical Score Ranges: (45 points possible)
37-45 Excellent (beyond compliance, added value)
28-36 Very Good (answered quite well)
19-27 Good (answered all requirements)
10-18 Fair (answered most requirements)
0-9 Poor (didn’t answer requirements)
28
• Build Entire North Metro Line
• Ensure Communities long-term Visions
• Meet North Metro EIS and ROD Commitments
• Uphold Communities Needs Expressed in
IGAs
• Continue to Foster Regional Cooperation
• Address Communities Comments on 31%
Plans
• Proposed ATC’s are a value to Local
Communities
Team’s Evaluation Goals
29
GENERAL
• Our ranking of proposals:
– Graham Rank 1st Unanimous selection
– Kiewit Rank 2nd
– Bechtel Rank 3rd
– URS Rank 4th
• Overall, the Proposals demonstrated ability to complete Phase 1 & 2
• Innovation, Stakeholder Interests, and Ability to Go Beyond End of Line for NM were key factors
• Based on innovations provided by Graham, further consideration by RTD should be given regarding the opportunities for NATE
30
RECOMMENDATION
• Graham is the preferred Proposal by the
Stakeholder Group
– Contained the most innovations of all proposals
– Gave greater attention to detail with “up front due
diligence” vs. the “kick the can” approach by
others
– Recognized Individual Stakeholder Concerns and
Issues and developed sound resolutions
– VALUE ADDED -- Only Proposal to build Phases
1 ,2, 3 & additional scopes
31
The Other Proposals Kiewit: Proposal #2
• Had the next best proposal to Graham’s proposal and has a very experienced team with a good deal of local knowledge.
The next two proposals were rated much lower than the first two.
Bechtel: Proposal #3
• Stakeholders felt that they showed a lot of differences from their proposal and that of the Environmental Impact Study and R.O.D.
URS: Proposal #4
• Stakeholders felt that they showed only a few ATC’s and did not address local governments’ needs.
32
• We “Thank You” for the opportunity to be a
part of this unique proposal review process.
We are looking
forward to working
with RTD and
getting the entire
North Metro Corridor
constructed!
34
Financial Evaluation
Financial Proposal Criteria (total 55 points)
• Design/Build Cost Proposal – Phase 1 (DUS to 72nd
Avenue)
• Design/Build Cost Proposal – Phase 2 (72nd Avenue
to End of Line)
• Financial Innovation/Creativity
35
• Must fit within RTD’s TABOR authorization
• Must fit within requirements of existing bond covenants
• Must meet the RTD Board policy required minimum net debt
coverage for all years
• Solution is realistic and achievable based on current market
conditions
• RTD is legally permitted to enter into all components
Criteria for Financial Solution
36
• Design/Build Cost Proposal – Phase 1 (DUS to 72nd Avenue)
(25 points)
• Design/Build Cost Proposal – Phase 2 (72nd Avenue to End
of Line) (20 points)
• Phase 1 and Phase 2 points assigned based on formula
comparing proposers’ bid costs to each other
• Financial Innovation/Creativity (10 points)
– Proposer’s Financial Solution meets all RTD legal and financial criteria
– Proposer’s financial strength and ability to deliver committed funding
– Proposer’s ability to deliver cost-effective funding that RTD would not be able
to secure on its own
– Viability and achievability of the Financial Solution under current market
conditions
– Affordability of the Proposer’s Proposal within RTD’s overall financial plan
Evaluation Criteria and Weighting
37
• The Financial Solution may include any combination of the
following:
– Proposer debt
– Proposer equity
– Financing provided by third parties
– Other Financial Solutions that are fiscally sound
• Proposers may not assume, for purposes of their Financial
Solution Proposal, that RTD will seek voter approval for
additional sales taxes and/or the issuance of additional debt
Financial Solution Parameters
38
RTD will not consider as innovative financing:
• TABOR
– Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) or similar debt deferrals including
the use of capitalized interest
– Sales tax bonds
• Certificates of Participation (COPs)
• Credit ratings
– Financing mechanisms or structures that reduce credit ratings,
regardless of whether the proposed financing is rated or not
– Refinancings that extend maturities or increase outstanding balances
– Financings that significantly increase the project cost
Financial Innovation and Creativity
39
• Debt structure through third-party issuer
• Back loaded debt structures with high financing costs
• Use of reserve funds and debt to finance operations
• Additional federal grants
• Additional tax revenues through statewide sales tax
• Revolving credit line
• Other unidentified future revenues
• Restructuring existing RTD obligations
• Short-term construction fund with hedged RTD takeout
• Parking concession for all existing and future RTD parking
facilities
Summary of Financial Proposals
40
Proposal and Options
Bechtel/
Herzog
Joint
Venture
GBBH
(Graham,
BBRI,
Hamon)
NMTS
(Kiewit/
Stacy and
Witbeck)
URS Energy
&
Construction
Financial Proposal
Phase 1 X X X X
Phase 2 X X X X
Phase 3 Options
Southeast Rail Extension X X X
Southwest Rail Extension X X
Central Rail Extension X X
Other Projects
Central Extension to
NWSS X
NMRL Longmont
Extension X X
Northwest Rail 71st to 88th X
41
Financial Evaluation Matrix
Bechtel/Herzog
Joint Venture
GBBH
(Graham, BBRI,
Hamon)
NMTS
(Kiewit/Stacy
and Witbeck)
URS Energy
&
Construction
Total
Financial
Score
26 28 31 4
42
• RTD to issue financing for North Metro
– Certificates of Participation with the rail line assets as
collateral
– COPs can be used on non-federally funded projects and
projects where RTD owns the asset
– Projected issuance of approximately $480 million
– Separate Board approval will be required for COP
issuance
• Use portion of FISA balance to help cover North
Metro costs
– Allows RTD to finance more of the corridor
– Need to balance with potential uses on US 36 BRT
Recommended Financing North Metro Rail Line
43
Evaluation Matrix
Bechtel/Herzog
Joint Venture
GBBH
Graham,
BBRI, Hamon
NMTS
(Kiewit/Stacy
and Witbeck)
URS Energy &
Construction
Technical
Score
16 39 31 14
Financial
Score
26 28 31 4
Total
Score
42 67 62 18
Following Technical, Stakeholder and Financial Review
44
Best & Final Offer Request
• Based on financial, technical and stakeholder
recommendations
• Two teams close to top, considerable point difference between
top two and bottom two teams
• RFP originally asked for prices on individual segments of
corridor. Once proposals were received it was determined
segment prices were no longer needed.
– RTD requested price to 124th without segmentation to see what cost
savings could be derived
• Asked for Best and Final Offer from top two teams
• Both GBBH and NMTS proposed additional savings
– GBBH offered substantially higher savings
45
Following Request for Best and Final Offer
GBBH
Graham, BBRI, Hamon
NMTS
(Kiewit/Stacy and
Witbeck)
Technical Score 39 31
Financial Score 43 46
Total Score 82 77
46
Recommended Action
It is recommended by the FasTracks Monitoring Committee
that the RTD Board of Directors ("Board") authorize the
General Manager to award the design/build contract and
negotiate final terms with Graham, Balfour Beatty, Hamon
Contractors (GBBH) to serve as the Contractor for the
North Metro Rail Line Project. The Project consisting of the
North Metro Rail Line from Denver Union Station to 124th
Avenue, which will be constructed for a lump sum amount
of US $343.3 million. Acceptance of this proposal would
complete the North Metro corridor to 124th Avenue with an
option to extend to 162nd Avenue as funds become
available.
47
Benefits of Recommended Action
• Demonstrates RTD’s commitment to the northern suburbs toward
completion of the FasTracks program
• Provides a firm, fixed price commitment to complete the North Metro Line,
a key piece of the FasTracks program, at a favorable capital cost
• Building to 124th as a first phase serves the majority of projected ridership
for the corridor
• Provides a firm price on Central, Southeast and Southwest extensions
should RTD decide to exercise at later date
• Provides access for northern residents to major employment centers in
downtown Denver, the Denver Tech Center and DIA
• Provides clean, safe, reliable, accessible and cost effective transportation
in keeping with RTD’s overall mission
50
Schedule
• November 14 – Public comment period; FasTracks
Monitoring Committee action
• November 26– Public comment period; RTD Board of
Directors formal action
• December 17 – Board resolution requesting authority to
issue COPs
• First Quarter 2014 – Groundbreaking
• December 2017 – Construction complete
• Mid-2018 – North Metro Line opens to public
Status of Key Tasks
1. Downtown Express / Reverse Commute Analysis.
Short Term Options
• Bus on Shoulder
• Downtown Circulation Improvements
Long Term Recommendations
• Continue to monitor situation and determine if other long term planning efforts are needed.
54
Status of Key Tasks
2. Determine remaining BRT Funding Priorities for US 36.
– Consultant Team worked with RTD and stakeholders to: • Determine remaining
elements needed to complete BRT in the US 36 Corridor
• Validate cost of remaining BRT items needed to complete US 36 BRT
– RTD Board adopted remaining scope elements September 17
Status of Key Tasks
3. Evaluate feasibility of
constructing the
Northwest Rail in phases.
•Potential Phasing Options
include:
•Broomfield 116th
•Louisville
•Boulder (may not be
technically feasible)
Status of Key Tasks
4. Evaluate
feasibility of
extending North
Metro Corridor to
Longmont
– Route assumption:
• RTD-owned ROW
from North Metro
Corridor to
• I-25 North to
• County Road 7
57
Rail Capital Cost and
Ridership Summary
* Costs in millions of dollars ($ 2013) and includes non-FasTracks stations $140M).
** Costs for Segment 1 include the Maintenance Facility and BNSF Operating Rights for the
entire NW Rail Corridor.
*** Cost per mile $30.4M to $37.2M/mile for Northwest Rail; $35 to $43M/mile for North Metro
Rail Extension.
Corridor Capital Cost
(2013 - $ millions)
Low High
2035 Daily
Boardings
Low High
Northwest Rail
71st Lowell to 116th/Broomfield $ 557 $ 681 2,100 3,400
116th/Broomfield to Louisville $ 159 $ 194 1,700 1,800
Louisville to Boulder Junction $ 241 $ 295 2,000 2,100
Boulder Junction to Longmont $ 199 $ 243 1,500 1,600
Full Corridor: 71st Lowell to
Longmont
$1,156 $1,413
North Metro Extension to
Longmont
$ 682 $ 834 840 900
Page 57
59
Status of Key Tasks
5. Evaluate potential mobility improvements
in the area such as arterial BRT:
• All existing bus routes in the Northwest area
under consideration as candidate BRT
corridors
• Take highest performing routes/corridors to be
advanced as potential BRT corridors.
60
BRT Summary
• Arterial BRT Corridors (From TAC 9/19) – SH 119; between Table Mesa p-n-R and Longmont (Bolt/Skip/205)
– S. Boulder Rd. (Dash)
– SH 7 (Jump/225)
– US 287 (L/LX)
– SH 42 (New Route)
– 120th Ave (120)
• Capital Cost Range $255-300M
• Ridership Range 2035: 16,300 - 26,600
Boardings/day
61
Next Steps
• Further refine Arterial BRT alternatives
• Develop list of project prioritization
• Develop potential financing options
• Continue public involvement
62
Public Involvement
• Telephone Town Hall Meetings held on June 19th and June 27th
– 10,684 people participated at some level
• Website, under the FasTracks section of www.rtd-denver.com
• Site includes opportunity to submit questions / comments and signup for newsletters
• Public Meetings to be held early 2014
63
Questions?
Chris Quinn
Planning Project Manager
(303) 299-2439
65
Northeast Area Transit Evaluation II
• NATE II - expanding the analysis of the original 2007 NATE study:
– Better position RTD/cities/county with more refined information on desired stations and
alignments
– Summarize and expand analysis for CRT/LRT
– Develop and analyze alternatives for BRT
– Provide a reference for communicating to staff, elected officials, general public
– Research other potential funding sources; e.g., grants, New Starts, Small Starts
• Kickoff Meeting – November 13, 2013