North Metro Rail Line Quarterly Briefing November 7, 2013
Agenda Welcome and Introductions Phil Washington North Metro Update Phil Washington and Jim Starling Northwest Area Mobility Study update Chris Quinn Northeast Area Transit Evaluation (NATE II) Bob Boot Open Discussion 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 72 nd 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 72 nd Avenue Began design process DUS to 72 nd Avenue Began utility relocation process DUS to 72 nd 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 72 nd 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 Board of Directors General Manager Evaluation Committee Technical Subcommittee Stakeholder Subcommittee Financial Subcommittee Technical Approach Working Group Systems Utilities Drainage Structures General Civil and Track Stations Environmental Compliance Operations/Maintenance (if applicable) Freight Rail (if applicable) ROW 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 9
Technical Evaluation Technical Proposal Criteria (total 45 points): Technical Innovation/Creativity Technical Approach Management Approach DBE/SBE/WIN Approach 10
Bechtel/Herzog Team RTD s understanding of Team Organization: 11
Bechtel/Herzog Technical Pros Offers construction of the North Metro Line to 162 nd 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 14
GBBH Team RTD s understanding of Team Organization: 14
GBBH Technical Pros Offers construction of North Metro Line to 162 nd, three extensions, NW Rail to 88 th, 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 18
North Metro Transit Solutions Team RTD s understanding of Team Organization: 18
NMTS Technical Pros Offers construction of North Metro Rail to 162 nd 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 22
URS Team RTD s understanding of Team Organization: 21
URS Technical Pros Committed to build North Metro Rail to 162 nd 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 Technical Innovation/ Creativity Technical Approach Management Approach DBE/SBE/WIN Total Score Bechtel/Herzog Joint Venture GBBH Graham, BBRI, Hamon NMTS (Kiewit/Stacy and Witbeck) URS Energy & Construction 1 10 5 0 5 13 10 6 4 8 7 3 6 8 9 5 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) 27
Team s Evaluation Goals 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 29 Communities
GENERAL Our ranking of proposals: Graham Rank 1 st Unanimous selection Kiewit Rank 2 nd Bechtel Rank 3 rd URS Rank 4 th 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 are looking forward to working with RTD and getting the entire North Metro Corridor constructed! We Thank You for the opportunity to be a part of this unique proposal review process. 33
GRAHAM Balfour Beatty Harmon Our Recommended Proposal 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
Criteria for Financial Solution 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 36
Evaluation Criteria and Weighting 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 37
Financial Solution Parameters 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 38
Financial Innovation and Creativity 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 39
Summary of Financial Proposals 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 40
Proposal and Options Financial Proposal Bechtel/ Herzog Joint Venture GBBH (Graham, BBRI, Hamon) NMTS (Kiewit/ Stacy and Witbeck) URS Energy & Construction 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 NMRL Longmont Extension Northwest Rail 71 st to 88th X X X X 41
Financial Evaluation Matrix Total Financial Score Bechtel/Herzog Joint Venture GBBH (Graham, BBRI, Hamon) NMTS (Kiewit/Stacy and Witbeck) URS Energy & Construction 26 28 31 4 42
Recommended Financing North Metro Rail Line 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 43
Evaluation Matrix Following Technical, Stakeholder and Financial Review Technical Score Financial Score Total Score Bechtel/Herzog Joint Venture GBBH Graham, BBRI, Hamon NMTS (Kiewit/Stacy and Witbeck) URS Energy & Construction 16 39 31 14 26 28 31 4 42 67 62 18 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 124 th 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 124 th 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 124 th Avenue with an option to extend to 162 nd 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 124 th 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 48
FasTracks Progress Map 49
Progress Map with Contract Award 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 51
Northwest Area Mobility Study Update
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.
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 54
Status of Key Tasks 3. Evaluate feasibility of constructing the Northwest Rail in phases. Potential Phasing Options include: Broomfield 116 th 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
Rail Capital Cost and Ridership Summary Corridor Northwest Rail Capital Cost (2013 - $ millions) Low High * 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. 2035 Daily Boardings Low High 71 st Lowell to 116 th /Broomfield $ 557 $ 681 2,100 3,400 116 th /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: 71 st Lowell to Longmont North Metro Extension to Longmont $1,156 $1,413 $ 682 $ 834 840 900 Page 57 57
Northwest Rail Cost/Ridership Summary 58
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. 59
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) 120 th Ave (120) Capital Cost Range $255-300M Ridership Range 2035: 16,300-26,600 Boardings/day 60
Next Steps Further refine Arterial BRT alternatives Develop list of project prioritization Develop potential financing options Continue public involvement 61
Public Involvement Telephone Town Hall Meetings held on June 19 th and June 27 th 10,684 people participated at some level Website, under the FasTracks section of www.rtddenver.com Site includes opportunity to submit questions / comments and signup for newsletters Public Meetings to be held early 2014 62
Northeast Area Transit Evaluation (NATE II) Update
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 64
Next Meeting Elected Officials Briefing Tentatively scheduled for February 6, 2014 65
Questions? 66