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

10

Bechtel/Herzog Team

RTD’s understanding of Team Organization:

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

GBBH Team

14

RTD’s understanding of Team Organization:

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

North Metro Transit Solutions Team

18

RTD’s understanding of Team Organization:

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

URS Team

21

RTD’s understanding of Team Organization:

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!

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

• 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

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

Questions?

52

Northwest Area Mobility Study

Update

North Metro Quarterly

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

58

Northwest Rail Cost/Ridership Summary

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

chris.quinn@rtd-denver.com

(303) 299-2439

Northeast Area Transit Evaluation

Update

North Metro Quarterly

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

66

Questions?