1 / 44

Houston METRO METRO Solutions – Hybrid Delivery

Houston METRO METRO Solutions – Hybrid Delivery. Alternative Project Delivery on Texas Projects Austin, Texas November 28, 2007. Presentation Overview. METRO Solutions Objectives Scope Schedule Budget FTA – 5P Program Hybrid Delivery – HB2300 (May, 2005) Key Elements

bart
Download Presentation

Houston METRO METRO Solutions – Hybrid Delivery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Houston METROMETRO Solutions – Hybrid Delivery Alternative Project Delivery on Texas Projects Austin, Texas November 28, 2007

  2. Presentation Overview • METRO Solutions • Objectives • Scope • Schedule • Budget • FTA – 5P Program • Hybrid Delivery – HB2300 (May, 2005) • Key Elements • Implementation Overview • Future Challenges

  3. METRO Solutions - Objectives • Reduce congestion • Improve mobility • Improve air quality “Build more rather than less, sooner rather than later.” HoustonMayor Bill White

  4. DART Created: 1983 Light rail miles: 45 miles System total: 93 (2014) Weekday ridership: 62,000 Historical Context METRO 1979 7.5 miles 37 (2012) 45,000

  5. METRORail: Grand Opening– January 1, 2004

  6. METRORail: Grand Opening– January 1, 2004

  7. METRORail Success Story • Red Line – Most successful light rail line ever built in the U.S. • Average daily ridership of approximately 45,000 • 41% of rail riders never used METRO before Source: 2007 HGAC Survey

  8. METRORail Success Story • Half (49%) of METRORail riders have a car available • 20% have household incomes over $81,000 Source: 2007 HGAC Survey

  9. Ridership Metro 125 Million Passengers Amtrak 25 Million Houston Airport 48 Million Continental 61 Million

  10. METRO Solutions Components • 5 new light-rail lines • University (key east-west trunk line) 11.04 • North extending from Red Line 5.26 miles • Southeast 6.14 • East End 3.31 • Uptown 4.32 approximately 30.07 miles • Additional Park & Ride facilities • HOV - HOT Lane modifications • Up to 4 commuter rail lines • (US90 A, US290, Outer Westpark, Galveston)

  11. Intermodal Terminal Wheeler Intermodal Terminal

  12. Schedule UnderIn • LRT Corridors ConstructionService • North Spring 2008 2011 • Southeast Spring 2008 2011 • East End Spring 2008 2011 • Uptown Spring 2008 2011 • University Spring 2009 2012

  13. Cost Per Component (in millions) • LRT Corridors (Preliminary Estimates) • North $ 394 • Southeast 460 • East End 206 • Uptown 324 • University $ 828 $ 2,212 • Red Line $ 324 $ 2,536 • P&R Lots / Transit Centers $ 171 • HOT Lanes 60 • Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) 160 $ 391

  14. Funding Sources (in millions) METRO $ 324 – Red Line Credit 640 – Bonds 304 – METRO & Private Funding $1,268 • Federal • $1,268 • ______ • $1,268 $2.54

  15. FTA’s Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program Current Thinking October 2006

  16. FTA’s Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program or “Penta-P”

  17. What Is a Public-Private Partnership? • What:Assumption (or reduction) of risk by private sector in exchange for opportunity to earn financial return commensurate with risk assumed (or reduced) • Premise: Integrated project procurement, together with discipline of the private sector’s requirement for financial return, will (i) accelerate project delivery and (ii) reduce costs of project delivery and operation below current levels • Why PPP for Transit: • Public funds constrained (Highway Trust Fund) • Construction costs increasing (global demand) • Marginal operating costs growing (extensions) • Workforce demographics unfavorable (generational)

  18. What FTA Could Offer Pilots within New Starts Program “Subject to . . .” Both procedural and rating benefits would be conditioned on project sponsor’s entry into agreement with private sector satisfactory to FTA prior to recommendation of project to Congress for Full Funding Grant Agreement

  19. HB 2300 – Key Elements • Applies to “Civil Design Components” • Underground Utilities • Paving • Drainage • Structures, including elevated platforms and bridges • Components related to vehicular traffic • Primary power distribution systems • Transfer stations, depots and other architectural features including MEP • Applies to Transit Project G.T. $100M in which the principal municipality has a population of more than 1.2 million people • Selected Civil Engineer (SCE) shall be selected IAW Section 2254.004 Government Code • Facility Provider (FP) evaluations shall consider: • FP experience and qualifications • FP technical competence and capability • FP past performance • Feasibility of implementing the project as proposed • Other selection criteria as indicated in the RFP

  20. HB 2300 – Key Elements (Cont.) • FP selection based on best value • Final Design with the SCE’s shall be incorporated into the authorities contract with the selected FP • FP contract shall provide mechanism for SCE to communicate issues of design quality, QA, code compliance, VE or life cycle costing • FP oversight of SCE’s limited to: • Design Management • Coordination of “Civil Works Components” • Integration of Design of Systems Components • Inspection and verification testing during construction, if contracted by the authority, shall be independent of the FP. • Vendors with an established office in the principal municipality shall be utilized to the maximum extent permitted by law

  21. Implementation Overview • Timetable • Implementation Structure • Industry Review • Industry Outreach • Civil Engineers • Facility Providers • Prequalification • Selection

  22. Timetable

  23. Implementation Structure METRO Facility Provider Design Build (Contractor) SCE (Designers) Remediation LRV (Vehicle Supplier) O & M

  24. METRO Solutions – Rail Transit Corridors kick-off … • Industry Review – October, 2005 • Outlined Program • Presented Budget • Expectations • Discussed HB2300 • Laid Out Goals and Objectives

  25. METRO’s objectives - create a win-win situation … • Objectives • Work to the strength of the market • Structure fair and reasonable commercial relationships • Work towards total solutions • Keep sacred commitments • Schedules • Budgets • Performance Standards • Implement an effective contracting plan • Ensure partners are successful • Meet SB/DBE goals

  26. Industry outreach was critical in assuring strong competition… • Industry Outreach • Individual industry meetings • Meeting: • Potential Facility Providers • METRO held face-to-face meetings with Facility Providers – October 25-26, 2005 • METRO provided opportunity for Facility Providers and Civil Engineers to meet – October 25-26, 2005 • Informal calls and meetings • Potential Civil Engineers • METRO held face-to-face meetings with Civil Engineers – November 10-11, 2005 • Informal calls and meetings • Webinars – January 9-10, 2006 • Presented new SB/DBE program • METRO’s SB/DBE goal commitment • SB – 35% overall goal (inclusive) • DBE – 21% annual goal

  27. After the industry outreach group sessions we met with a number of Facility Providers individually… • Archer Western Contractors, Ltd • Fluor Enterprises • Gilbert Companies (Kiewit) • Hensel Phelps • Jacobs • KBR/Parsons Transportation • Skanska USA Civil, Inc. • Texas Sterling • Washington Group International • Zachry

  28. In our meetings we discussed… • HB2300 • Contract Size • Contract Packaging • Contract Interfaces • Contract Type • Bonding • Risk Allocation • Schedule • Insurance • Contractor Availability • Labor Availability

  29. Getting the message out to local Civil Engineers was a priority… • Civil Engineers • Scopes • Includes all Civil works • Lump sum contract • Timing of Work • Expedited completion (not business as usual) • Organization • Initial engineering performed directly for METRO • Subsequent engineering performed under the Facility Provider

  30. HNTB Corp. LAN PBQD PGAL Ross & Baruzzini S&B Infrastructure Dannenbuam Turner Collie & Braden DMJM + Harris Booz Allen URS Corporation Edwards & Kelcey Malcolm Pirnie  Omega Engineers  Paradigm Consultants Pate Engineers  HTS Inc./Continental Materials  Brown & Gay Engineers Montgomery & Associates  Quadrant Consultants, Inc. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc.  Wilbur Smith Associates Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc.  Klotz Associates, Inc. We also met with local firms, including…

  31. Hanscomb Faithful & Gould 3D/I Jones & Carter Huitt-Zollars Lopez Garcia Group Ground Technology Hunt & Hunt Engineers Infrastructure Associates Isani Consultants Knudson & Associates NACC Nathelyne Kennedy PTI, Inc. Crouch Environmental Svcs. Edminster, Hinshaw, Russ Gunda Corporation, Inc. Bradlink Brian Smith Construction Dodson & Associates Ergonomic Transportation ESPA AIA Engineers Transystems Architechnics/3 ADT Security Services EFC, Inc. We also met with local firms, including…

  32. Sirrus Engineers United Engineers Zarinekelk Engineers Associated Testing Atser LP MUI Services LLC Raba-Kistner Consultants, Inc. APM & Associates SES Horizon Consult. Engrs. CSA Group Asakura Robinsonn Co. LLP Bellamy-North & Associates Berkanbile & Craig Landscape Arch. Goldston Engineering, Inc. Halff Associates Kimley-Horn & Associates IDC Inc. Midtown Engineers LLC Concept Engineers Jacobs Walter P. Moore CDM CH2M Hill Cobb Fendley & Assoc. We also met with local firms, including…

  33. Civil Engineering contracts were awarded to teams led by… • North Corridor – Dannenbaum Engineering Corp. • Southeast Corridor – LAN • East End Corridor – Omega Engineering Inc. • Uptown Corridor – Huitt-Zollars, Inc. • University Corridor – TCB Transit • Intermodal Terminal - Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects

  34. Pre-qualification was used to secure interested firms early… • Prequalification • Milestones • RFQ Issued March 20, 2006 • RFQ Briefing March 30, 2006 • SOQs Received April 24, 2006 • Criteria • Organization and Project Management • Financial and Bonding Capacity • Experience and Qualifications • Record of Performance • Project Understanding • Successful Consortiums • Bayou City Transit Team (Fluor/Balfour Beatty/ACI) • Houston Transit Solutions Team (Parsons/KBR/Veolia) • Houston Transit Partners (Washington Group/Granite)

  35. The RFP process created an innovative and collaborative environment… • RFP • Dates • Draft RFP issued – May 31, 2006 • Workshops – 4 Sessions per consortium in June and July, 2006 • RFP issued – August 15, 2006 • Proposals due – September 29, 2006 • Each Proposal Contained: • Management Proposal • Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience • Stakeholders/Community Outreach • Technical and Operations Solutions • Operations and Maintenance • Price Proposal • Value-Added • SB/DBE • Management Proposal – Minimum requirement • Value-Added - Enhancements

  36. The workshops helped identify critical issues and beneficial compromises… • RFP • Workshop collaboration on: • Contract Terms • Scope of Work • Distribution of Risk • Value-Added • Financing Solutions • Benefits to Public • Expansion of SB/DBE Opportunities • Apprenticeship/Mentorship/Job Creation • Technology Enhancements

  37. Scope innovations were investigated to expedite the schedule… • RFP • Terms and Conditions for each phase • Development • Design Build • Operations & Maintenance • Budgets, Schedules & Technology • Design and build to budget requirement • Best technology we can afford • Schedules aggressive but achievable • Schedule incentives

  38. METRO encouraged out-of-the-box thinking to increase project value… • Value-Added Concepts • Partnership • Private sector innovation • Reduce METRO Costs • Reduce Program Schedule • Improve Quality • Share Risk • SBE/DBE/Stakeholder/Community Outreach/Business Assistance • Received 3 proposals on September 29, 2006

  39. Received proposals from all three prequalified teams… • 3 Proposals received September, 2006 • Bayou City Transit Team (Fluor/Balfour Beatty/ACI) • Houston Transit Solutions Team (Parsons/KBR/Veolia) • Houston Transit Partners (Washington Group/Granite)

  40. The evaluation process was professional and unbiased… • Confidentiality and Security • Conflict of Interest Forms • Confidentiality Agreements • Secured Proposal Room • Document Control Process • Evaluation Process • Responsiveness • Pass/Fail • Technical Review • Scoring

  41. Technical committees reviewed sections and made perceptive observations… • Technical Subcommittees • Commercial and Contractual • Management and Technical • Operations and Maintenance • Cost and Value-Added • Evaluation & Selection Committee • Selection made December, 2006

  42. Future Challenges • Transition to Design-Build Phase • Multi-year performance contacts for engineers • Successful negotiation risk exposures – multi-year contracts • Professional liability • Errors and Omissions • Design submittal delays • Comment resolution • Ongoing management of multi-firm design teams • Performance (cost) exposure for “untested” 3rd party design review processes during D/B

  43. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

More Related