Mid-City ExpositionLight Rail Transit

ProjectClosed Session Presentation

March 2, 2006

Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority

Expo Line DB Contracting Authority

Public Utilities Code 132610

(a) The authority has all of the powers necessary for planning, acquiring, leasing, developing, jointly developing, owning, controlling, using, jointly using, disposing of, designing, procuring, and building the project, including . . .

(4) Contracting with public and private entities for the planning, design, and construction of the project. These contracts may be assigned separately or may be combined to include any or all tasks necessary for completion of the project.

Compliance with FTA Legal Requirements

FTA Best Practices Manual

▪ NEPA Compliance

▪ Thompson Colburn, LLP (Kent Woodman)

Best Value Procurement

A combination of price and technical (non-price) considerations.

▪ Provides greater assurance of performance resulting in:

▪ Enhanced Community and Stakeholder responsiveness.

▪ Cost effective design.

▪ Timely Project delivery.

▪ Recommended Proposer need not be the one with the overall lowest

Price in order to provide the Best Value

Procurement Background

• September 2005, Authority Board authorized solicitation of

proposals for Negotiated Design-Build Contract.

• January 2006, Proposals received and evaluated.

• February 2006, Authority Board authorized CEO to negotiate with

top ranked proposer, FCI/Fluor/Parsons.

• February 2006 negotiations focused on the following:

• Exceptions to the RFP identified by FCI/Fluor/Parsons

• Clarification of elements of their proposal.

• Review of price proposal to determine if fair and reasonable.

Best Value Evaluation Criteria and WeightsTECHNICAL FACTORS (70%)

Management and Organization Structure; Qualifications and Experience

Construction Plan, Project Management Plan, and Overall Approach

to the Work

Contracting Plan

Construction Safety Proposal and Record

Quality of the Community, Public and Business Mitigation

Commitments

PRICE (30%) Design Fee and additional cost

Professional Services Fee and additional cost

Construction Fee

Insurance Costs

Technical (non-price) factors rated on the basis of a 0 to 20 point scale

Instructions clearly laid out how to use this scale for each sub-criterion within the five evaluation criteria categories

Instructions clearly laid out how to use this scale for each sub-criterion within the five evaluation criteria categories

• EXCEPTIONAL (15 to 20)

• GOOD (10 to 15) 

• ACCEPTABLE (5 to 10)

• UNACCEPTABLE TO BARELY ACCEPTABLE (1 to 5) 

• NO INFORMATION PROVIDED (0 points)

• EXCEPTIONAL (15 to 20)

• GOOD (10 to 15) 

• ACCEPTABLE (5 to 10)

• UNACCEPTABLE TO BARELY ACCEPTABLE (1 to 5) 

• NO INFORMATION PROVIDED (0 points)

Technical (non-price) scores

• Scores determined by five independent subcommittees, one for

each major evaluation criterion

• 19 individuals served on these committees (3 or 4 per committee)

• Each person served on only one subcommittee

• Subcommittees chaired by one member and scores verified by

him/her

• All three proposers were consistently rated in the Good to

Exceptional range in all 5 evaluation criteria

• Scores determined by five independent subcommittees, one for

each major evaluation criterion

• 19 individuals served on these committees (3 or 4 per committee)

• Each person served on only one subcommittee

• Subcommittees chaired by one member and scores verified by

him/her

• All three proposers were consistently rated in the Good to

Exceptional range in all 5 evaluation criteria

1.) Los Angeles Metro, Rail Operations

2.) Los Angeles Metro, Executive Office Construction, Project Management

3.) Los Angeles Metro, Executive Office Construction, Engineering

4.) Los Angeles Metro, Construction Management

5.) Los Angeles Metro, Community Relations

6.) RTD/Denver

7.) Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada/Las Vegas

8.) UTA/Salt Lake City

9.) San Diego Assoc. of Governments

10.) Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works

1.) Los Angeles Metro, Rail Operations

2.) Los Angeles Metro, Executive Office Construction, Project Management

3.) Los Angeles Metro, Executive Office Construction, Engineering

4.) Los Angeles Metro, Construction Management

5.) Los Angeles Metro, Community Relations

6.) RTD/Denver

7.) Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada/Las Vegas

8.) UTA/Salt Lake City

9.) San Diego Assoc. of Governments

10.) Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works

Subcommittee Agencies

11.) Sound Transit/Seattle

12.) Caltrans District 7

13.) Los Angeles Department of Transportation

14.) Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)/ San Francisco

15.) LA Department of Public Works

16.) Orange County Transportation Authority/ OCTA

17.) Culver City Transportation Dept

18.) City of Santa Monica Public Works

19.) Los Angeles City, Engineering

11.) Sound Transit/Seattle

12.) Caltrans District 7

13.) Los Angeles Department of Transportation

14.) Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)/ San Francisco

15.) LA Department of Public Works

16.) Orange County Transportation Authority/ OCTA

17.) Culver City Transportation Dept

18.) City of Santa Monica Public Works

19.) Los Angeles City, Engineering

Subcommittee Agencies (continued)

Sealed price proposals opened only after all technical scoring was completed

• No visibility of prices by any of the 19 technical subcommittee

members

• Price proposals checked for completeness

• No visibility of prices by any of the 19 technical subcommittee

members

• Price proposals checked for completeness

Best Value Scores then were calculated per the RFP formula

• Technical (non-price score) worth 70%

• Price worth 30% 

• Technical (non-price score) worth 70%

• Price worth 30% 

Scoring Summary Sheets for Each Technical Subcommittee

Subcommittee 1

ScoresMember

1Member

2Member

3Member

4Overall Average

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 16.55 17.53 17.30 17.01 17.10

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

19.27 18.92 18.57 19.78 19.14

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

16.95 17.78 17.82 17.37 17.48

Management and Organization Structure; Qualifications and Experience (20 points)Management and Organization Structure; Qualifications and Experience (20 points)

Subcommittee 2

ScoresMember

1Member

2Member

3Overall Average

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 12.4 13.8 13.8 13.3

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

13.1 13.9 13.8 13.6

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

11.1 13.5 13.0 12.5

Construction Plan, Project Management Plan, and Overall Approach to the Work (20 points)Construction Plan, Project Management Plan, and Overall Approach to the Work (20 points)

Subcommittee 3

ScoresMember

1Member

2Member

3Member

4Overall Average

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 16 16 17 15 16.00

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

15 15 14 13 14.25

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

16 16 14 13 14.75

Construction Plan (20 points)Construction Plan (20 points)

Subcommittee 4

ScoresMember

1Member

2Member

3Overall Average

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 17.84 18.00 17.50 17.78

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

17.65 18.00 18.15 17.93

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

17.00 17.50 17.15 17.22

Construction Safety Proposal and Record Plan (20 points)

Construction Safety Proposal and Record Plan (20 points)

Subcommittee 5

ScoresMember

1Member

2Member

3Member

4Overall Average

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 12 14 11 10 12

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

13 16 15 13 15

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

16 20 16 17 18

Quality of the Community, Public and Business Mitigation Commitments (20 points)

Quality of the Community, Public and Business Mitigation Commitments (20 points)

Technical Evaluation Total Score

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Sub-committee

1

Sub-committee

2

Sub-committee

3

Sub-committee

4

Sub-committee

5

Total Technical

Score (Sum of 1 thru 5)

Normalized Technical

Score

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 17.10 13.30 16.00 17.78 12.00 76.18 95.0Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV 19.14 13.60 14.25 17.93 15.00 79.92 100.0Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco) 17.48 12.50 14.75 17.22 18.00 79.95 100.0

Price Score Calculation

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Design FeeProfessional Services Fee

Construction Fee

Insurance Costs

Total Price (Sum of 1

thru 4)Normalized Price Score

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 5,550,000 12,187,000 27,450,000 7,320,000 52,507,000 100.0

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV 11,161,827 56,876,843 15,094,179 5,874,699 89,007,548 30.5 Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco) 14,736,940 15,629,716 41,300,000 14,393,703 86,060,359 36.1

Best Value Total Score

Scores1 2 3 4 5

Technical Score

(0-100)

Weighted Technical

Score1

Price Score

(0-100)

Weighted Price

Score2

Total Score (2+4)

FCI/Fluor/Parsons 95.0 66.5 100.0 30.0 96.5

Kiewit/Stacey and Witbeck JV

100.0 70.0 30.5 9.2 79.2

Mid-City Constructors JV (Granite/Brutoco)

100.0 70.0 36.1 10.8 80.8

1 (x 0.7 to equal 70% of total score)2 (x 0.3 to equal 30% of total score)