From: Peter Bahrs [bahrs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 9:08 PM
To: Thomas Gustafson
Cc: Bill Glendenning; Adam Drisin; Francisco Alonso; Scott Graham; Juan Caraballo; Ken Stapleton;
Karrell Muller; Martha Gurierrez; Pallab Mozumder; Pradeep P Mansey; Ramon Trias; Naphtali Rishe;
Vojkan Dimitrijevic
Subject: Re: UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal status
Tom
Links from IBM below
Budget - Bill working for Thursday delivery
Timeline - need to get relevant people on a call Thursday. I suggest we do a high level milestone plan
including the following milestones that come to mind.
0. Project start
1. HDW/SFT acquisition - FIU / IBM
2. IT environment installed (development, test) - IBM
3. Data formats ready - FIU
4. Operations center ready - FIU
5. Data Integrated - IBM
6. Mobile application implemented - IBM
7. Garage design, built - FIU
8. Sensor acquisition - IBM / FIU
9. Garage application completed - IBM
10. Communication plan - FIU
11. Pilot - FIU
12. Design Complete - IBM / FIU
13. Implementation Complete - IBM
14. Testing Complete - IBM
15. Deployment Complete - IBM / FIU
16. Readiness Testing - All
17. Turn On Switch
...
...there may be more, these may be too many
...
Links from IBM:
Government Solutions
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/industries/government/
Intelligent Transportation
http://www01.ibm.com/common/ssi/apilite?infotype=PM&infosubt=SP&doctype=M0_SBR%20or%20M0_DST&lastd
ays=1825&ctvwcode=US&appname=SNDE_GW_GW_USEN_SB&additional=summary&contents=XGW_
GWX%20and%20keeponlit
Business Analytics and Optimization
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/business-analytics-optimization/?lnk=mhso
Smarter Architecture & Engineering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrqbzxEsUQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pss8C3kCJBA
IBM integrated, workload optimized, smarter computing appliances help improve service delivery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1AbiTuJHzA
Software services
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/sw-services/?lnk=mhse
Operational Decision Management
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/decision-management/operational-decision-management/websphereoperational-decision-management/
Smarter Cities
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_cities/overview/index.html
Five innovations that will change cities in the next five years
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/sustainable_cities/article/five_in_five.html
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
Peter C. Bahrs, PhD. / IBM Distinguished Engineer & CTO WebSphere Services / +1-720-395-4788 /
bahrs@us.ibm.com
From: Thomas Gustafson <tgustafs@fiu.edu>
To: Naphtali Rishe <rishen@cs.fiu.edu>, Ken Stapleton <kenstapleton.associates@gmail.com>, Scott Graham <grahams@cs.fiu.edu>,
Francisco Alonso <francisco.alonso@tylin.com>, Juan Caraballo/Boca Raton/IBM@IBMUS, Pradeep P Mansey/Boca Raton/IBM@IBMUS,
Peter Bahrs/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Bill Glendenning/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Pallab Mozumder <mozumder@fiu.edu>, Ramon Trias
<ramontrias@aol.com>, Martha Gurierrez <mgutie01@cs.fiu.edu>, Adam Drisin <drisina@fiu.edu>, Karrell Muller <kmuller@fiu.edu>,
Vojkan Dimitrijevic <vdimitri@fiu.edu>
Date: 10/26/2011 06:32 PM
Subject: UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal status
I agree with Ken as to attachmentsas discussed below.
We will use only the images as needed to tell our story within the text. Due to total 25 page limit,
such images will be reduced to about a quarter page or less sized image and caption and we can
use a link just below each image in the text to allow for a larger sized versions of all these
images to be viewed more closely.
Further, there will be other plans and maps from P+W and TYLIN that will be referenced but not
included as images in the text and they can be referenced on web site.
Karrell Muller needs in addition to the P+W Images he already has, those images from TYLIN
(Francisco to provide his the TYLIN link and confirm he has all drawings complete) and Ramon
Trias who has two newly completed concept drawings of the:
i) "Gazebos + Covered Walkway" improvement from the Small Bus Shuttle "Transit Stop"
immediately north of the NW corner entrance of Owa Ehan Building to the Green Library
"Refreshments and Outdoor Community Classroom Gazebo" at the location between the
southwest corner of the Owa Ehan Building and Green Library northeast corner; and,
ii) the ATMS improvements that include the AWAY Cafe next to the "Bus Terminal Area"
facilities and Bus Stop "Platform" plus Retail and Market uses on eastern side and within the
new pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use parking structure and plaza.
I will also pick or revise my best PowerPoint presentation to be placed at the I/UCRC-CAKE
website so it can be referenced in text as discussed below.
As the ITP text, IBM may want to give thought to any of their or other websites most related to
ITP that we could reference. If they can identify them to me hopefully sometime tomorrow or
Friday morning I can reference those links in text.
Finally, our cost budgets can be shown by the I/UCRC-CAKE web link method described below
to support the overall budget summaries that Scott Graham is developing and that by web link
we will need to be reference to US DOT in the proposal text.
I need TYLIN/Francisco to send his detailed budgets to Scott ASAP that now needs to also
include the last two ATMS and Gazebos+Covered Walkways drawings from Ramon (belong
sent next) and the costs to construct:
1) the ATMS interior improvements (a space that includes seating for 50 people, small retail
sales of refreshments, sandwiches, publications, general or school supplies, sundries, bathrooms
and storage in a 30 by 80 foot area plus 25 by 80 foot bus loading platform that is raised 3 feet or
so above garage floor height at say $9,000,000; and
2) theCovered Walkway to Green that measures the length of the area shown with gazebos at the
transit stop for 20 people or so and similar gazebos at NW entrance to EO building, at midpoint
southerly along the EO building and a larger Gazebo at the corners where EO Building and
Green Library almost touch for a space to accommodate refreshments and community classroom
for 50 people; covered walkway is at least 30 feet wide and is with Gazebos make at of wood or
similar materials).
IBM need to also send their detailed budgets to Scott and any and all detailed itemized other cost
estimates by Thursday with refinements allowed Friday AM.
In addition there needs to be $30,000 for four SoA post graduate students at $7500 each working
20 hours per week beginning with the Fall 2012 semester beginning August 2012 and ending
with the Spring semester that extends to April 2013. These post graduate students would provide
advice to the University as to design alternatives to be considered before or during plans
development. Scott can get any additional details from Adam Drisin who says the students are to
be selected after the TIGER award and could be hired as OPS or otherwise.
Scott needs this information so he can work the numbers into a comprehensive final budget that I
can reference in the text of the University Project TIGER Proposal submittal discussing the
schedule, costs, and budget expectations.
We want the budget to reference the basis for a detailed schedule with evidence of project
milestones, financial capacity, and commitment in order to show project readiness (this
information can be included in a Ken Jessell letter committing FIU to effort is TIGER award
granted).
The proposal text could then say with such background estimated budgets, milestones, and
schedule that we will obligate all federal funds by June 30, 2013 or sooner (and show how we
get NEPA approvals by March 30, 2011) after we get a start date and authority to spend funds
from US DOT which I assume is likely to occur by or before March 1, 2012 (assumes a TIGER
award announcement no later than February 2012).
I have asked Carlos Becerra and MWW to check this assumption as this is what I remember
discussing amongst ourselves with Marion Turner last week in Washington. Based on input
received, I believe we can keep this March 1, 2012 start day assumption if we are an important
project US DOT wants to ficus upon.
As to the construction phase, we will assume all buildings, structures, interior improvements,
bridges, streets, corridors, plazas, landscape, hardscape and other pedestrian-oriented and
multimodal components are in place and fully operational and constructed by 36 months or
sooner after authority to spend funds is granted (March 1, 2011) and I need Naphtali, IBM,
TYLIN (with review by Vojkan Dimitrijevic, Bill Foster and Bob Griffith) to construct a
reasonable timeline that makes general sense to them for ITP Version1 (effort led by IBM with
I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU personnel support) and improvement developed by I/UCRC-CALE and
FIU personnel (Versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc).
Per my discussion with Juan, FIU will seek ITP Version 2.0 funding once we know how far
patch improvements can take ITP Version 1.0 through the efforts of I/UCRC-CAKE and others
and once we have a better idea of what ITP Version 2.0 might need to do beyond the various
improved versions of ITP, what new functions it should preform, and how best to build a better
next general product/solution.
As to the obligation of construction funds, we will use the design-build bid process that requires
the hiring by Facilities Management of a Design Criteria Professional who puts together a
Design Criteria Package that is used in the Design-Bid procurement process (Design Criteria
Professional selected in three months or less and work completed in 6 months or less thereafter)
that begins within 9 months after the UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal award on or about
March 1, 2012. This might allows for the Design-Build vendor to be selected and to finalize
agreements, obligate of funds, and start construction in about 12 months post TIGER award
(March 2013). This schedule might be accelerated based the speed by which the Design Criteria
Professional can produce the Design-Bid Design Criteria Package without raising costs (maybe
while reducing costs).
In that alternative, FIU can also undertake to simultaneously bid out the construction plans
design work along and initiating a separate construction manager at risk procurement selection
process and separately select both entities to thereafter work together. In that case, FIU could
obligate TIGER funds within 5 months by signing agreements with both the construction plans
professionals and construction manager at risk five months post the TIGER award (August
2012). In this case, construction plans won't be likely finished and construction will not likely
start until about 11 more months post August 2012 (July 2013).
FIU will likely want to review with US DOT after the TIGER award which of these alternate
processes will actually be faster in obligating funds and in the constructing of the improvements
so as to met with US DOT favor and fulfill intended TIGER grant goals and desired outcomes.
As to the ITP, I plan to assume a ten to twelve month schedule to complete initial phase (Version
1.0) after authority to spend funds occurs March 1, 2012 (likely to be a month or so after actual
announcement of award in say February 2012 - hence the above expected March 1, 2012 date).
I assume Naphtali and I/UCRC-CAKE personnel and associated FIU personnel are working in
this ten to twelve month period to help launch ITP Version 1.0 by say last week in December
2012 (as a Holiday Season gift) or the slow month of February 2013. Costs paid to IBM is YO be
estimated at $10.5 million plus and allocation to develop a new smart garage at a cost of $1.5
million.
The IBM contract with FIU would say IBM with I/UCRC-CALE and FIU personnel would start
work March 1, 2012 (this agreement is negotiated and approved by FIU in the January to
February 2012 time period).
These I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU personnel also are using this time after March 1, 2012 to
conceive ITP Vision 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. improvements and will begin working out those issues
even as Version 1.0 is being developed and finalized for deployment by December 2012 or so.
The budget for I/UCRC-CAKe and other FIU personnel is allocated at $3 million and I/UCRCCAKE might assume responsibility for smart parking garage installation and have the $1.5
million amount assigned to them.
By this means, we can assure obligating all ITP related funds by June 30, 2013 and completion
of ITP Versions 1.0 and sequential improvements announced for up to Version 2.0 (Versions 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, etc). Once that work begins to conclude, FIU and IBM with I/UCRC-CAKE can decide
if a better and elegantly restructured Version 2.0 should be launched (assuming new funding
beyond that funding through a FY2011 TIGER Discretionary Grant award is identified for a ITP
Version 2.0).
In any event ITP Version 1.0 and sequent Version 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. will be completed due to the
above milestones and the following means:
1) I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU personnel on that basis of time devoted and their percentage of
salaries dedicated to this end start and complete their ITP Version 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc work as the
improvements leading to but not including a Version 2.0 improvements and they will also start
and complete those efforts to support IBM efforts to design, define, and deploy the Version 1.0
solution; assume a beginning date of March 1, 2012 and concluding date of June 30, 2013 for
these two distinct and somewhat overlapping work efforts by I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU
personnel, FIU will obligate at least $3 million in funds; and,
2) IBM finishes ITP Version 1.0 deployment on December 25, 2012 or so assuming the March 1,
2012 start date. With the signing of the agreement with IBM, FIU obligated the
$10.5 million for ITP Version 1.0. Negotiations between FIU and IBM should start with the
TIGER grant announcement in January 2012 and agreement need to be signed before March 1,
2012) and during that time it will de decided who does the smart parking garage work such that
those $1.5 million of ITP related funds are obligated by June 30, 2013; and,
3) after the last of the I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU lead ITP improvements are completed on June
30, 2013 (Version 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc), IBM per a contract to be negotiated with FIU starting in
about January 2013 and to be signed by or before May 30, 2013 (assuming a funding source is
found) will create and deploy with I/UCRC-CAKE an ITP Version 2.0 based on a better
understanding of needs defined by I/UCRC-CAKE and provided for in this ITP Version 2.0
contract between FIU and IBM.
This has the effect of obligating the $15 million of ITP budgeted funds by June 30, 2013 and
provides a strategy and schedule to seek more non-TIGER funds for Version 2.0.
I/UCRC-CAKE and FIU personnel must complete the ITP Version 1.0 based sequential
improvements (Versions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) by June 2013 (a date tied to the need to provide a
three month cushion before the NOFA absolutely drop dead deadline for funds to be obligated
and construction undertaken which is set by law as September 30, 2013; the estimated June
30,2013 planned obligation of all funds therefore gives you so room to fall a little behind
schedule and comfort to IS DOT that you will not not forfeit funds grant to you).
I will discuss tonight with Naphtali these matters and the need for a publicly available web link
on the I/UCRC-CAKE homepage and that will provide a link to specific completed documents
that will be referenced in the UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal. This I/UCRC-CAKE
website link reference (and a voice over additional reference?) should now mention the current
I/UCRC-CAKE Sustainable Communities Initiative related integrated multimodal transportation
planning and deployment efforts (including the advanced electronic wayfinding program
development, town planning, and master planning efforts) such that we can display the CCPGP
proposal and abstract plus the UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal and documents that we
specifically reference in the TIGER proposal with a I/UCRC-CAKE link directly to the
document referenced therein.
This request is separate from the more private UniversityCity TIGER Team only accessible site
that currently holds our background and work-in-progress documents.
The changes to the I/UCRC-CAKE home page should clarify that Sustainable Communities
Initiative related transportation, master planning, and town planning are within the interests and
work efforts of I/UCRC-CAKE and that the UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal and
associated documents provided therein are interrelated to the CCPGP submittal and Abstract and
should include including easy to access links to the bios of principally involved persons engaged
in TIGER and CCPGP activities (Naphtali, RAM, Ramon, me and others) and entities engaged
in these same TIGER and CCPGP activities (Sweetwater, IBM, TYLIN, MDX, FDOT, MDT,
IITS Laboratory or others).
Please confirm you have read and agree to do what I ask. Are we :) or :(
or somewhat in the middle?
This email and earlier ones (with whatever responses I get or got) guides my final drafting
efforts. 3rd draft ETA is 8:00 AM Thursday.
I need Karrell to provide me by email all pictures that we can cite in draft by 12 noon or sooner
and we will add pictures to text after the 2:30 PM meeting i had scheduled at Jose Abreu's
Miami-Dade Aviation Department office at MIA (on 5th or 6th floor above the Airport Terminal
Hotel lobby using elevator marked for those offices).
Everyone that can attend this important meeting should.
Let me know who is coming to this meeting as it is being attended by Steve Sauls, Ken Jessell,
Mayor Manuel Marono, Javier Rodriguez (MDX) as well as representatives from several MiamiDade County departments and offices (including MDT, MDAD, and others). It will be a briefing
of the FIU led UniversityCity Project TIGER Proposal and the related MDT SR-835 Express
Enhanced Bus Service TIGER Proposal.
Thanks.
Tom Gustafson
954 661-7848
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:17 AM, "Ken Stapleton" <kenstapleton.associates@gmail.com> wrote:
Tom,
Here's the most relevant section of the NOFA:
D. Length of Applications
The project narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length. Documentation supporting the
assertions made in the narrative portion may also be provided, but should be limited to relevant
information. If possible, Web site links to supporting documentation (including a more detailed
discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) should be provided rather than copies of these materials.
At the applicant’s discretion, relevant materials provided previously to a Cognizant Modal
Administration in support of a different DOT discretionary program (for example, New Starts or
TIFIA) may be referenced and described as unchanged. To the extent referenced, this
information need not be resubmitted for the TIGER Discretionary Grant application (although
provision of a Web site link would facilitate DOT’s consideration of the information). DOT
recommends use of appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., ‘‘Project Narrative,’’ ‘‘Maps,’’
‘‘Memoranda of Understanding and Letters of Support,’’ etc.) for all attachments. Cover pages
and tables of contents do not count towards the 25-page limit for the narrative portion of the
application, and the Federal wage rate certification and one-page update of the pre-application
form (if necessary) may also be outside of the 25-page narrative. Otherwise, the only substantive
portions of the application that should exceed the 25- page limit are any supporting documents
(including a more detailed discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) provided to support assertions
or conclusions made in the 25-page narrative section.
I think the highlighted section is most relevant since it suggests that "Maps" are attachments
separate from the Project Narrative, and since it includes "etc" to imply that other kinds of
supportive documents like renderings and plans can also be considered attachments. To be safe, I
think many of these documents should be provided as web site links as long as the narrative still
has a number of images that help it flow and strengthen key points. Finally, be aware that the
one-page pre-app update is in addition to the 25 page narrative.
This is slightly different than Debra's interpretation:
The NOFA does not explicitly address this regarding images, but based on what is said, I would say 'No". To be safest, we should keep any
images within the narrative and the 25 page limit. It also makes it easier for reviewers to read and refer to images if they are embedded in
the text and they do not need to flip through pages (or file) to get to them. Here's what the NOFA says:
The following items can be outside of the 25 page limit:



Cover pages and TOC
Federal Wage Certification
1 pg Pre-application update (if needed)
NOFA quote: "Otherwise, the only substantive portions of the application that should exceed the 25-page limit are any supporting documents
(including a more detailed discussion of the benefit-cost analysis) provided to support assertions or conclusions made in the 25-page
narrative section."
"Maps" are indicated as being an additional attachment, but I am pretty sure they are referring to GIS files (like the ones we generated for
the Pre-Application). Those, of course, can not be included in a text file.
Fundamentally, I do not agree with Debra about GIS files being the only "imagery/maps" that
can be submitted outside the narrative, but the more you include as web links the better. Let me
know if this seems clear enough for you.
Thanks,
Ken
-Ken Stapleton, President
<ksa_logo.png>
Ken Stapleton & Associates
9800 West Bay Harbor Dr., Suite 605
Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
216.849.6494
[attachment "ksa_logo.png" deleted by Peter Bahrs/Austin/IBM]