Exposition Metro Line Construction
Authority
Mid-City Exposition
Light Rail Transit
Project
Closed Session
Presentation
March 2, 2006
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
TECHNICAL FACTORS
and(70%)
Weights
 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
• 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
Subcommittee Agencies
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 (continued)
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
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
Best Value Scores then were calculated per the RFP
formula
• Technical (non-price score) worth 70%
• Price worth 30%
Scoring Summary Sheets
for Each Technical
Subcommittee
Subcommittee 1
Management and Organization Structure;
Qualifications and Experience (20 points)
Scores
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Member
4
Overall
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
Subcommittee 2
Construction Plan, Project Management Plan,
and Overall Approach to the Work (20 points)
Scores
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Overall
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
Subcommittee 3
Construction Plan (20 points)
Scores
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Member
4
Overall
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
Subcommittee 4
Construction Safety Proposal
and Record Plan (20 points)
Scores
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Overall
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
Subcommittee 5
Quality of the Community, Public and
Business Mitigation Commitments (20 points)
Scores
Member
1
Member
2
Member
3
Member
4
Overall
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
Technical Evaluation Total
Score
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
SubSubSubSubcommittee committee committee committee
1
2
3
4
FCI/Fluor/Parsons
Kiewit/Stacey and
Witbeck JV
Mid-City
Constructors JV
(Granite/Brutoco)
Subcommittee
5
Total
Technical
Score (Sum of
1 thru 5)
Normalized
Technical
Score
17.10
13.30
16.00
17.78
12.00
76.18
95.0
19.14
13.60
14.25
17.93
15.00
79.92
100.0
17.48
12.50
14.75
17.22
18.00
79.95
100.0
Price Score Calculation
(1)
(2)
(3)
Professional Construction
Design Fee Services Fee
Fee
FCI/Fluor/Parsons
Kiewit/Stacey and
Witbeck JV
Mid-City
Constructors JV
(Granite/Brutoco)
(4)
Insurance
Costs
Total Price
(Sum of 1
thru 4)
Normalized
Price Score
5,550,000
12,187,000
27,450,000
7,320,000
52,507,000
100.0
11,161,827
56,876,843
15,094,179
5,874,699
89,007,548
30.5
14,736,940
15,629,716
41,300,000
14,393,703
86,060,359
36.1
Best Value Total Score
Scores
1
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
(x 0.7 to equal 70% of total score)
2 (x 0.3 to equal 30% of total score)
1