Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
12
for utility rearrangements. The design-builder bears the 2000; this halted work for nearly 3 weeks as measures
cost of rearranging utilities and is responsible for ob- were taken to handle this circumstance. No one was
taining necessary approvals and giving required ad- found at fault, so BART bore the $1 million delay cost.20
vance notice to any stakeholder agencies or utilities. Further, the excavation operations were slowed by
Additionally, regarding utility relocations, the design- tough site conditions; soils encountered were so rigid
builder must coordinate with the owner, contractors, and hard that sheet pilings were bent during installa-
subcontractors, utility companies, and property owners tion.21 The design-builder had to implement overtime
with regard to site access, as well as local governments. and weekend work to speed up the project. Substantial
The owner maintained the right to take possession of change orders were issued, but no formal claims were
portions of the work prior to total project acceptance. In filed by the contractor or BART officials.
the event the owner decides to take early possession of In 2002, however, San Francisco City Attorney Den-
portions of the work, the design-builder is relieved from nis Herrera filed a federal lawsuit against Tutor-Saliba
performing additional work and maintaining those por- and its partner contractors for their roles in the several
tions of the project. If injury or damages occur to those contracts of the total project. Herrera accused the con-
portions of the work as a result of public traffic or the tractors of "intentionally bidding less than they knew
elements, the owner bears responsibility. the new international terminal would cost so they could
The contract included an incentive/disincentive pro- bill the city later for the difference"; the suit also al-
gram for safety on the project. BART used the design- leged that Tutor-Saliba used minority-owned subcon-
builder's cumulative incident rate (IR) as computed tractors inappropriately.22 Tutor-Saliba filed a defama-
below: tion lawsuit against Herrera himself after he referred
to the suit against the company in a speech. This suit
IR = LTI x was dismissed by a state appeals court in early 2006.23
200,000 Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the com-
MH pany agreed to pay $19 million in a series of annual
LTI = Number of lost time inci- installments; company owner Ronald Tutor is person-
dents ally liable should the company miss a payment.
MH = Total hours worked by all In its first year, the extension did not meet its pro-
jobsite employees jected ridership of 50,000 riders per week. The ridership
**For the purposes of computing IR, each fatality averaged around 35,000 actual riders per week. At the
equals 5 LTI. onset of the project, BART and SamTrans made an
agreement whereby BART would extend service to San
The contract did not provide specific IR values for in- Mateo County if the county agreed to pay the costs for
centives and disincentives, nor did it specifically ad- operating the system within the county; the county
dress the magnitude of the compensation or penalty. agreed to these conditions as long as projected reve-
nues, based on estimated ridership for trains accessing
Project Performance the airport, materialized. Given the lower than ex-
The original cost for the entire extension as esti- pected ridership, BART officials wanted to increase ser-
mated for the Full Funding Agreement with the FTA vice in the area to improve ridership while the county
was $1.167 billion. The final cost for all of the work as- wanted to reduce service to save on operations costs.
sociated with the extension was $1.55 billion, about 33 Ultimately, San Mateo County paid BART $32 million
percent over budget. The project, which broke ground and agreed to pay an annual amount for BART to take
ceremonially in November 1997 and was originally over the operating costs for the rail system in the coun-
scheduled to open in late 2001, did not open until June ty.
2003, approximately 20 months behind schedule.
As the cost of the project exceeded the budget, the III. DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT GREEN LINE
FTA required the project to develop a financing plan in PROJECT
2000 to help control costs. As part of that plan, the pro-
ject scope changed from the purchase of 28 new rail cars
Project Overview
at a cost of $100 million to the updating and improve-
ment of existing maintenance facilities at a cost of $70 Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) Green Line Pro-
million. The improved maintenance and storage facili- ject is the largest portion of a systemwide expansion
ties would allow BART owners to properly maintain
and improve their existing rail car stock at a $30 mil- 20
M. Cabanatuan & M. Wilson, Delays Plague BART Ex-
lion savings to the extension project. tension to SFO, SFGate.com, Jan. 6, 2003, http://www.sfgate.
For the track and systems work contract, the origi- com/cgi/bin/article.
nal project scheduled an estimated 50 ft of track com- 21
Id.
pleted each day, while the actual average was around 22
C. Goodyear, Tutor-Saliba to Pay SF $19 Million, San
3540 ft per day. Delays were caused by several factors. Bruno B.A.R.T., Feb. 24, 2006, http://www.sanbrunobart.com/
An endangered species--the San Francisco garter news/2006/02/24/tutor-saliba-to-pay-sf-19-million.
snake--was discovered in the transit corridor in April 23
Id.
