Click for next page ( 14

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 13
13 that will double DART's rail network to more than 90 The selected contractor would be paid on a negoti- mi by 2013. The overall 28-mi, $1.8 billion Green Line ated basis for the task orders. Proposers, however, were project consists of two segments, the Southeast Corridor required to develop estimated prices for the anticipated and the Northwest Corridor. The first phase includes task orders provided in the solicitation and task orders all of the Southeast Corridor work and will extend ser- submitted in their proposals. These prices would be- vice southeast of downtown Dallas to Fair Park; it will come the basis for the task order negotiations. Propos- also include the first portion of the Northwest Corridor ers were also required to submit a not-to-exceed price segment, which provides service to Victory Station. This for preconstruction services. portion opened for service on September 14, 2009. The Anticipated construction services would include the remainder of the Northwest Corridor segment opened following: in December 2010. When complete, the Green Line will serve several regional destinations, including Deep El- Demolition. lum, Baylor University Medical Center, Victory Park, Civil improvements. the Dallas Market Center, the University of Texas Underground utilities. Southwestern Medical District, Love Field Airport, and Drainage. the cities of Farmers Branch and Carrollton. Retaining walls. This section focuses on the second phase Northwest Street improvements. Corridor segment from Inwood Station to the North Bridges (steel and concrete). Carrollton/Frankford Station, which consists of ap- Light Rail Transit (LRT) Stations. proximately 13.5 mi of light rail service and eight sta- Hardscaping/Landscaping. tions--five at grade and three aerial. The portions of Parking lots with lighting. the Northwest Corridor included in this procurement An underpass structure at Mockingbird Lane. are referred to as NW-2, NW-3, and NW-4 line sections. New freight track bed construction (freight track- The solicitation was issued with the intention of making work installed by Dallas, Garland, and Northeastern a single award for preconstruction services and as- Railroad). sumed that upon successful negotiation of a GMP and LRT Trackwork Installation (Trackwork is author- the execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement ity-furnished material). (FFGA) with the FTA, a contract modification for con- Highway grade crossings (both freight and LRT). struction services would be executed. The delivery ap- LRT systems elements including: proach adopted is characterized as a CMAR method. A Traction power (traction power substations joint venture of Archer Western Contractors and Her- are authority-furnished material). zog Contracting, Inc., was awarded the CMAR contract Overhead contact system. in 2005. Archer Western Contractors was also the lead Track switches. contractor in the joint venture that was awarded the Signals. first phase contract. Communications (fiber optic backbone cable for NW-2 and NW-3 is authority-furnished material). Procurement Supervisory control system components. Wayside cab signaling components. Scope of Work Fare collections components (ticket vending This contract included the NW-2, NW-3, and NW-4 machines furnished and installed by others). line sections. At the time of solicitation, the three line Radio equipment components (radio equip- sections were in design development under a separate ment furnished and installed by others). contract, and preliminary design drawings for each sec- Systems testing. tion were included in the solicitation. Support of authority integrated testing. Anticipated preconstruction services were defined Project turnover to the authority. according to a task-order schedule and included the Support of authority pre-revenue operator certifica- following: tion (pre-revenue service). Support of project startup. Construction planning. Contract close-out. Construction contract document support. Specification support. Preliminary unit price schedules were developed for Geotechnical investigations. each of the line sections and included in the solicitation. Utility identification and conflicts. The proposers were required to submit unit prices for Project safety and quality control. the identified items and estimated quantities of work in Plan reviews for NW-2, NW-3, and NW-4. their proposals. In addition, they were required to sub- DART and Agency Review Submittal. mit a construction services not-to-exceed fixed price, Prefinal Design Submittal. exclusive of preconstruction services. The proposer's Final Design Submittal. unit prices and not-to-exceed fixed price would serve as Contract Documents. "a basis to negotiate the GMP once the specifications,

OCR for page 13
14 drawings, and proposer's cost estimates are validated in the construction. DART issued the RFP in October 2005 the Pre-Construction phase." and required responses by December 2005. Process Overview Selection and Award Criteria In general, the evaluation methodology assessed four Evaluation criteria listed in Table 1 were part of the factors: 1) conformance of a proposal with stated re- overall evaluation methodology employed to select the quirements, 2) assessment of the evaluation criteria CMAR. and the proposal risk assessment, 3) past performance, and 4) price. Factors 2 and 3 were of equal importance Table 1. DART Green Line Evaluation Criteria and Factors 2 and 3 combined were approximately equal to price. The CMAR was selected early in the pro- Item Points ject to provide the Authority and the design team with Project Approach 300 expertise and experience that would assist in decision- making, constructability reviews, cost estimates, cost Project Personnel 200 control, and schedule control. The Authority was seek- Team Composi- 200 ing assistance in ensuring that the project design al- tion/Subcontracting Opportuni- lowed for economical and efficient methods of construc- ties tion with minimal disruption to the community, the Firm/Team Experience 200 Authority's ongoing operations, and operations of the Oral Presentations (If Re- 100 affected freight railroads. The Authority intended to quired) select a CMAR who would best provide the services Proposal Risk Assessment 100 needed to achieve these goals. The selected CMAR would be a member of a team Total 1,100 composed of representatives from the Authority, the design consultants, and DART's member municipalities. Table 2 briefly describes the subcriteria and the The Authority intended that the CMAR provide precon- points considered for the criteria project approach struction services and serve as general contractor for through firm/team experience.

OCR for page 13
15 Table 2. DART Green Line Evaluation Subcriteria Criteria Subcriteria Description Project Approach Budget (075 points) Explanation of approach to keep project within budget Completion (075 points) Explanation of management to construc- tion on time Quality (075 points) Explanation of quality control program Community Relations (075 Description of steps to minimize impact of points) project upon public and property Project Personnel Proposed Team (0150 points) Project organization chart depicted pro- posed key staff Resumes (050 points) Provide resumes for all personnel shown in the organization chart Team Composition/ Subcontractors (085 points) Explanation of proposed subcontractor ti- Subcontracting ers to include the utilization of small busi- ness concerns that are independently owned and operated Dispute Resolution (045 Explanation of procedures for handling is- points) sues and resolving disputes with subcontrac- tors Experience (035 points) Description of success and/or failure on similar projects regarding disadvan- taged/minority/women-owned business en- terprises participation goals Small Business Outreach (035 Description of existing mentoring and in- points) ternship programs for small businesses Firm/Team Experience Similar Project Experience (0 List firm/team's experience over last 10 75 points) years with projects of similar scope and value Record of Safety (075 points) Description of firm safety record; proposed incident-free management of public safety risks; firm's safety record and experience with in-street construction; and proposed worker safety plan for working on or adja- cent to active railroads Local Experience (050 points) Description of work experience in the DART service area The Proposal Risk Assessment involved rating each proposal in either a high, moderate, or low risk category, as illus- trated in Table 3. Table 3. DART Green Line Proposal Risk Assessment Risk Rating Definition High (049 points) Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degra- dation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Authority monitoring. Moderate (5074 points) Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost, or deg- radation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Authority monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Low (75100 points) Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or deg- radation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Authority moni- toring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.