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 9
9 party (Virginia's PPTA is a good example of this). Other II. BART EXTENSION TO SAN FRANCISCO states have been challenged by statutes that require INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 100 percent bonding for any contract involving con- struction of a public project. This proved to be a major challenge for Missouri DOT in implementing its Safe Project Overview and Sound bridge rehabilitation program. This was The San Francisco Airport Extension project in- originally conceived as a design-build-finance arrange- volved an 8.7-mi, four-station extension of the existing ment, with an expected cost of $800 million. When it Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system from the Colma was determined that Missouri statutes required a 100 Station to Millbrae, with an aerial station at the percent bond on the entire contract value (including the planned International Terminal at the San Francisco financing component), Missouri DOT was required to International Airport (SFIA). BART developed this pro- obtain legislative amendments to the statute, as the ject in conjunction with the San Mateo County Transit industry was not able, or was unwilling, to meet this District (SamTrans). Before the system's opening in requirement. June 2003, airport users had to drive to the airport. Another important legislative issue is whether the SamTrans projected that the extension would carry an PPP statute should allow unsolicited proposals to the estimated 68,500 passengers per weekday overall in the agency, or whether all projects must be formulated by year 2010, including 20,000 to and from the airport. the agency and solicited. Delaware, Texas, Virginia, The extension was expected to reduce the number of and Oregon are among the states that allow unsolicited work-related auto trips by about 35,000 vehicles per proposals to be made by the private sector for whatever day by the year 2010, while BART ridership in San ideas the private sector feels are justified. However, Mateo County would jump 41 percent, to 123,000 pas- most states that have PPP legislation do not allow un- sengers per day from 87,000. Additionally, the light rail solicited proposals. This area is currently being looked access to the airport was expected to greatly reduce the at carefully by some state legislatures, as they evaluate 70,000 vehicles per day on the Highway 101 access road whether the benefits of getting novel ideas are worth to the airport. more than formulating their own specific needs and BART developed the contract documents and award- developing a competitive proposal process. Many of the- ed a general engineering consultant (GEC) contract to se legislatures are also evaluating the entire premise of Bay Area Transit Consultants, a Bechtel-led joint ven- PPPs--particularly whether there is a loss of state con- ture that included Parsons Brinckerhoff; Quade & trol because of their long duration and whether they are Douglas; John Warren & Associates; and Don Todd As- creating what is an essentially unregulated monopoly to sociates, Inc. The overall project used a multicontract outsource the responsibility for raising tolls to the pri- DB delivery process. The biggest DB contract was for vate sector. the line, track, and systems portion of the SFIA exten- Regardless of how the project is delivered, there is sion. This contract is the subject of this section. The one other major issue to consider on PPP projects--the other DB contracts included 1) above-grade stations and marketplace's view of risk. Contractual terms and con- below-grade platforms and finishes; 2) parking and sta- ditions in many of the PPP projects demonstrate a re- tion site work; and 3) elevators, escalators, alarm, and luctance, or unwillingness, to assume unlimited liability detection systems. for performance. As a result, the contracts have a look BART secured funding for the total project through and feel very similar to those one might expect from the several resources. The original budget for all of the private sector--particularly relative to limitations of work associated with the project was $1.167 billion, of liability, limitations on latent defect and warranty cov- which $750 million came from a Federal Transit Ad- erage, and caps on liquidated damages. ministration (FTA) grant as part of its New Starts Pro- gram (49 U.S.C. 5309), which provided funding for new Summary fixed guideway systems and extensions of existing The evolving regulatory and statutory environment guideway systems. This project was also part of the of alternative delivery systems in the public sector FTA Turnkey Demonstration Program, which was a mandates that practitioners maintain an understand- pilot program to assess if the DB approach would re- ing of what is happening in the states where they prac- duce implementation time and cost. The remainder of tice. While DB and CMAR delivery approaches are rec- the project funding came from the following resources: ognized at the federal level and in most states, the span SFIA ($200 million); the State of California ($108 mil- of use and experience of the approaches varies widely lion); SamTrans ($99 million); and West Bay bridge among states. PPP approaches are a work in progress, funds ($10 million). and best procurement practices continue to develop. Procurement Scope of Work The scope of the subject contract was only for the de- sign and construction of the line, trackwork, and sys- tems for the BART extension into SFIA. The specific