hsr. idot - multi-state procurement protest - feb 2014 original
Post on 04-Jun-2018
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
1/19
February 3, 2014
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL
Mr. Bill Grunloh Ms. Gretchen Tucka
Chief Procurement Officer State Purchasing Officer
Illinois Department of Transportation Illinois Department of Transportation
200 Hanley Building 200 Hanley Building
2300 South Dirksen Parkway 2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62764 Springfield, IL 62764
Re:Protest Concerning Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT
Dear Mr. Grunloh and Ms. Tucka:
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. (EMD) submits this protest dated February 3, 2014, to the procurement
known as Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT (the Procurement). EMD makes this
protest pursuant to the terms of Illinois General Assembly (ILGA) Title 44, Section 6.420 (Filing of a
Protest). The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in conjunction with the California
Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and the Washington Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), issued the Procurement. IDOT, CALTRANS and WSDOT formed the joint purchasing entities
(each a JPE and jointly, the JPEs) for the Procurement.
On December 18, 2013, the Chief Procurement Offices (CPO) Determination on Award
Recommendation was issued by IDOT to the JPEs and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
recommending an award to Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens). Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.4301,
any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.
Significantly, the proposed award to Siemens does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement
that [a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the
most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the
request for proposals. 30 ILCS 500/20-15(g) [emphasis added]. In short, Siemens is not a responsible
offeror and its offer is not responsive with respect to the Procurement.
EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be
deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpayingpublic and the JPEs.
1ILGA Title 44, Section 6.430 states, in relevant part, [w]hen a protest has been timely filed and before an awardhas been made, the SPO will make no award of the contract until the protest has been resolved, unless the award of
the contract without delay is necessary to protect the interests of the State.
Electro-Motive Diesel 9301 W. 55thStreet LaGrange, IL 60525 USA +1.708.387.5488 www.emdiesels.com
Electro-Motive Diesel is owned by Progress Rail Services, A Caterpillar Company
#3455731
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
2/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 2 of 19
Timely Filing (Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a)2):
ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420 requires that a protester files a protest with the CPO within seven calendardays after it knows or should have known facts giving rise to the protest. On January 29, 2014, EMD
received information requested from IDOT under FOIA relative to the Siemens proposal. This was the
first day EMD knew or should have known facts relative to the locomotive product offered by Siemens
under the Procurement, giving rise to this protest. As required by Section 6.420(a), this protest is being
filed within seven days of that date, and is being lodged with the CPO.
Requirements For Protest (Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)):
(1) Name and Address of Protester: Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.Attn: Gary Eelman
Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales9301 W. 55thStreet
LaGrange, IL 60525
Phone: (708) 387-5488
Fax: (708) 387-6660
(2) Protested Procurement: Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT(3) EMD is an Interested Party: EMD participated as a qualified offeror in the Procurement.
EMDs qualified offer was submitted timely on November 27,
2013 pursuant to the requirements of the Procurement.
(4) Detailed Statement:ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)(4) requires a protester to provide factual and legal grounds for its
protest. EMD provides these grounds below. Factually, the Siemens locomotive is incapable of
achieving and sustaining 125 MPH as required by the Procurement, but was artificially made to
appear as though it has this capability. As John Adams once said, [f]acts are stubborn things;
and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence. It is not in the best interest of the JPEs to accept a
proposal that does not meet the 125 MPH speed specification. Also, legally, the unfair advantage
afforded to Siemens undermined the integrity of the procurement process, placing EMD at a
severe disadvantage when IDOT failed to comply with its own procurement process. IDOTs
determination on the sufficiency of proposed award cannot be final and conclusive when such anaward is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
2 ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a) states, in relevant part, [a]ll protests shall be in writing and filed with the CPO
within 7 calendar days after the protester knows or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest.
Protests filed after the 7 calendar day period will not be considered.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
3/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 3 of 19
a. Factual Grounds for the Protest1. The Procurement Requires Locomotives Offered to Achieve and Sustain 125 MPH
The Procurement specifications require that the locomotive offered by each offeror be able to
operate at a sustained speed of 125 MPH under loaded conditions as specified. This is a material
requirement listed as a pass/fail criterion in the Procurement and subsequent addenda issued
by IDOT (see Section B.103and Addendum 74of the Procurement). Based on the requirements of
Section B.10, proposals receiving a fail will not be evaluated further.
Furthermore, a foundational component of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
(PRIIA); the Next Generation Equipment Committee (NGEC) and the specifications therefrom;
and the FRA, has remained that moving the nation toward higher speed rail would require cars
and locomotives purchased under PRIIA to be capable of sustained speeds of 125 MPH. The
specifications for both cars and locomotives issued by the NGEC under PRIIA, in addition to those
used in the Procurement, identify this criterion in multiple areas (see, for example, PRIIA
Specifications Section 1.35; PRIIA Specifications Section 1.4.6.36; PRIIA Specifications Section 9.2
7;
Addendum 7 of the Procurement8).
3 Section B.10 of the Procurement states, in relevant part, [f]ailure to satisfy the requirements of any of these
Pass/Fail categories in the Technical Proposal in Packet 1 will cause an Offer to be rejected and no further
evaluation will take place. Those Offers that pass all Pass/Fail categories will have the remainder of their Technical
Proposal evaluated and scored.
4Addendum 7 states, in relevant part, [i]n addition to the items listed in these RFP sections, the following items
will be evaluated as pass/fail items: Confirmation of compliance with 125 MPH capabilities under loadsas defined in
Technical Specification 9.2 under the 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs. of trailing load scenario to be submitted with
Service and Performance Simulations in Attachment EE, Appendix G (see Technical Specification 1.4.6.3).
5 PRIIA Specification Section 1.3, which addresses Basic Features and Characteristics, states, [t]raction power
sufficient for eight multi-level car train (2 locomotives) 125 mph; Head End Power (HEP) 3 phase 480V 600kW
minimum.
6 PRIIA Specification Section 1.4.6.3, which addresses Speed, states, [t]he locomotive shall be designed,
constructed and tested to operate at a sustained speed of up to 125 mph on tracks approved by FRA for that speed.
Design and test speed shall be prescribed by regulation.
7PRIIA Specification Section 9.2, which addresses Service and Performance Requirements, states, [t]he offer must
include sufficient detail of the methods and values used in the simulation calculations shall be provided to enable
accurate assessment of the data provided by the proposal offer. Key to the simulations is evidence that the
locomotive being offered is capable of achieving 125 MPH, consistent with the specification. IDOT may audit the
Offerors proposal simulations.
8Please see footnote 4.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
4/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 4 of 19
2. The Siemens Locomotive Cannot Achieve and Sustain 125 MPHa. The Siemens Locomotive Does Not Have Sufficient Horsepower
Siemens has offered a locomotive that cannot achieve and sustain 125 MPH, making its proposal
non-compliant with the Procurement specifications. In its proposal, the Siemens locomotive is
shown to be only 4200 BHP-rated. It is not possible for a locomotive to achieve, let alone sustain,
125 MPH with merely 4200 BHP in the train configurations specified in the Procurement, despite
the BOOST feature provided in Siemenss design. The BOOST feature appears to elevate the
locomotives BHP to 4400 for a controlled period time9, which allows its locomotive to achieve
a higher acceleration or top speed10. In the context of higher acceleration or top speed, the
top speed on the Siemens locomotive would be something less than 125 MPH because it lacks
sufficient horsepower.
Determining the ability of a locomotive to achieve and sustain 125 MPH is done empirically
through a relatively straightforward and objective calculation. In this case, such calculation
concludes that a minimum of 4530.5 BHP would be required under the specified load conditions
and rolling resistance formula (Davis) in a best case scenario (assuming, for instance, level
tangent track and system efficiencies). These calculations are described in detail in the attached
Exhibit A.
Because the EMD locomotive offered is 4700 BHP, it provides sufficient power to achieve 125
MPH and it can maintain this speed through minor curves and grades. The Siemens locomotive
cannot achieve this speed even on level tangent track. Though the Procurement documents do
not specify a minimum horsepower requirement, speed and horsepower are directly relatedunder the laws of physics, and speed is absolutely derived from horsepower.
IDOTs technical evaluation team would have concluded the Siemens locomotive to be
underpowered if this calculation were made. To be fair, the Siemens locomotive canachieve125
MPH, but only while operating downhill. To contemplate such operational limits in real-life
service would be unrealistic, not likely acceptable to the public, and could not have possibly been
IDOTs intent. In fact, Appendix G of Attachment EE11of the Procurement documents specifies
selected corridors, none of which has terrain that permits a constant downhill operation.
9
Please see Section 1.1.3 (Service and Performance Requirements) of the Siemens proposal, Section 1(Precondition).
10Id.
11Appendix G of Attachment EE states, in relevant part, [a] selected Illinois (Chicago to St. Louis) corridor has seven
intermediate station stops over 284 miles; A selected California corridor from Sacramento to Bakersfield has ten
intermediate station stops over 315 miles; A selected Washington State corridor from Seattle, WA to Eugene, OR
route has nine intermediate station stops over 310 miles.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
5/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 5 of 19
b. Siemens Failed to Comply with the Specified Formula for Rolling ResistanceSiemens changed the Procurements strictly specified rolling resistance formula and used
variations of the Sauthoff formula instead of the required Davis formula. It is industry-wide
knowledge that the application of the Sauthoff formula yields more favorable results as opposed
to using the Davis formula. This action, which might be Siemenss most egregious departure
from the PRIIA and IDOT requirements, may be a disingenuous act to show compliance with
required performance and suggests a blatant disregard for the Procurements specifications.
In Figure 1 below taken from Siemenss proposal, Siemens submits to IDOT its modifications to
the Procurement-required formula12. The middle column shows the required factors for
calculating rolling resistance, while the right column shows non-compliant factors as revised by
Siemens. Despite Siemenss brazen dictation of revised factors, IDOT appeared to have
surrendered its own directives to yield to Siemenss capricious and arbitrary submittals. No other
offeror was permitted to develop its own factors in a similar manner as Siemens did. Siemens
simply disregarded the specification without any apparent consideration of the integrity of the
procurement process.
Figure 1
Siemenss fear of not achieving performance requirements was well justified as it cannot do so
without manipulating data. Its concern extended to even considering lower air density at the
TTCI test track in Pueblo, Colorado (see Section 2.3.2 of the Siemens proposal). Locomotive
operators should not have to rely on lower air density in addition to downhill grades to achieve
125 MPH.
12The PRIIA Specification under Section 9.2 requires the following factors in train resistance calculations based on
the Davis equation:
Coefficient A = 1.3
Coefficient B = 29
Coefficient C = 0.03
Coefficient D = 0.0024
Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012
Should be 0.03
Should be 0.0024
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
6/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 6 of 19
Figure 2 below shows the results of the various rolling resistance curves used by Siemensdepending on what they were trying to prove (acceleration and the two used for TTCI). As
depicted, this curious way of approaching its lack of locomotive horsepower results in a favorable
outcome for Siemens. An offeror using its own version of a rolling resistance formula (as Siemens
did) would be able to create nearly any desired outcomes of any given simulation and thus alter
what would otherwise be a level analysis between products of multiple offerors. The lower lines
represent the reduction in rolling resistance used by Siemens and inappropriately accepted by
IDOT. The top line (blue) represents the Procurements specification for rolling resistance that
EMD used in all of its performance charts. In using its own rolling resistance, Siemens lessened
this resistance by some 3,840 lbs and therefore requiring less THP by nearly 1,340 when using the
parameters specified and required to be used by the Procurement documents. For whatever
reasons, IDOT may have overlooked Siemenss creative but non-compliant approach.
Figure 2
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
7/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 7 of 19
c. Siemens Used Flawed and Incorrect Assumptions in Acceleration PerformanceSimulation
Here again, Siemens displays its non-compliance and creates its own operating conditions and
rolling resistance formula for the acceleration simulation. Despite the performance simulation
requirements described in the PRIIA Specifications under Section 9.213
, Siemens patently
disregards this requirement and ran the simulation using the Sauthoff formula with no HEP load
(see Section 2.2 of the Siemens proposal, as shown in Figure 3 below). This is not a valid
simulation in either respect and again demonstrates Siemenss attempt to circumvent the
Procurement requirements in two material respects: HEP load and rolling resistance.
Figure 3
In its attempt to appear compliant, Siemens proceeds to state that the Davis formula is
usedfor the simulations at TTCI. This is beyond misleading and could be construed as trickery.
Siemens knew well that on each completed loop of the TTCI test track, its locomotive will achieve
125 MPH at least once while traveling downhill even using the more restrictive Davis formula.
Thus, a statement saying that the Davis equation was used per the specification in the TTCI
simulations at once gives the appearance of complying with the specifications while not being
compliant at all. Siemens used the Davis formula where its underpowered locomotive would not
be seen as such (reaching the top speed once going downhill) but changed the formula to
accommodate itself where weaknesses in its locomotives performance would be obvious, as in
the acceleration performance using the Davis formula. It is evident that Siemens provided
duplicitous information in an attempt to conceal the substandard performance of the locomotive
it proposed. This appears to be another issue that IDOT may have overlooked.
13The PRIIA Specification Section 9.2 requires the following factors for acceleration performance simulations:
Coefficient A = 1.3
Coefficient B = 29
Coefficient C = 0.03
Coefficient D = 0.0024
Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012
600 kW HEP load for the trainset (later changed to 45kW per car)
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
8/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 8 of 19
The fact is that if Siemens had followed the proper formula and included HEP as required by the
Procurement specifications, its locomotive could neither achieve nor sustain 125 MPH as clearly
shown in Figure 4 below. Determining whether a locomotive can sustain 125 MPH is nothing
more than a simple mathematical equation.
Figure 4
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
9/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 9 of 19
If a more realistic set of assumptions were applied to the Siemens locomotive, the graph in Figure
5 shows an even more inferior and underpowered performance by its locomotive (at a HEP load
of 600kW). A boost of an additional 200 BHP for a controlled period of time would have
virtually no effect on the data displayed in Figure 4 or 5.
Figure 5
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
10/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 10 of 19
3. Sufficient Horsepower Is Necessary to Maintain a Constant Speed of 125 MPHIn requiring a higher constant speed, nothing can substitute for horsepower. Criteria for train
rolling resistance were clearly specified in the PRIIA Specification under Section 9.214, affording
no latitude for alternative assumptions in any calculations. Thus, the results would have been
consistent for any offeror. Comparing the horsepower offered with the performance required of
the locomotive would have yielded clear results, as can be seen in Figure 4.
The results in Figure 4 show that the highest speed that the Siemens locomotive can achieve and
sustain is 121 MPH under ideal conditions assuming no grades or curves. The BOOST mode
offered by Siemens cannot even be considered because it permits a higher BHP for a controlled
period of time and merely for the purpose of achieving a higher acceleration or top speed, but
not both, as described by Siemens itself in its proposal. But even if that feature can operate
continuously for an extended period of time, the Siemens locomotive still cannot sustain 125MPH as required by the Procurement specifications because the requisite horsepower simply is
not available. Indeed, the sustainable speed is likely to be several miles per hour lower than 121
MPH in real world conditions. Even at an achievable (but not sustainable) speed of 121 MPH, the
Siemens locomotive still fails to achieve the strict specification that IDOT stressed as being a
material component of the specification and mandatory in this Procurement.
4. The Track Profile Provided by IDOT Is Inconsistent with JPE RoutesPresumably due to the number of routes and urgency of this Procurement, IDOT was not able to
provide track profiles for any JPE-specified routes as was directed by PRIIA Specifications under
Section 9.215
. Instead, the Procurement directed offerors to use the track profiles of the TTCI test
track in Pueblo, Colorado, with the stated intention of simulating multiple selected rail corridors,
such as Illinoiss Chicago to St. Louis corridor, Californias Sacramento to Bakersfield corridor and
Washingtons Seattle to Eugene route.
This substituted and fabricated route has little to do with actual JPE routes and attendant track
profiles. As a result, sustained speeds of 125 MPH cannot be demonstrated by simulation on the
TTCI track profile; this can be determined only through calculation. This simulation is limited to
demonstrating the achievement (and not sustainability) of 125 MPH. Indeed, in its proposal,
Siemens refers to its locomotives ability to achieve a maximum speed of 125 mph on the test
track at the TTCI in Pueblo, Colorado16, but makes no reference to its ability to sustain that
speed. Thus, the simulation provided by Siemens in its proposal merely demonstrated itsproposed locomotives ability to achieve 125 MPH, and in its limited capacity, only while
14Please see footnote 12.
15Please see footnote 7.
16 Please see Section 1.1.3 (Service and Performance Requirements) of the Siemens proposal, Section 1
(Precondition).
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
11/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 11 of 19
operating downhill. Siemens must have known about this unacceptable result, which could be
why it used a non-compliant formula to calculate a favorable outcome for itself.
5. IDOT Erred in Ignoring the Locomotive Horsepower Needed for Speed RequirementsAs the agency providing oversight of the Procurement, it was IDOTs responsibility to ensure that
those reviewing the performance section of the proposals would calculate (logically early on in
the process) whether a proposed locomotive could reach, let alone sustain, 125 MPH based
simply on the horsepower offered. This would have served to distinguish pass from fail
proposals immediately through a straightforward mathematical calculation.
However, it is not clear whether these calculations were made. If they were made, IDOT would
have concluded that the Siemens locomotive could not possibly reach and sustain 125 MPH given
its horsepower; indeed, if the calculations were made, the results appeared to have been
ignored. Failing to examine the horsepower aspect as it relates to the ability of the locomotive to
meet IDOTs requirements has led to the selection of a factually non-compliant locomotive.
Siemenss proposed locomotive simply does not comply with the achievable or sustainable speed
requirement of the specification which is both paramount for real world performance and
compulsory for award of the contract according to IDOTs own requirements.
6. The Form of the Siemens Proposal Failed to Comply with Procurement RequirementsContinuing its pattern of non-compliance and disregard for the integrity of the procurement
process, Siemens exceeded the page limit allocated for the Vehicle Major Systems portion(Section A.21.5.1) of Packet 1. According to Q&A #252 of Addendum 11 of the Procurement,
offerors were limited to 160 pages; Siemens submitted 175 pages.
Based on the Procurement process identified in Addendum 817, any pages an offeror submits in
excess of the page limit will not be evaluated by IDOT. This means that relative to the Siemens
proposal, the last 15 pages of the Vehicle Major Systems portion should not have been
evaluated. These pages covered Chapter 17 (Fuel System) and Chapter 24 (Safety Accessories) in
the Siemens proposal.
Although these pages should not have been evaluated as stipulated in the Procurement
documents, IDOT appeared to have contravened this requirement, reviewing and scoring thepages in the Siemens proposal that were beyond the page limit. The Responsive Score
Calculations generated by IDOT provides a score for at least one of these sections beyond the
page limit, as shown in Figure 6 below [emphasis added by highlighting portions].
17The Page Limits section of Addendum 8, page 6, states, [a]lso, please note that if a Final Offer contains pages in
excess to the page limits shown above for any section, the excess pages will be removed from the Final Offer
(including all copies) and any information presented on the excess pages will not be evaluated.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
12/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 12 of 19
Responsiveness Points Sub Criteria Points
Category Available EMD Siemens MPI Available EMD Siemens MPI
Buy America 8 5.000 8.000 8.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Standardization 8 8.000 8.000 6.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
General Arrangement Drawings 2 1.600 2.000 1.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Performance/Route Simulations 5 4.830 4.960 4.750 N/A N/A N/A N/A
TS Chapter 4 - Locomotive Carbody 4 3.267 3.600 3.467 60 49 54 52
TS Chapter 5 - Running Gear (Trucks) 7 5.425 6.125 5.425 40 31 35 31
TS Chapter 6 - Couplers and Draft Gear 1 0.800 0.800 0.800 20 16 16 16
TS Chapter 7 - Braking System 2 1.667 1.667 1.600 30 25 25 24
TS Chapter 8 - Engineer's Cab 2 1.543 1.771 1.657 35 27 31 29
TS Chapter 9 - Locomotive Propulsion 8 6.311 6.578 7.200 90 71 74 81
TS Chapter 10 - AC Power Dist, etc. 2 1.633 1.600 1.633 60 49 48 49
TS Chapter 11 - Lighting 1 0.800 0.850 0.800 20 16 17 16
TS Chapter 12 - Loco to Train Comm 1 0.750 0.750 0.800 20 15 15 16
TS Chapter 13 - Head End Power (HEP) 4 3.086 3.429 3.200 35 27 30 28
TS Chapter 14 - Battery System 0.5 0.417 0.417 0.400 30 25 25 24
TS Chapter 15 - Sanding System 0.5 0.417 0.433 0.350 30 25 26 21
TS Chapter 16 - Engineer's Cab Controls 2 1.650 1.750 1.650 40 33 35 33
TS Chapter 17 - Fuel System 1 0.800 0.800 0.800 40 32 32 32
Previous Similar Experience 2 2.000 2.000 2.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Program Management 5 5.000 5.000 4.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Schedule and Narrative 4 3.000 4.000 2.250 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total Score 70 57.995 64.529 58.382
Percent of Total Responsiveness Points 82.85% 92.18% 83.40%
Figure 6
For Fuel System, an offeror can receive a maximum of 1 point. Because Siemenss information
should not have been evaluated, Siemens should have received zero points. However, as shown
in Figure 6 above, Siemens was clearly evaluated, as it received 0.8 point for this section.
Similarly, Safety Accessories should not have been evaluated, and it is not clear whether IDOT
reviewed this section since no responsive points were assigned to this chapter. IDOTs evaluation
of Fuel System, which was provided on pages beyond the page limit imposed by IDOT, is adeparture from the requirements of the Procurement.
7. The Underpowered Siemens Locomotive Gives Siemens a Pricing AdvantageProviding an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to
significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
13/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 13 of 19
locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of
cylinders required.
In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the
locomotive offered by EMD. Fewer cylinders means lower lifecycle costs. It also means the
engine support systems (such as the emissions after-treatment and cooling systems) and the
alternator and propulsion system components can be smaller. Smaller components are less
costly to manufacture and lighter in weight, and consequently, the total cost of ownership are
drastically reduced for the locomotive.
As a result, Siemens is able to offer a locomotive which weighs at least 11,000 pounds less than
EMD's locomotive. But it can only do so because the engine and support components are not
sized to meet the material requirements of the Procurement - to achieve and sustain 125 MPH.
b. Legal Grounds for the Protest1. The Integrity of the Procurement Process Was Undermined When Siemens Received an
Unfair Advantage over Other Offerors
IDOTs acceptance of Siemenss non-compliant and arguably misleading proposal provided a
distinct and unfair advantage to one offeror over other offerors, undermining the integrity of the
procurement process as prohibited by ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)(4). The Procurements
specifications strictly required that locomotives proposed by offerors must achieve and sustain
125 MPH, and as described above, the Siemens locomotive is incapable of complying with thisspecification. Accepting the Siemens locomotive when IDOT knew or should have known about
the locomotives lack of capabilities frustrated the very essence of the Procurement - to acquire
locomotives capable of sustained speed of 125 MPH. This acceptance undermined the integrity
of the procurement process as it created an uneven playing field for all of the offerors responding
to the Procurement, favoring one offeror over others.
Likewise, the acceptance of Siemenss non-compliant locomotive is a fundamental violation of
IDOTs own requirements stated under Section A.7.5.218of the Procurement, again undermining
the integrity of the procurement process. The mandate to achieve and sustain 125 MPH is so
notably material that specifications in the Procurement documents, in addition to those from
NGEC, were unequivocal in this mandate. Failure to comply with this requirement isunquestionably a material deviation from the Procurement requirements.
18Section A.7.5.2 of the Procurement states, [a]n exception, if not material, may be waived by IDOT. An exception
from a requirement is material if the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the RFP requirements,
provides an advantage to one Offeror over other Offerors, or has a potentially significant effect on the delivery,
quantity or quality of items offered, amount paid to the Offeror, or on the cost to IDOT. Material deviations cannot
be waived.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
14/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 14 of 19
Furthermore, Siemenss (i) use of the Sauthoff formula for rolling resistance calculations and (ii)
failure to consider a HEP load in its acceleration calculations, also created an unfair advantage for
itself. IDOT presumably had no latitude to arbitrarily ignore these variations while holding otherofferors to the Procurements specifications. If the availability of more favorable results by
disregarding the Davis formula or HEP loads were made available to other offerors, a more equal
comparison between Siemenss locomotive and other offerors locomotives can be made. For
instance, if other offerors were permitted to use other rolling resistance numbers, drastically
different performance would have been derived and it likely would have affected engines and
systems, locomotive weight, P2 forces, standardization, Buy America, Service Proven, and project
schedule. Such factors could have been used producing lighter weights, less required
horsepower, increased fuel efficiency, lower life cycle cost, and acquisition cost.
The acceptance of a non-compliant offer from Siemens unquestionably created an uneven
playing field for all the offerors. In its form as submitted to IDOT, Siemenss proposal was
undeniably non-compliant. IDOTs waiver of an offerors compliance would signal a clear
partiality for one offeror over others, thereby unfavorably skewing19 the procurement process
and breaching the public trust while compromising the integrity of the procurement process in
violation of Illinois law20
.
2. IDOT Further Undermined the Procurement Process When It Failed to Comply with ItsProcurement Process
IDOT failed to enforce its own pass/fail criteria specified in Section B.1021
of the Procurement.
In this section, the Procurement rules require that if a proposal does not satisfy the requirements
of any pass/fail categories in the Technical Proposal, then the proposal must be rejected andfurther evaluation will necessarily cease.
As demonstrated above, knowing the horsepower alone would have informed a technically
competent evaluator that the Siemens locomotive cannot even achieve 125 MPH as required by
the Procurement specifications. In other words, no other calculation or evaluation was necessary
19 It is important to note that Siemens also provided IDOT with one or more iPads as part of its proposal. EMD
questions the business necessity of this practice and invites the State to scrutinize its implications under the
applicable procurement laws and related authority. See, e.g, 720 ILCS 5-33; See also U.S. v. Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 08-367 (D.D.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2008); SEC v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 1:08-
cv-02167 (D.D.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2008) and related material at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/December/08-crm-1105.html.
20 ILGA Title 44, Section 6.20(a) states, in relevant part, [i]t is the policy of the CPO for the Department that all
activities of the appointed SPOs and other designees related to the procurement process maximize the value of the
expenditure of public funds in procuring contracts, and that those appointed and designated act in a manner that
maintains public trust in the integrity of the process.
21Please see footnote 3.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
15/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 15 of 19
to determine whether a locomotive can achieve the required speed outside of a calculation
based on horsepower.
If IDOT had fully considered the Siemens locomotives capabilities (or lack thereof) based solely
on a scrutinized evaluation and calculation of the Siemens locomotives horsepower, the Siemens
proposal would have been rejected upon IDOTs completion of its review of Packet 1 (Technical
Proposal). This means that pursuant to Section B.10, no further evaluation would have occurred,
which means that IDOT should not have reached Packet 2 that contained Siemenss pricing.
Furthermore, Siemenss (i) use of the Sauthoff formula for rolling resistance calculations and (ii)
failure to consider a HEP load in its acceleration calculations, should have disqualified its proposal
for material non-compliance with the Procurement specifications. Such disqualification should
have occurred at the completion of IDOTs review of Packet 1. Instead, IDOT proceeded with its
evaluation of Siemenss proposal in blatant disregard of the requirement in Section B.10.
Finally, IDOT failed to comply with its Procurement process, evaluating the Fuel System chapter
of the Vehicle Major Systems portion of the Siemens proposal when IDOTs own procurement
rules would have necessarily precluded this section from review and evaluation. Scoring this
section when it should not have been evaluated again would signal a clear partiality for one
offeror over others. IDOTs failure to comply with its own procurement process compromised
the integrity of the entire Procurement.
3. The Undermined Procurement Process Severely Disadvantaged EMD
The unfair advantage given to Siemens severely disadvantaged EMD. As described in Section(b)(1) above, if all offerors had been afforded the ability to arbitrarily reduce the performance of
their proposed locomotive, or apply other means to obtain more favorable results such as
disregarding HEP load or using the Sauthoff formula, thereby allowing offerors to propose a
locomotive with lower sustained speed (believing it to be acceptable to IDOT), other product
configurations could have been submitted. A lower performing locomotive requires less power,
and consequently, a lower price could be offered. Such differences shape the determination of
the Procurements award. Most importantly, scoring in other categories also could have been
profoundly different.
EMD prides itself in its ability to find the right solution for its customers. If EMD had known that
offerors may provide a solution with lower performance criteria, EMD may have provided adifferent solution that would have met the JPEs needs and with reduced pricing. However, EMD
was unconscionably deprived of this opportunity. No communication was made to EMD (and
other offerors) providing specifications for a lower-performing locomotive. Knowing only those
specifications provided in the Procurement and trusting the integrity of the procurement process,
EMD strictly adhered to the Procurement documents and offered a compliant locomotive in all
areas of the specifications, as well as meeting all pass/fail items. As a result of EMDs strict
compliance with the Procurement documents, EMDs proposal was automatically placed at a
distinct handicap in price and scoring in contrast to the non-compliant locomotive offered by
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
16/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 16 of 19
Siemens, thus requiring that the relief sought by EMD be granted to ensure fairness and
preservation of the Procurements integrity.
c. Request for ReliefEMD requests that IDOT immediately stay the proposed award to Siemens pursuant to Title 44,
Section 6.43022, confirm the statements in this protest and subsequently cancel this
Procurement. EMD further requests that a new procurement be issued as soon as possible and
that IDOT adheres to all requirements for locomotive performance in its evaluation. If, however,
IDOT is permitted by Illinois law to award the Procurement to the lowest-priced compliant
offeror (rather than issue a new procurement), EMD is positioned to begin the process of
executing the terms of its proposal submitted to IDOT for the Procurement.
EMD believes it has provided sufficient information in this protest, including in Exhibit A, that
substantiates the non-compliance of the Siemens locomotive. It would be irresponsible and
potentially unlawful to knowingly procure a locomotive that only reaches its specified velocity in
a downhill or less-than-specified configuration.
Furthermore, the Federal and State taxpayers need to be aware that their tax revenue dedicated
to 125 MPH service would be misspent in the event that IDOT continues with its intent to award.
The FRA and NGEC members have supported the sustained 125 MPH requirement and in this
instance, may have a keen interest in the outcome of this protest as will the media.
In addition, because EMD believes this protest to be of interest to current and potential JPEs,
EMD is taking steps to assure that this protest is communicated to those parties concurrentlywith this mailing to IDOT.
(5) Timeliness:Consistent with the terms of ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a), this protest is being filed within
seven days of January 29, 2014 and is therefore timely. January 29, 2014 was the day that EMD
received information requested from IDOT under FOIA relative to the Siemens proposal. This
was therefore the first day EMD knew or should have known facts relative to the locomotive
product offered by Siemens under the Procurement, and of such products failure to meet the
Procurements specifications, giving rise to this protest.
(Signature Appears on the Following Page)
22Please see footnote 1.
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
17/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 17 of 19
(6) Signature:Respectfully submitted by Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Gary Eelman
Vice President - Passenger Locomotive Sales
Copies to the following via overnight mail:
Bruce Roberts, PE Kristi Jamison
Division Chief (Acting) State Rail Plan Project Manager
CALTRANS Division of Rail MODOT
P.O. Box 942874, MS 74 105 West Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Jefferson City, MO 65102
David Smelser - ARRA Cascades Program Manager Larry Karnes
WSDOT Project Manager
WSDOT Headquarters Mailing Address Michigan State Rail PlanWashington State Department of Transportation State Transportation Building
310 Maple Park Avenue SE 425 W. Ottawa Street
P.O. Box 47300 P.O. Box 30050
Olympia, WA 98504-7300 Lansing, MI 48909
Mario Bergeron
Chief Mechanical Officer
Amtrak
100 S. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Craig O'Riley
Iowa Department of Transportation
Office of Systems Planning
800 Lincoln Way
Ames, IA 50010
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
18/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 18 of 19
EXHIBIT A
Minimum Engine Power Requirements
PRIIA Specification 305-005 Rev A and the Procurement documents establish that a speed of 125 MPH
must be sustained for a consist made up of two locomotives and 8 cars (1,360,000 pounds of trailing
load). Each car has a minimum HEP load of 45 kW. Based on the calculations shown below, in order for
this consist to sustain this speed on tangent, level track, a minimum of 4530.5 BHP per locomotive is
required.
Calculating Minimum Engine Power Requirements requires first calculating the equivalent rolling
resistance of the consist, then calculating the power required at the rail (tractive horsepower or THP) and
finally the total required engine power (brake horsepower or BHP) based on rolling resistance and THP,
HEP requirements and locomotive auxiliary loads.
Assumptions
The Procurement documents provided the basic consist configuration, including the Davis constants for
the locomotives and passenger cars specified. For these calculations, an assumed weight of 265,658
pounds is used for the locomotive. Subtle variations such as locomotive weight and assumed system
efficiencies have a minimal impact on the end result.
Davis Constants
A B C D
Lead Locomotive 1.3 29 0.03 0.0024
Trailing Locomotive 1.3 29 0.03 0.0012
Passenger Cars 1.3 29 0.03 0.00044
Calculating Rolling Resistance
The equivalent rolling resistance at 125 MPH expressed in thousands of Newtons (a unit of effort) is as
follows:
Rolling Resistance (kN)
Lead Locomotive 27.03
Trailing Locomotive 15.27
Passenger Cars 54.90
Total 97.19
-
8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original
19/19
Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.
Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT
February 3, 2014
Page 19 of 19
Calculating Tractive Horsepower (THP)
The power required at the rail to move the consist at a sustained 125 MPH on tangent, level track is
calculated using the following formula:
P (kW) = Effort (N) * Speed (m/s) = =
Note that 125 MPH is equivalent to 201.2 km/hr. The rolling resistance was calculated above to be 97.19
kN. Therefore, the power required for the consist to sustain 125 MPH is:
P (kW) = 97.19 kN * 201.2 km/hr / 3.6 = 5,431.8 kW or 7,284.2 THP
This equates to THP = 3,642 HP per locomotive.
Calculating Brake Horsepower (BHP)
BHP is the total engine horsepower required by the locomotive(s) and consist to sustain 125 MPH on
tangent level track. BHP includes the tractive horsepower (THP), the consist HEP requirements and the
engine horsepower required to power the engine auxiliary loads such as mechanical pumps and cooling
fans. In order to calculate these requirements, it is common system design practice to assume certain
system efficiencies. The following calculations include very conservative best case system efficiencies.
THP an AC traction system has a typical system efficiency of 90%. If 5,431.8 kW is required to sustain
125 MPH, then based on a 90% system efficiency, 6,035.3 kW is required from the engine to supply the
traction system.
HEP 8 cars at 45 kW/car require 360 kW. An AC based HEP system has a typical system efficiency of
90%. If 360 kW is required, then based on a 90% system efficiency, 400 kW is required from the engine
to supply the HEP system.
Accessory Power a modern diesel engine has a typical auxiliary load of 5% of the total THP and HEP
power requirement. This equates to an additional 321.8 kW (5% of the sum of 6,035.3 and 400) required
from the engine to supply the auxiliary loads.
Therefore the consist requires BHP = THP + HEP + Accessory Power = 6,035.3 + 400 + 321.8 = 6,757.1 kW
or 9,061 BHP. Each of the two locomotives in the consist must be capable of generating 4530.5 BHP.
Summary: In order for the 2-locomotive and 8-car consist specified by the Procurement documents
to achieve and sustain 125 MPH on tangent level track, each locomotive has to have
minimum engine power4530.5 BHP.
top related