readiness review entry into project development columbia...

READINESS REVIEW ENTRY INTO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Columbia Pike Streetcar Arlington County, Virginia

FTA Region 3

December 19, 2012 – Final

PMOC Contract Number: DTFT60-09-00016 Task Order Number: 007, Work Order Number: 15, Project Number: DC-27-5195 OPs Referenced: 01, 21, 32B-C, 33, 40 modified (draft) Hill International, Inc. One Penn Square West 30 South 15th Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 PMOC Lead: Vincent D. Gallagher, P.E., (215) 557-3270, [email protected] Length of Time PMOC Firm Assigned to Project: 3 months

Third Party Disclaimer

This Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) deliverables and all subsidiary reports are prepared solely for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This risk-informed evaluation and assessment should not be relied upon by any party, except FTA or the project sponsor, in accordance with the purposes of the evaluation and assessment as described below. For projects funded through FTA’s Major Capital Investment (New Starts) program, FTA and its PMOCs use a risk-informed assessment process to review and validate a project sponsor’s budget and schedule. This risk-informed evaluation and assessment process is a tool for analyzing project development and management. Moreover, this process is iterative in nature; any results of an FTA or PMOC risk-informed evaluation and assessment represent a “snapshot in time” for a particular project under the conditions known at that same point in time. The status of any evaluation or assessment may be altered at any time by new information, changes in circumstances, or further developments in the project, including any specific measures a sponsor may take to mitigate the risks to project costs, budget and schedule, or the strategy a sponsor may develop for project execution.

mailto:[email protected]

Columbia Pike Streetcar Project December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development- Final

i

Executive Summary Purpose The Grantee and lead agency for the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project is Arlington County in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Arlington County, in cooperation with Fairfax County, serves as the Project Sponsor, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grantee, and lead partner for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project. In September 2012, the FTA received an application from Arlington County seeking to advance the Columbia Pike Streetcar (CPS) project into Small Starts Project Development (PD). FTA subsequently assigned Hill International, Inc. in its capacity as a Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) to review the scope, cost, schedule, and risk related to the project and to evaluate Arlington County’s project management capacity and capability to successfully complete the project. Project Description The Columbia Pike Streetcar project is an approximately 4.93 mile electrically powered modern streetcar system that originates in the Pentagon City area of Arlington County, Virginia and runs along the length of Columbia Pike from Joyce Street to S. Jefferson Street in Fairfax County, Virginia where it terminates in the Skyline area near Bailey’s Crossroads. Streetcars will operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and through Pentagon City, and within an exclusive right-of-way on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction. Station stops would consist of a boarding area 90 feet to 120 feet in length with a low platform to accommodate near-level boarding. Curbside stops would be able to accommodate both streetcars and buses. The initial service proposes to operate a fleet of 13 modern streetcar vehicles that will have at least 50% low-level floors and multi-door boarding and alighting. Supporting facilities include a new maintenance facility with an operations control center on a 1.7-acre site in Pentagon City at 12th Street South and South Eads Street. Four traction power substations (TPSS) would be located along the alignment plus one TPSS for the maintenance facility. A new bus transfer center would be developed on South Jefferson Street in the Bailey’s Crossroads Shopping Center. The facility would include 200 parking spaces for transit users and bus bays for connecting buses. Results and Recommendations The PMOC’s review of this project acknowledges the early stage of project development, recognizing that critical requirements risks that have an adverse impact on the project budget and schedule need to be resolved in the Project Development phase. The Project Team has a Risk Register that is being used to mitigate project risk.


ii

A major effort at this time is assembly of the project management team that will guide the project through the Project Development stage and into Engineering and construction. To maintain adequate control over the project, Arlington County should either hire or retain the services of individuals that will directly represent Arlington County for the CPS project. Among the positions that should be filled by Arlington County staff, or seconded staff, are the Streetcar Manager of Operations and the Quality Assurance Manager. The PMOC recommends that Arlington County retain the services of a program management consultant to support CPS’s completion of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts and management of the design and construction contractors. Arlington County should complete their Project Management Plan (PMP) and obtain FTA approval as soon as possible as a means of specifying the needed services from the program management consultant. Recommendations for issues to be addressed in the PMP are:

• Arlington County needs to develop a CPS staffing plan. • The Project Management Team (PMT) should include the Director of Environmental

Services, who should serve as the chair of this group. • Revise the organization plan to include hiring of staff experienced with FTA funded rail

transit projects of similar or greater complexity as the CPS in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering.

• Revise the organizational plan to include as key staff a Streetcar Manager of Operations whose responsibility includes planning for revenue operations and maintenance.

• Designate and fill a full-time position for a Quality Assurance Manager reporting at least one level above the Project Manager.

• Designate and fill a full-time position for a Safety and Security Manager with significant experience managing a safety and security program for FTA funded rail transit projects who should also report at least one level above the Project Manager.

• Establish a position for Manager of Project Controls including cost and schedule, risk management, and possibly document control.

• Assign specific responsibility for coordination with other projects that will affect the Streetcar Project such as Super Stops, utility relocation work, and the Jefferson Avenue multi-modal facility.

Two key decisions need to be made early in the Project Development phase of the project:

• A determination as to the project delivery method to be used for construction with consideration for the fact that Arlington County may not have adequate experience with Design-Build and other alternative contracting methods.

• A determination as to who will operate and/or maintain the system since this decision will affect the configuration of budgets, contracts, and project management.

During the Project Development period, Arlington County needs to negotiate and finalize agreements and identify cost-sharing measures with a variety of stakeholders. These include the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the US Department of the Interior, the US Department of Defense, Fairfax County, other departments within Arlington County, and the proposed developers of 12th Street South.


iii

The PMOC reviewed project documentation, visited the proposed CPS alignment, and has met with the CPS Project team. In this report, the PMOC has documented its findings with regard to scope, schedule, and cost issues. The PMOC recommends that Arlington County take action on the following issues during the Project Development process to address the risks identified during this review:

• Develop a Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) identifying all parcels and complying with the Uniform Relocation Act.

• Perform an updated traction power simulation study, including contingency analysis, to determine if the TPSS design is adequate and the substations are properly located.

• Consider the installation of passing sidings or pull-offs for emergency use and power operation of switches to improve operating reliability.

• Investigate the opportunity to modify the road and streetcar alignment along Columbia Pike near the Air Force Memorial in conjunction with Arlington National Cemetery.

• Develop a fleet management plan that describes how the number of vehicles was determined and how they will be maintained.

• Develop design criteria that can accommodate the procurement of a wider variety of streetcar designs.

• Investigate the Vornado proposal for the Skyline terminus. • Further study the capacity of the existing pier foundations and piers of the Four Mile Run

Bridge to support the load requirements of the streetcar system. • Conduct a detailed evaluation of the cost and constructability of building track using

block rail versus standard 115 RE rail; develop a fully detailed embedded track section indicating components and method of construction.

• Quantify the capacity and the construction, and the operating costs of a shop and yard on the proposed Pentagon City site.

• Investigate an alternate location for the maintenance shop that will have adequate space for the shop and yard facilities.

The current CPS project budget is $245.9 million. The PMOC review of the project scope and budget identified some areas where, in the PMOC’s opinion, additional cost may occur for the project as currently configured and identified cost estimate adjustments totaling approximately $27 million in Base Year cost. When escalated for inflation, the adjustments total about $30.5 million in Year of Expenditure (YOE) budget costs. The PMOC analyzed the project cost using the Modified Cost Range Analysis method. This effort indicated that the final cost of the project including appropriate contingencies could range from a low-end project cost of $255.9 million to a high-end of $402.4 million with a most likely cost of $310.1 million. At this stage of development, even though the cost range analysis predicted a cost higher than that originally budgeted, the PMOC is of the opinion that there are still numerous opportunities that Arlington County can pursue to reduce the likely cost of the project. In summary, the PMOC is of the opinion that Arlington County has a high likelihood of meeting the stated project purposes and goals if the recommendations outlined in this report are adopted. Arlington County needs to further develop its capabilities to manage a project of this type, size, and complexity.


iv

Arlington County has adequately defined the CPS project scope for Project Development. Having achieved an approved LPA, this scope is adequate for the project to progress toward NEPA approvals. Arlington County needs to make a decision early in Project Development concerning project delivery method that is consistent with their capacity to administer the project. The PMOC recommends that FTA consider this project as a New Starts project and consider approval of this Grantee into Project Development.

Columbia Pike Street Car Project v December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... i Project Description ................................................................................................................... i Results and Recommendations ................................................................................................. i

Project Background .......................................................................................................................1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................1

Project Alignment ............................................................................................................2 Master Planning for the Corridor .............................................................................................3 Project Development ................................................................................................................4

Methodology ...................................................................................................................................4

Review of Project Development ....................................................................................................6 Grantee Project Management Approach ..................................................................................6 Technical Capacity and Capability ...........................................................................................6

Organizational Strategy and Structure .............................................................................6 Staffing .............................................................................................................................7

Project Management Plan .......................................................................................................10 Administrative and Support Services Organization ...............................................................11

Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan ....................................................................12 Rail Operations and Maintenance Plan ..........................................................................13 Risk and Contingency Management Plan ......................................................................13

Project Scope Review ...................................................................................................................14 Scope Review Issues ..............................................................................................................14

Adequacy of Vehicle Fleet .............................................................................................14 NEPA and Design Document Comparison ....................................................................14 Proposed Project Delivery Method ................................................................................14 Third Party Agreements .................................................................................................16

Design Development ..............................................................................................................17 Project Alignment ..........................................................................................................17 Vehicle Design Criteria ..................................................................................................18 Geotechnical Issues – Aerial Structure and Retaining Walls ........................................18 Utility Relocation ...........................................................................................................19 Environmental and Hazardous Material Studies ............................................................19

SCC Estimate Risk Assessment .............................................................................................20 SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements .........................................................................20

Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way (SCC 10.01) ....................................21 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic (SCC 10.03) ................................................21 Guideway: Aerial Structure (SCC 10.04) ..............................................................22 Track: Embedded (SCC 10.10) .............................................................................23 Track: Ballasted Track (SCC 10.11) .....................................................................24 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) (SCC 10.12)..................................................24 Track: Vibration and noise dampening (SCC 10.13) ............................................24

SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal Facilities .............................................25

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


vi

At-Grade Station, Stop, Shelter, Mall, Terminal, Platform (SCC 20.01) ..............25 SCC 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops and Administration Buildings ......................27

Light Maintenance Facility (SCC 30.02) ...............................................................27 Yard and Yard Track (SCC 30.05) ........................................................................28

SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions ......................................................................29 Demolition, Clearing and Earthwork (SCC 40.01) ................................................29 Utilities (SCC 40.02) .............................................................................................29 Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soil Removal / Mitigation, Ground

Water Treatment (SCC 40.03) ...................................................................30 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historical/archeological, parks

(SCC 40.04) ...............................................................................................31 Site Structures including Retaining Walls, Sound Walls (SCC 40.05) .................31 Determine if retaining walls are required at other locations along the

corridor. ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. edestrian Access and Accommodation, Landscaping (SCC 40.06) .......................32 Automobile, Bus, Van Accessways including Road and Parking Lots

(SCC 40.07) ...............................................................................................32 Temporary Facilities and other indirect cost during Construction

(SCC 40.08) ...............................................................................................32 SCC 50 Systems Elements .............................................................................................33

Train Control and Signals (SCC 50.01) .................................................................33 Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection (SCC 50.02) ...........................................33 Traction Power Supply: Catenary and Third Rail (SCC 50.04) ...........................35 Communications (SCC 50.05) ...............................................................................36 Fare Collection Systems and Equipment (SCC 50.06) ..........................................36 Central Control (SCC 50.07) .................................................................................37

Review of Procurement Items ................................................................................................38 SCC 60 ROW, Land and Existing Improvements .........................................................38 SCC 70 Vehicles ............................................................................................................39

Light Rail Vehicles (SCC 70.01) ...........................................................................39 Other vehicles (SCC 70.06) ...................................................................................40 Spare Parts (SCC 70.07) ........................................................................................41

Other Project Costs .................................................................................................................41 SCC 80 Professional Services ........................................................................................41

SCC 80.01 – 80.07 Professional Services ..............................................................41 SCC 80.08 Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work .............................................43

Project Cost Review .....................................................................................................................44 Review and Analysis of Project Cost .....................................................................................44 Review and Analysis of Project Cost Estimate ......................................................................44

Accuracy of Cost Estimates ...........................................................................................45 Grantee Baseline Cost Estimate .............................................................................................46 Recommended Cost Adjustments ..........................................................................................46 Escalation ...............................................................................................................................47

Project Risk Identification ..........................................................................................................48 Risk Register ..........................................................................................................................48



vii

Risk and Contingency Assessment .............................................................................................48 Cost Risk Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................48 Project Cost Risk Assessment ................................................................................................49

Adjusted Cost Estimate ..................................................................................................49 Development Level of the Cost Estimate ......................................................................50 Project Development Level ............................................................................................51 Recommended Contingency and Conditioned Estimate ................................................51 Potential Project Cost Range ..........................................................................................52 Distribution of the Potential Project Cost Range ...........................................................53 Secondary Cost Mitigation Recommendation ...............................................................54

Cost Model Comparison .........................................................................................................54

Risk Mitigation Strategy .............................................................................................................55 Risk and Contingency Management Plan ..............................................................................55 Primary Mitigation .................................................................................................................55

Mitigation Deliverables ..................................................................................................55 Top 10 Risks ..................................................................................................................56

Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................................58

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................61 Appendix A – List of Acronyms ............................................................................................61 Appendix B – Risk Register ...................................................................................................62 Appendix C – Project Baseline Cost Estimate .......................................................................74 Appendix D – Modified Cost Range Analysis Worksheet .....................................................75 Appendix E – Interview Questionnaires ................................................................................76

Mary Shavalier, Streetcar Project Manager, Arlington County .....................................76 Leonard Wolfenstein, Chief, Transportation Planning Section, Fairfax County ...........80 Matthew Huston, Senior Transit Engineer, Arlington County ......................................85 Bee Buergler, Transit Capital Program Manager, Arlington County ............................89

Appendix F – Grantee Data ....................................................................................................94 Appendix G – PMOC Evaluation Team .................................................................................96

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Project Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 – CPS Project Implementation Organization ................................................................... 8 Figure 3 – SCC Relative Cost Estimate ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 4 – Risk Rating Chart ........................................................................................................ 48 Figure 5 – Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix .............................................................. 49



viii

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 – PMP Sections and Elements to Be Completed ............................................................. 11 Table 2 – Summary of Grantee’s Project Cost Estimate .............................................................. 46 Table 3 – Identification of PMOC Adjustments ........................................................................... 47 Table 4 – Calculation of Adjusted Estimate ................................................................................. 50 Table 5 – Project Development Level .......................................................................................... 50 Table 6 – Recommended Contingency and Range Factor by Development Level ...................... 51 Table 7 – Calculation of Conditioned Estimate ............................................................................ 52 Table 8 – Calculation of Project Cost Range ................................................................................ 53 Table 9 – Calculation of Limits of Cost Range ............................................................................ 54 Table 10 – Comparison of FTA Cost Models ............................................................................... 55 Table 11 – Mitigation Deliverables .............................................................................................. 56 Table 12 – Top 10 Project Risks ................................................................................................... 56

Columbia Pike Street Car Project 1 December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

Project Background Arlington County and Fairfax County, in Northern Virginia, have been actively engaged in promoting improved transportation within their jurisdictions as a means of strengthening communities and encouraging a mix of land uses and development of new housing and amenities. Their approach has been a concentration on several commercial and transportation corridors. One of these corridors is Columbia Pike, which runs generally from the Pentagon in Arlington County to Bailey’s Crossroads in Fairfax County. Planning in this corridor has been underway since 2002 with ongoing collaboration among project stakeholders and investigation of several key technical issues. In 2010, Arlington County and Fairfax County, in coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), initiated an Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment (AA-EA) to further evaluate alternatives and determine the environmental impacts of the proposed solutions. The work effort was undertaken in compliance with federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines and FTA New Starts/Small Starts requirements. In July 2012, the Boards of each County adopted the Streetcar Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Arlington County approved the LPA on July 24, 2012 and Fairfax County approved the LPA on July 31, 2012. In September 2012, Arlington County submitted an application for entry into the Project Development (PD) phase of FTA’s Small Starts program. FTA has assigned Hill International, Inc., a Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC), to review the scope, cost, schedule, and risk related to the project and to evaluate whether Arlington County has the project management capacity and capability to complete the project successfully. This report is the presentation of the PMOC’s review. Project Description The Columbia Pike Streetcar project is an approximately 4.93 mile electrically powered modern streetcar system that originates in the Pentagon City area of Arlington County, Virginia and runs along the length of Columbia Pike from Joyce Street to South Jefferson Street in Fairfax County, Virginia where it terminates in the Skyline area near Bailey’s Crossroads. Streetcars will operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and through Pentagon City, and within an exclusive right-of-way on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction. Station stops would consist of a 90-foot to 120-foot boarding area with a low platform to accommodate near-level boarding. Some curbside stops would be able to accommodate a streetcar vehicle and 40-foot bus simultaneously. The stops would provide passengers with real-time information and other amenities. Off-vehicle fare collection would be used to increase operating efficiency. The project would provide a fleet of 13 modern streetcar vehicles that will have at least 50% low-level floors and multi-door boarding and alighting. Supporting facilities include a new maintenance facility with an operations control center. The proposed site for this facility is a


2

1.7-acre site in Pentagon City at 12th Street South and South Eads Street. Four traction power substations (TPSS) would be located along the alignment and one additional TPSS located inside the vehicle maintenance facility. A construction staging site would be located near the existing Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) garage and yard. A new bus transfer center would be developed on South Jefferson Street in the Baileys Crossroad Shopping Center. The facility would include 200 parking spaces for transit users and bus bays for connecting buses. Project Alignment The CPS project will construct a modern streetcar system between Pentagon City in Arlington County and the Skyline area of Fairfax County as shown in Figure 1. The project alignment begins on 12th Street South at South Eads Street in Pentagon City. The alignment passes the Pentagon City Metrorail station providing connections to the Blue and Yellow Lines and serving the Pentagon City Mall. The alignment follows South Hayes Street, Army-Navy Drive, and South Joyce Street passing under Interstate Route I-395 and turning onto Columbia Pike. The alignment then follows Columbia Pike for 3.3 miles passing over Four Mile Run on the existing bridge. The alignment leaves Columbia Pike onto South Jefferson Street, runs about one-half mile to a multimodal terminal near Leesburg Pike, and finally crosses Leesburg Pike to a terminus on the southwest side of Leesburg Pike. Streetcar vehicles would operate mostly in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes throughout Pentagon City and along Jefferson Street. The only areas where streetcar vehicles would operate in exclusive right-of-way would be on short segments near the western and eastern termini. The current concept for the maintenance facility is located on Eads Street between Army-Navy Drive and 12th Street South in Pentagon City. The proposed operation would provide weekday service from 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Saturday service beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday service beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at 11:30 p.m. On a typical weekday, the streetcar service will begin at 5:30 a.m. and operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day along the 4.93-mile corridor. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways.


3

Figure 1 – Project Map

Master Planning for the Corridor Arlington County and Fairfax County have been actively engaged in efforts to strengthen communities, increase the amount of housing and amenities, and encourage a mix of land uses at key locations along the project corridor. In 2002, the Arlington County Board approved the Columbia Pike Initiative: A Revitalization Plan for the corridor. Part visioning exercise and part implementation plan, the Board developed a vision for transportation and community development along Columbia Pike and identified steps towards achievement. For its part, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has developed a vision for the greater Bailey’s Crossroads area, reflected most recently in a 2010 Comprehensive Plan update that allows for greater land use densities and increased activity levels. Both Boards’ plans rely on implementation of a high- capacity, long-term transit system. Regionally, multiple transit corridors, including the project corridor, were identified to provide increased mobility and accessibility, and potentially interface in the future. Implementing transit improvements along this corridor is part of achieving the regional transit vision for greater mobility and accessibility.


4

The effort to analyze transportation alternatives to serve the existing and future land use plans in the corridor has been ongoing for several years. Between spring 2004 and summer 2005, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) conducted an Alternatives Analysis in coordination with Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), and VDOT, with input from FTA staff. Building from previous public planning activities in the Columbia Pike corridor, the Alternatives Analysis was supported by intensive public involvement. Three different sets of public meetings and workshops were conducted during the period of analysis. In spring 2006, both the Arlington County Board and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors approved the recommended Modified Streetcar Alternative as the preferred alternative to be advanced into the next stage of project development. During the intervening period, WMATA, Arlington County, and Fairfax County continued progress through ongoing collaboration with project stakeholders and investigation of several key technical issues. Project Development In 2010, Arlington County and Fairfax County, in coordination with Federal Transit Administration, initiated an AA-EA to further evaluate the need for enhanced transit service, evaluate alternatives and determine the environmental impacts of the proposed solution. The work effort was undertaken in compliance with federal NEPA and FTA New Starts/Small Starts requirements. Following extensive technical analysis, and agency and community coordination, the Boards of both counties adopted a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in July 2012. Arlington County approved the LPA on July 24, 2012 and Fairfax County approved the LPA on July 31, 2012. The Streetcar Alternative emerged as the LPA based on its ability to provide sufficient capacity to cope with projected growth; attract travelers to transit and increase transit mode share; and support and encourage economic development. The streetcar project would operate along a 4.93-mile corridor, extending mainly along Columbia Pike between the Pentagon City area of Arlington County to the Skyline area in Fairfax County, Virginia. In September 2012, Arlington County submitted an application seeking Entry into Project Development as one of the requirements for funding through the FTA Small Starts Program. The project is in the region’s Cost Constrained Long Range Plan. Methodology This report is based on a review of materials, interviews, and meetings with staff and consultants. It includes the PMOC’s assessment of the reasonableness of the methodology employed by the County and of the total project cost, expressed in 2012 base year dollars, and projected year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars.


5

Arlington County has applied for entry into Project Development for the CPS project. This review report is one of the supporting documents that FTA will use to inform their decision whether to advance this project into Project Development. The overarching requirement for evaluation of the CPS project in this context is contained in the FTA Work Order authorizing this Readiness Review. Specific requests for review are contained in the PMOC’s scope of work and include evaluating:

• The likelihood of the project meeting the stated project purposes and goals. • The level to which the project documents reflect NEPA findings, recommendations, and

mitigation. • Whether the Grantee has developed a rational plan for project delivery and to

characterize any contractually allocated risks. • The Grantee’s definition of the project scope, cost estimate, and schedule for adequacy

and completeness for Entry into Project Development. • The reliability of the Grantee’s project scope, cost estimate, and schedule with special

focus on the elements of uncertainty associated with the effectiveness and efficiency of the Grantee’s project implementation.

• The Grantee’s ability to execute design (i.e., technical capacity and capability to proceed to the next phase of the project) and whether the Grantee has adopted a risk-based management approach to project implementation that incorporates findings of a project risk assessment;

• The adequacy of the Grantee’s project controls, management policies, and procedures to execute the project, especially for those relating to the acquisition of required rights-of-way.

The PMOC met with Arlington County for an initial meeting on the risk assessment effort on October 18, 2012. The documentation to be reviewed for this assessment was transmitted by County and furnished to the review team. In addition, various publicly available support documents were consulted in arriving at the opinions expressed in this report. A listing of the source documents used for this review is shown in Appendix F – Grantee Data. The workshop, which included a site tour of the proposed alignment, was held on November 8-9, 2012. This process provided the PMOC with an understanding of the rationale for the planning decisions that determined the alignment, station configuration, and the approach to project engineering, construction, and budget preparation. The review of the cost estimate was made from two perspectives. The proposed project scope, as described in the LPA documents and the related cost estimate elements, was assessed as to its completeness with respect to the project. The estimate was also reviewed technically to determine if it was complete, mechanically correct, and sufficiently detailed to be appropriate and useable at this stage of project development. As Technical Specialists in each discipline area reviewed the project, the cost elements were also reviewed for accuracy and applicability to the project. Where a concern was raised by the Technical Specialists relative to risks related to the project scope, project schedule, estimated


6

cost or a cost risk associated with the difficulty of the work, the risks are identified and characterized as requirements, design, market or construction risks. After review of the project scope, the cost estimate, and other supporting data, several areas were identified which were deemed by the PMOC to warrant further discussion or clarification. Analysis was performed to support the identification of risks relating to escalation factors, contingency factors, and the application of other cost estimating relationships. The presentation in this report provides commentary on the estimate for the relevant Standard Cost Category (SCC) items. Separate sections cover analysis of cost escalation factors, contingency allowances, general conditions, and correlation of project quantities. The Grantee updated its cost estimate and schedule during the course of this review and this report reflects the most recent schedule and cost estimate. Review of Project Development Grantee Project Management Approach The Grantee and lead agency for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project is Arlington County in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Arlington County, in cooperation with Fairfax County, will serve as the Project Sponsor, FTA grantee, and lead partner for the Columbia Pike Streetcar project. Arlington County will provide a Streetcar Project Manager, to lead the project development phase of the project. Fairfax County will provide a Deputy Project Manager. Both counties will contribute to the cost of project development and delivery, and will provide staff and resources to assist with all aspects of project management during design, construction and implementation of the project. Arlington County and Fairfax County have executed a Coordination Agreement that governed its partnership in the planning phase of the project. The counties are now developing and will execute a new Coordination Agreement, which will establish the roles of each county in their continuing partnership in the CPS project. Technical Capacity and Capability This section addresses the key elements of the Grantee’s technical capacity and capability as outlined in OPs 01 and 21. Organizational Strategy and Structure The Grantee has adopted an organizational strategy that will address three areas: decision-making and coordination, project implementation, and approach to staffing. The strategy reinforces Arlington County’s role as the responsible agency for management and implementation of the project, while at the same time including a significant management and implementation role for its partner, Fairfax County. Importantly, this strategy assures the involvement of senior executives from both Counties in policymaking and oversight roles. The strategy makes both Counties responsible for coordination and defines those responsibilities. It


7

also sets up three committees with representatives from federal, state, and local agencies that have an interest in the project:

• Policy Committee – approves changes to scope and schedule, and reviews draft documents prior to presentation to County Boards.

• Technical Advisory Committee – has members from Arlington and Fairfax Counties, the Project Manager (PM) and Deputy PM of the CPS project, VDOT, VDRPT, the FTA, and WMATA.

• Citizens Coordination Committee – consists of members of County committees and commissions and will inform citizens’ advisory groups and community organizations.

The strategy for implementation includes procurement of engineering consultant services to develop the preliminary design documents. The Grantee has reserved the preliminary engineering phase for determination of project delivery approach—design/bid/build or design/build. Similarly, there is no decision yet on the delivery of construction management services. Finally, the strategy for staffing is to assign existing staff members from both Counties as well as to hire qualified staff to fill other key positions. To fill out the staff requirements, the Grantee will engage a project management consultant to bring special technical skills to the project. From its organizational and implementation strategies, the Grantee has developed an organization structured to address three areas: strategic direction and policymaking through the Policy Committee; management and staffing through the Project Management Team; and stakeholder and public coordination through the Citizens Coordination Committee, and the Technical Advisory Committee. This structure is depicted in Figure 2. The PMOC is of the opinion that the Grantee’s organizational and implementation strategies as described in Section 6 of its Project Management Plan (PMP) are appropriate, will enable and promote effective project management after some structural adjustments discussed below, and will meet the FTA requirement for entry into Project Development. Staffing The PMP describes an organizational structure consisting of three elements: the Project Management Team (PMT), the Project Team Working Groups (PTWG), and a Project Management Consultant (PMC) that will supplement staff from the Counties with specialized skills. The PMP indicates that procurement of the PMC will take place in late 2012. The PMP does not yet indicate the specific skills that the Project expects the PMC to provide. The PMT consists of Transit Bureau Chiefs from the Counties, the Project Manager and Deputy Project Manager, and the leads of the six working groups depicted in Figure 2. The Project Manager, with a master’s degree in urban and regional planning has over 30 years relevant experience planning, managing the development of, and operating transit facilities and systems. The current Deputy Project Manager also has a master’s degree in urban and regional planning, which was appropriate in the Planning Phase; however, when the Project enters the project development phase, the current Deputy Project Manager will be replaced with an individual from Fairfax County who has engineering management experience.

Columbia Pike Street Car Project 8 December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Draft

Figure 2 – CPS Project Implementation Organization


The PMP states that the Project Team’s responsibility is to “carry out the design and construction effort for the project.” Resumes were provided for seven members of the Design Oversight Working Group. Three of the members are licensed Professional Engineers in Virginia and two are currently supervising engineers; two members are planners with master’s degrees, and one member is a Landscape Architect. Three resumes were provided for members of the Project Administration Working Group: the budget and accounting specialist has a bachelor’s degree in accounting and a Masters of Business Administration; the procurement specialist has a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering and relevant experience with procurement, negotiation, and contract management; and the grants specialist has experience in finance and grants management. The PMOC is of the opinion that the staffing plan to the extent it has been developed is suitable for entrance into the project development phase, but needs additional staff and structural adjustments to appropriately manage the project through construction, and commissioning. The current staffing plan contains risks in that it limits the technical capacity and capability of the Grantee and the configuration of the organization has the potential to compromise project goals. These risks are discussed below. Risks:

• There was no staffing plan to show how and when the CPS project plans to add qualified staff to timely support the project’s progress and finance that staff.

• Quality could be compromised because the Grantee lacks its own employee(s) with FTA related quality management experience and because the person responsible for quality does not report to a level above the Project Manager.

• Safety and Security could be compromised because the safety and security working group leader (the senior position shown responsible for safety and security) reports to the Deputy Project Manager.

• Cost and schedule management may not get adequate emphasis because the PMP does not clearly define responsibility for these two vital project control functions.

• Design related decisions on operational and maintenance concepts of the CPS project would likely be compromised because the operations manager position is planned to be filled sometime during the design process rather than before that process begins.

• Permanent staffing may be inadequate in the engineering and finance areas under the current matrix organization plan, which may affect cost and schedule.

Recommendations:

• Establish the position of Project Director, which could be staffed by Stephen Del Giudice.

• The Grantee should develop a staffing plan to show the positions envisioned for the project, when they will be filled, and from where the staff will come. This plan is essential to assure that appropriately skilled staff is on board to timely support the Project Development Phase schedule and that resources are programmed to support the staff.

• Revise the organization plan to include hiring of staff experienced with FTA funded rail transit projects of similar or greater complexity as the CPS project, in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering. Establish a position for Manager of Project Controls, which could be a new hire or a seconded person. Project Controls should


10

include cost and schedule, risk management, and may include document control. Project controls should be separate and distinct from project administration.

• Designate and fill a full-time position for a Quality Manager. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a quality program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Quality Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager.

• Revise the organizational plan to include as key staff a Manager of Operations Management, which will include Operations, and Maintenance. The revised organizational plan is to include a Manager of Project Controls.

• Revise reporting relationships in Figure 7 “Project Team Detail” of the PMP so that some of the Working Group’s leaders report to the Project Manager and some report directly to the Deputy Project Manager.

• Designate and fill a full-time position for a Safety and Security Manager to support the design and all follow-on phases of the Project. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a safety and security program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Safety and Security Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager.

• The Project Management Team (PMT) should include the Director of Environmental Services, who should serve as the chair of this group. The PMOC is concerned that the Grantee’s matrix type organization will not function adequately when conflicting resource priorities arise.

Project Management Plan A Project Management Plan (PMP) is an essential management tool for a Small Starts Project moving into the Project Development Phase. The purpose of the PMP is stated in the FTA’s Oversight Procedure 20:

The PMP is the Grantee’s overarching project implementation plan that spans the entire project period. It should be a guide for action. It should describe a Grantee’s approved policies, practices, and procedures related to the management, design and construction of the major capital transit project. The PMP elements should be tailored to set forth the Grantee’s specific action plan for implementing the project, and managing the cost, schedule, and associated risks.

Arlington County submitted draft revision 2 of the Columbia Pike Streetcar project’s PMP, dated October 2012, to the PMOC for review. The table of contents of this PMP contains all of the requisite elements identified in 49 CFR Parts 611 and 633, FTA Circulars 4220.1F, 5010.1D, and 5800.1, and the FTA Master Agreement. The PMP adequately describes the project. It also describes how the project will be organized and staffed, the budget, schedule milestones, and environmental studies and documents completed to date. Résumés were provided for three persons on the Project Management Team and the lead of the Design Oversight Working group. The draft is well written; however, it is incomplete as many of the PMP sections have yet to be initiated. The PMOC recommends that the sections and elements listed in Table 1 be completed and submitted for PMOC review within 60 days of approval to enter Project Development.


11

Table 1 – PMP Sections and Elements to Be Completed

SECTION DESCRIPTION 5.0 Project Schedule (5.2 through 5.6) 6.0 Project Organization and Staffing

• Agency organizational chart showing project interfaces • Staff qualifications and experience chart • Description of project decision-making authority from top down

6.3 Interfaces among key project team members 6.4 Administrative and Support Services Organization 6.5 Design Organization 9.0 Procurement (9.1 through 9.5.3) 10.0 Contract Administration 11.0 Financial Management & Cost Control 12.0 Risk Management and Control (12.1 through 12.4) 13.0 Project Documentation and Reporting 14.0 Quality Assurance / Control (Including A Project Quality Plan) 16.0 Design and Engineering Management 18.0 Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan 28.0 Fleet Management Plan 30.0 Safety and Security Management Plan

Appendix Project Quality Plan Risks:

• The PMP does not provide sufficient details on technical capacity and capability. • Figure 7 “Project Team Detail” in the PMP shows the quality and safety functions are

under the direction of the Project Manager. This configuration runs the risk of compromising on quality and safety to meet the other project requirements of cost and schedule.

• Because Arlington County’s Manager of Capital Projects has the dual roles of Project Administration Lead, Quality Assurance/Control Lead, and has project management responsibilities for other ongoing County projects, there is a risk of insufficient attention to each CPS project role.

• The PMP does not address governance of the CPS project, and the planned Crystal City Streetcar project – a condition that may affect the schedule for design and construction.

• The Counties are developing and plan to execute a new Coordination Agreement, which will establish each County’s role in their continuing partnership in the CPS project; however, the Project may stall due to an inability of the political leaders of both Arlington and Fairfax counties to align their priorities.

• There is a risk of delay and cost growth if the challenges of coordinating with other stakeholders and the completion of adjacent work are not appropriately managed.

• There is a risk that project schedule development and management may not get adequate emphasis.


12

Recommendations: • Remove Part V (PMP Sections 30 through 40): Safety and Security Management Plan

from the PMP and make it a stand-alone document. Be sure the PMP references the SSMP.

• Complete the sections and elements of the PMP listed in Table 1 and submit for FTA review and approval within 60 days of entry into Project Development.

• Reconfigure the organization chart to show the quality and safety functions reporting to the same person to whom the Project Manager reports.

• Show on the Project Organization Chart (Figure 7 of the PMP) Stephen Del Giudice or his position title, the person to whom the Project Manager reports. Also, show the reporting relationship of Mr. Del Giudice and others to the County Board.

• Elevate the project controls function to its own Working Group and assign a Lead. Change the title of Section 5.0 in the PMP from “Project Schedule” to “Project Controls” and draft that Section accordingly.

• Eliminate the multiple responsibilities currently assigned to the Arlington County Manager of Capital Projects. Reassign the quality management function to an appropriately experienced person.

• Address the governance issue. Most importantly, address what entity will operate and maintain the CPS system.

• Clearly define the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Project Manager. • Complete and execute the amended inter-county Coordination Agreement. • Elaborate on the management structure of the Columbia Pike Working Group and its

decision authority for actions identified by the group. • Include a chart in the PMP that shows Arlington and Fairfax County Departments that

will interface with and support the project. The chart should show lines of communication between the Departments and various project staff sections.

• Include a discussion of decision-making authority in Part 1 - Project Organization of the PMP. This should address decision authority withheld and delegated, by the Arlington and Fairfax County Boards as well as by the PMT.

• The PMT should include the Director of Environmental Services who should serve as the chair of this group.

Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan

The PMP has indicated Chapter 18 will address the real estate acquisition management aspects of this project. A preliminary inventory of required parcels has been developed. However a separate Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan (RAMP) has not yet been developed. The Capital Cost estimate Memorandum dated March 26, 2012 does provide some details regarding real estate. The project will acquire parcels for the traction power substations; in addition, the project has identified three parcels required for the maintenance facility – two owned by Vornado and the other by Verizon. Arlington County intends a land swap with Vornado at no cost as part of a development agreement. Real estate acquisition is required for the bus transfer center in the Bailey’s Crossroads Shopping Center. This parcel is owned by Payne Brothers, the shopping center landowners; Levin Management Corporation owns the development rights. At the western terminus, Vornado owns the property for the tail tracks.


13

Risks:

• The cost estimate provides insufficient detail and cannot be effectively reviewed for content or methodology used.

• Acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) properties may cost more and take longer than expected.

• Without a clear real estate cost estimate methodology, it is possible that some real estate acquisition costs such as appraisal costs, overhead costs, relocation assistance services, or Settlement Factor estimates are included in the estimate.

• Insufficient information regarding activity durations for tasks such as appraisal, appraisal review, acquisition, relocation, closing, condemnation, etc.

• ROW properties associated with the TPSSs may have unique zoning, ordinance requirements, or special permit requirements.

Recommendation:

• Arlington County should develop a RAMP at least 90 days prior to submitting an application to enter the Engineering Phase, and include the identification of all parcels for the maintenance facility, TPSS locations, the new bus transfer center in the Bailey’s Crossroad Shopping Center (referred to as Jefferson Street Transit Center), and the western terminus. The RAMP should comply with the Uniform Relocation Act.

Rail Operations and Maintenance Plan

The streetcar project will operate along a 4.93-mile corridor, extending mainly along Columbia Pike between the Pentagon City area of Arlington County and the Skyline area in Fairfax County, Virginia. The project includes 18 station stops in each direction and would provide weekday service from 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Saturday service beginning at 6:30 a.m. and ending at 1:00 a.m.; and Sunday service beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at 11:30 p.m. Streetcar service will operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways. Streetcar vehicles would operate in mixed traffic within the outside travel lanes along Columbia Pike and in the inner lanes along Jefferson Street and throughout Pentagon City. As a result, they will be subject to delays resulting from traffic congestion, accidents, etc. Because the streetcar is tied to a fixed route and lane, the streetcar will not be able to be re-routed in the event of a roadway closure. There is currently only one crossover between the two tracks on Columbia Pike. These factors may affect service and it may make it difficult to maintain project headways. Risk and Contingency Management Plan

Chapter 12 of the PMP discusses Risk and Contingency Management. It is recommended that a stand-alone Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP) be developed 90 days after approval into Project Development. The use and usefulness of an RCMP is discussed in later sections of this report.


14

Project Scope Review

Scope Review Issues

As a part of the scope review, FTA asked that the PMOC report specifically on several general issues related to the overall scope review. In particular, these items are the adequacy of the vehicle fleet, the conformance of the current design documents with the NEPA documents, and the Grantee’s proposed project delivery method.

Adequacy of Vehicle Fleet

Streetcar service will operate at 6-minute headways throughout the day. Late night and evening streetcar service will operate at 12-minute headways. The project scope includes 13 streetcars to support the CPS system: 11 revenue vehicles and 2 spares. At the workshop, the rationale provided by Arlington County was that the running time, estimated with the assistance of the traffic simulation program VISSIM, was approximately 60 minutes. Operating single car trains, a restriction resulting from platform length, the required revenue fleet was determined to be 11 vehicles to support a 6-minute headway service. Arlington County has not yet developed a Fleet Management Plan and the provision of only two spare vehicles for a small captive fleet may result in the inability to reliably provide 11 vehicles for service on a daily basis. The concern is that the combination of new vehicle retrofit needs, the potential for collision damage from street running, and inspection and repair requirements, may result in more than two vehicles being out-of-service during the peak period. The PMOC has recommended that a vehicle fleet plan be developed that indicates how the revenue vehicle requirement can be adequately met. Risk

• There is a risk that the number of vehicles is inadequate to provide reliable service.

Recommendation • Develop a fleet management plan that justifies the number of vehicles required.

NEPA and Design Document Comparison

At this review, the CPS project has received approval of the LPA but has not completed the NEPA process. All design information is at a conceptual level and was completed enough to conduct a combined NEPA process and Alternatives Analysis. The documentation presented for review for Entry into Project Development is consistent with the approved LPA.

Proposed Project Delivery Method

According to the PMP, the Grantee has decided to engage an engineering consultant to develop the design during the Project Development Phase. The project schedule (Appendix B of the PMP) shows Project Development Phase engineering beginning in April of 2013. To advance the project beyond completion of preliminary design, the Grantee is considering two options:


15

Design-Bid-Build (DBB) or Design-Build (DB). It has made no decision yet on managing construction. According to PMP Subsection 6.1.2 - Project Implementation:

• A decision on the project delivery method for construction will be made during the Preliminary Engineering phase. Options under consideration include traditional DBB as well as DB. The Arlington County Board is considering revisions to the Procurement Ordinance that would enable the County to create Public-Private Partnerships for development of transportation facilities.

• The Preliminary Engineering scope will include options to address both scenarios: o Preparing specifications for the procurement of the DB contract o Undertaking final design work if the DBB effort is selected

• A decision on the procurement method for Construction Management services has not yet been made.

If the delivery method is to be DB, then the Grantee must have someone on staff who understands the coordination and scope definition issues inherent with Design-Build at the outset of design. Likewise, it is essential to have an experienced constructor on staff to comment on the preliminary design. A date or milestone must be set as part of the staffing plan to have a constructor engaged in project development at or near the beginning of preliminary design.

Risks:

• There is a significant risk of cost and schedule growth using the Design-Build approach because no one in a project management role in the Grantee’s proposed staffing has Design-Build experience and only one member of the Design Oversight Working Group has this experience. Engagement of a management consultant with that expertise may not be sufficient to overcome this risk.

• Likewise, there is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer cost, schedule, and constructability review comments on the design.

Recommendations:

• Before embarking on preliminary design, the Grantee should engage an experienced person/firm to assist the PMT in exploring the pros and cons of DB and DBB, and then choose the option best suited to the nature of the project and experience of the PMT.

• Engage a construction professional who is, or could become, invested in the completion of the project to provide constructability review comments.

• Set a milestone early in the Project Development phase for the construction management decision.


16

Third Party Agreements Agreements are required with third parties for access to property, easements, or services to be provided both for construction and afterwards during revenue operation. There are potential risks associated with the lack of agreements with these parties. The PMOC is of the opinion that the lack of agreements exposes the project to undetermined cost and schedule risks and recommends that the County finalize third party agreements during the Project Development phase. A preliminary list of third party agreements includes:

• Utilities o Dominion Virginia Power o Verizon o Washington Gas o Comcast

• Government Agencies o United States Department of Defense (DOD) o United States Department of the Interior (DOI) o Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) o Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) o Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) o Virginia Department of Historic Resources o Virginia Department of General Services (DGS) o Fairfax County o Arlington County

• Developers o The project is dependent on two developers to complete 12th Street South

construction prior to installing the streetcar system on the alignment. Risks:

• All third party agreements have not been identified which may affect project cost and schedule.

• Obtaining agreements with government agencies, such as DOD, may affect the schedule. • Delays by the developers in completing the 12th Street South construction could affect

the project’s scope, cost, and schedule. Recommendations:

• Develop a comprehensive list of all potential third party agreements with private and government entities within six months of approval into Project Development. Include the list in the PMP and articulate actions to coordinate finalization of agreements and the execution of work by these third parties.


17

Design Development

Project Alignment The initial alignment was approved by the Arlington County and Fairfax County Boards. While the basic alignment from Pentagon City to Skyline is not changed, there are several final decisions that need to be made concerning certain sections of the alignment, including the following:

• Median or curbside alignments in Pentagon City • South Joyce Street to Columbia Pike at the Air Force Memorial • Skyline Terminus • Location of Emergency Crossovers • Location of the Maintenance Shop

In the Pentagon City area, the alignment changes direction several times. At the proposed station locations, the engineering to accommodate both the high volume of highway traffic and the streetcar platform, must address as soon as possible which will be center platforms in the median and which will be curbside platforms. The current alignment of Columbia Pike turns to meet South Joyce Street in an intersection common with the Southgate Road of Arlington Cemetery. It is proposed that Columbia Pike be realigned to intersect more directly with South Joyce Street using property owned by DOD for parking at the soon to be demolished Navy Annex. A revised alignment would eliminate some length of line and eliminate the U-turn in the alignment through the existing intersection. As a secondary benefit, it could permit a redevelopment of the federally owned lands and the allocation of part of the remaining site to Arlington County for a streetcar storage yard and maintenance shop. The Skyline terminus included in the LPA is known as the S2 option. This option crosses Leesburg Pike at South Jefferson Street and then runs a short distance on the southwest side of Leesburg Pike. There is an alternate proposal under consideration that would cross Leesburg Pike and proceed directly into the Skyline development (crossing a current underground parking garage entrance) and terminating in a plaza area. The drawbacks of this alignment are that the structural uncertainties resulting from reconstruction of the underground garage and the location of the terminal relative to any future line extensions. If the alternate site is to be considered, the Skyline developer must agree to contribute the difference in cost between the LPA terminus and the alternate terminus. For this alternate to be considered viable, the necessary engineering studies will need to be done to determine the cost and technical feasibility of the alternate Skyline terminus. If feasible, an agreement will need to be reached between the Skyline developer, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the choice of alignment finalized on a timely basis for the overall project engineering to continue without disruption. Additional crossovers, passing sidings, or pull-offs along Columbia Pike should be addressed in the design criteria. In the AA-EA design, there are only the crossovers at the end terminals for use in regular operation. There is no ability in the current track layout for any intermediate


18

tracks that would facilitate recovery of the system from disruptions due to equipment failure or highway accident. The currently proposed location for the maintenance shop and storage yard is in the Pentagon City / Crystal City area of Arlington. Land developed in the area are for high-rise hotel, office, and residential buildings making property expensive. The result is that the footprint of the shop and yard is small and irregular. The cost of designing, constructing, and operating such a facility under these constraints increases cost and schedule and requires precise detail in the design of the facility for operations. If an alternative site could be found, most probably along Columbia Pike between South Joyce Street and Washington Boulevard near the Air Force Memorial, most of these concerns can be mitigated. Arlington County should make the search for an alternate location a high priority. Recommendations:

• Median or curbside alignments in Pentagon City should be resolved as soon as practical. • Pursue the realignment of Columbia Pike to the intersection of South Joyce Street near

the Air Force Memorial to improve the streetcar alignment and potential for an alternate site for the streetcar storage yard and maintenance shop.

• Work with the Skyline developer to determine the feasibility of the alternate Skyline terminus and to make a final choice of alignment within.

• Consider crossovers or other emergency-use trackage along Columbia Pike to facilitate recovery from an interruption of service.

• As a high priority, investigate alternate locations for the maintenance and yard facility. Vehicle Design Criteria At the workshop, the capacity of the proposed vehicle was discussed as compared with capacity requirements along Columbia Pike. It was noted that the existing designs could be used to provide additional capacity if the vehicles were lengthened to 24 meters (about 80 feet) in length. However, an increase in length affects horizontal and vertical curve design, the height of the low floor, and the length of the terminal tracks and shop tracks. The PMOC recommended that the design criteria be reviewed so that it would be able to accommodate a longer vehicle. Including some additional accommodation in the design criteria may also increase the number of manufacturers willing and able to provide streetcars capable of operating on the system. Recommendations:

• Develop the design criteria so that the horizontal and vertical alignments can accommodate a reasonable selection of available streetcar designs. The PMOC suggests that the criteria accommodate streetcars up to 24 meters in length.

Geotechnical Issues – Aerial Structure and Retaining Walls Neither geotechnical reports nor geotechnical information was provided for review. Geotechnical information should be developed for the track slab sections, any proposed retaining walls along the alignment; and the proposed terminal and maintenance facilities. Retaining walls


19

are under consideration at several locations (South Jefferson Street to allow re-profiling) along the alignment which may require regrading to reduce grades. Geotechnical information may also be required for the reinforcement of the Four Mile Run Bridge if the existing pier footings need to be modified for the reinforcement of this structure. Additionally, it is conceivable that deep track slab sections may be required at certain locations due to unsuitable ground conditions.

Utility Relocation

Utility drawings have not been provided for review. However, the proposed alignment, for the most part, runs in existing streets and roadways in a built up urban area. Therefore, it can be assumed with certainty that utility conflicts will occur between the existing utilities and the proposed streetcar track slab construction and possibly other related construction. The Grantee has indicated that the guideway was to be constructed in accordance with WMATA TRAM/LRT Guideline Design Criteria. The PMOC questions the use of this criterion since WMATA may have no future involvement in this project. The Grantee indicated that design criteria development and utility rules of practice are underway. The proposed project alignment has been broken down into seven (7) sections for utility analysis. Various levels of information are available depending on the section in question. The grantee has investigated the availability of as-built utility information available for each section and conducted a walking site inspection for utilities in each section. No subsurface investigations have been conducted. A tabulation of utilities has been provided identifying the level of impact (major/moderate/minimal), type of impact (transverse/longitudinal) and the utility type by segment (Engineering Report, Table 18.1 Utility Tabulation). Utility agreements were not provided. These agreements should be advanced, executed and drawings developed for impacted utilities to be relocated at the expense of the project. The table referenced above indicates a significant portion of the necessary utility relocation work will be by others. This should be confirmed by agreement(s). Recommendations:

• Arlington County should complete its own design criteria for the CPS project to guide utility relocation and confirm agreements with regard to utility relocation.

Environmental and Hazardous Material Studies

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted and a report prepared by Greenhorne & O’Mara in August of 2009. Seventy-five (75) hazardous and contaminated material Recognized Environmental Condition sites were identified either within the proposed alignment, the proposed facilities, or immediately adjacent to the corridor. These sites are identified on Exhibit 12-2 of the Environmental Report. However, none of the sites has been determined to be of major concern since the construction of the guideway is shallow, being either at grade, or slightly below grade.


20

SCC Estimate Risk Assessment

The review of project scope was conducted in such a way as to identify areas of potential risk to the project from the design chosen for the project and its implementation as shown in the concept drawings and in the specifications, and supporting documents. Refer to Appendix F for the documentation reviewed. Figure 3 provides a preliminary view of the relative importance of each of the top-level SCC codes. SCC 70 – Vehicles is the largest Cost Category followed by SCC 10 – Guideway and Track construction. Professional Services is the third largest Cost Category and is 30.4% of construction costs, SCC 10 through SCC 50.

Figure 3 – SCC Relative Cost Estimate

The line item cost data shown at the start of each SCC Category is taken from the SCC Workbook dated October 15, 2012 which is also shown in Table 2. SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements

SCC Description Direct Cost

Allocated Contingency

2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

10 Guideway and Track Elements $34,762 $2,392 $37,154 $41,293

Note: All values in $ thousands


21

Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way (SCC 10.01) Scope: The schematic plans reflect only short portions of the guideway in exclusive right-of-way at the terminal stations. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: Costs are included with SCC 10.03. Risks:

• There are potential cost and schedule risks due to impacts from other related construction projects along the alignment.

• 12th Street between Hayes and Fern Streets - street width, ability to have transit-only lanes, on-street parking

Recommendations:

• Finalize agreements with stakeholders such as VDOT and the two developers. Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic (SCC 10.03) Scope: A majority of the proposed alignment is at-grade in mixed traffic from 12th Street South at the eastern terminus to South Jefferson Street. The corridor requires approximately 4.91 route-miles with two tracks. Numerous cross-sections are proposed for various portions of the alignment as reflected in Plan Sheets TYP 001 through TYP 017. There are several current and proposed projects with the project alignment. They include:

• The Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvement Project sponsored by Arlington County, which includes improvements to Columbia Pike. This project will proceed in phases, one of which has been completed, one is in construction, and the remainder are in design.

• The Washington Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Reconstruction Project sponsored by VDOT. This project is currently under construction.

• The Columbia Pike Super Stops Project sponsored by Arlington County. This project will incorporate combined streetcar and bus stops. This project is also underway.

• The proposed construction of 12th Street South may be by two developers. If one, or both, of these developments fall through, Arlington County may have to construct half or all of 12th Street South.

• There is a proposal by the Department of the Interior to modify Army/Navy Drive by adding bicycle lanes on the south side affecting the eastbound travel lane.

• Columbia Pike may be realigned in the vicinity of South Joyce Street. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017.


22

Cost: Costs were developed on a running foot basis depending on cross-section and track configuration. Risks:

• There are potential cost and schedule risks associated with each of the projects noted above.

• If a deeper track slab section (>15”) is required due to ground conditions, the costs are not presently included.

• Catenary clearance at Washington Boulevard poses a cost and schedule risk. • Trackway alignment on Army-Navy Drive - may change to median running; coordination

with cycle track project • Construction of 12th Street by two private developers. There is a risk of delay in

completing agreement and a risk that one of the adjacent properties may fail to develop due to market conditions. There is a cost risk that the County will need to construct the street.

• Alignment crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with VDOT coordination and approvals.

• Hayes Stop - Trackway geometry to make turn onto 12th Street. Recommendations:

• Finalize agreements and identify cost-sharing measures with stakeholders including Arlington County, VDOT, United States Department of the Interior, and the proposed developers of 12th Street South.

Guideway: Aerial Structure (SCC 10.04) Scope: The Four Mile Run Bridge is an existing structure carrying Columbia Pike over Four Mile Run Creek. The five span structure was constructed in the early 1940’s and has been widened and rehabilitated several times with the last rehabilitation being done in 2000. The structure is approximately 70 feet in length, approximately 67 feet wide with four 12-foot travel lanes, gutters and sidewalks. The structure itself is of composite construction with a concrete substructure, concrete piers, precast concrete beams and an 8-inch concrete deck (HS-20 loadings). The latter is deemed too thin to support the proposed streetcar construction and will require reinforcement to provide the necessary 11-inch thick track slab. If low profile block rail becomes available, it may be possible to make some savings in the slab depth. In addition, the substructure will require evaluation and possible strengthening. Reinforcement of the bridge may require regrading of both bridge approaches to accommodate the increase in deck thickness. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Backup information supporting the base cost of $4.1 million was provided.


23

Risks: • Until further engineering studies are conducted, there are potential cost and schedule

risks due to the possibility of unforeseen conditions uncovered at Four Mile Run Bridge. • Skyline alignment - potential for structural issues with the construction of the alternate

terminal station. Recommendations:

• Advance additional studies to determine if existing pier foundations and piers of the Four Mile Run Bridge are adequate to support the structural revisions required by the track slab.

Track: Embedded (SCC 10.10) Scope: Most of the track length for this project will be embedded type track. As such, the unit cost per track foot is a significant issue for the project. The design of the track must bear in mind both the material cost and the construction ease of the final design of embedded track. Block rail or 115 RE regular rail will meet Buy America requirements. Therefore, the design needs to determine which of these two choices is best. Among the considerations is development and protection of the flangeway if 115 RE rail is used and pre-bending of rail if the block rail is used. The current design criteria is based largely on the use of 115 RE rail, which may not be optimal for the CPS project. There may advantages to the block rail if the structural slab can be made thinner and if the track laying does not have the same level of concrete finishing as needed for 115 RE rail. At this time, CPS is looking closely at block rail for at least the Four Mile Run Bridge reinforcement. Schedule: No schedule is shown. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The estimated cost of embedded track is based on a unit price derived from various projects across the country. PMOC review of other projects, combined with a conceptual estimate of the proposed section finds that the $425 per track-foot is on the low end of the expected price range.

Risks:

• The choice of track construction method could affect cost and schedule. Until design progresses to define the cross section in detail, there are cost and schedule risks.

• Availability of U.S. made block rail or girder rail. Recommendations:

• Conduct a detailed evaluation of the cost and constructability of building track using block rail versus standard 115 RE rail.

• Develop a fully detailed embedded track section indicating components and method of construction.


24

Track: Ballasted Track (SCC 10.11) Scope: There is a small amount of ballasted track near the terminals. The track would be typical railroad construction using 115 RE rail on either wood or concrete crossties. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The current project estimate shows 960 track feet of ballasted track. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Track: Special (switches, turnouts) (SCC 10.12) Scope: The design criteria for special trackwork needs to be defined based on whether the special trackwork is in embedded track or on ballasted track. In either case, the use of rather low radii is suggested for turnouts as is typical for streetcar applications. It is suggested that curved frogs be used to reduce jerk unless the frog is at the start of tangent track. However, in the interest of maintainability, especially for clearing snow and maintaining clean flangeways, the use of ballasted track is recommended in the terminal crossovers in exclusive right-of-way. CPS has been urged to consider one or more passing sidings or pull-offs along Columbia Pike as added scope for operational purposes to clear disabled equipment or turn-back in case of other disruptions on the street. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: The cost of the recommended passing tracks or pull-offs is not included in the project budget. Risks:

• Number and location of crossovers, turnouts, or passing tracks along Columbia Pike are not determined.

Recommendations:

• A short section of exclusive ballasted track should be considered for the crossovers at the terminal stations.

• CPS should consider the installation of passing sidings or pull-offs to improve operating reliability.

Track: Vibration and noise dampening (SCC 10.13) Scope: Vibration and noise dampening should be included as an integral part of the design of the embedded track or special trackwork design. However, at the intersection of Columbia Pike


25

and Jefferson Street there is a concern over the curving noise. At this intersection, the turn is over 90 degrees of angle and is at a significant change of grade. A combination of geometry and noise dampening may be required. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: There is no cost included in the project cost estimate for vibration or noise dampening features in the track. Risks:

• There is a risk that the community near Jefferson Street may request additional noise prevention features in the track.

Recommendations:

• Noise mitigation measures should be investigated as part of the NEPA process.

SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal Facilities



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

20 Stations $5,256 $547 $5,803 $6,449 Note: All values in $ thousands

At-Grade Station, Stop, Shelter, Mall, Terminal, Platform (SCC 20.01) Scope: Several station stop configurations are included in the project; however, costs for all types are carried elsewhere. The various types of proposed of station stops are:

• Center Stop – 75’ x 12’ Platform, that will include platform, canopy, benches, fare collection devices, message boards and trash receptacles. There are five (5) center stop platforms included in the project.

• Side Stop – 75’ x 12’ Platform with the same amenities as the Center Stops. There are two (2) side stop platform included in the project. The Super Stop program will construct all other side stop platforms.

• Side Stop – 120’ x 12’ Platforms that are noted to be constructed by others as part of the Super Stop program.

• Side Stop – 90’ x 12’ Platforms that are noted to be constructed by others as part of the Super Stop program.

• South Jefferson Street Transit Center with an at grade Park-and-Ride lot of 200 spaces, including bus stop, canopy, and benches.

• Three configurations were contemplated for the Skyline terminus. Two remain under consideration.

The Skyline terminus included in the LPA is known as the S2 option. This option crosses Leesburg Pike at South Jefferson Street and then runs a short distance on the southwest side of


26

Leesburg Pike to a center platform. This alignment is exclusive at-grade right-of-way after crossing Leesburg Pike. There is an alternate proposal under consideration that would cross Leesburg Pike and then proceed directly into the Skyline development. An alignment in this general direction was removed from consideration since it was partially over active retail space, the Target store, making construction costs prohibitive. However, the developer has suggested a slightly different alignment that would cross the entrance to an underground parking garage and still terminate in a plaza area. The drawbacks of this alignment are the structural uncertainties resulting from reconstruction of the underground garage and the location of the terminal relative to any future line extensions. If the alternate site is to be considered, Arlington/Fairfax County expects to reach an agreement with the Skyline developer to contribute the difference in cost between the LPA terminus and the alternate terminus. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Costs for the Super Stop platforms are not included in the project. • Costs for the platforms included in the project were developed on a square foot basis

from actual stations costs from two other Arlington County Super Stop projects. • The estimated cost is based on the Skyline S2 option.

Risks:

• There is a schedule risk associated with the construction of numerous station stops by others.

• If the alternate Skyline terminal is chosen, there may be schedule risks related to completion of the engineering design and negotiation of the development agreement.

• Skyline alignment may be constrained to accommodate planning for potential future extensions.

• Hayes Stop - coordinate platform length and position with landscape design for the Pentagon City Multimodal Project.

• Conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) laws and ADA reviews may affect cost and schedule.

Recommendations:

• Secure agreements with the other stakeholders constructing station stops. • Finalize location and configuration of the Skyline terminus.


27

SCC 30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops and Administration Buildings



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

30 Support Facilities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings $13,402 $996 $14,398 $16,003

Note: All values in $ thousands Light Maintenance Facility (SCC 30.02) Scope: The scope of this section is the light maintenance facility. The shop location shown in the current design documents show the facility between 12th Street South and 11th Street South along Eads Street. The sketches show a servicing track, two vehicles in length, which can be used for inspections and light running repairs. There is one track with a single car capacity for heavier maintenance. Although not a part of this evaluation, the facility may also be used to service the proposed Crystal City Streetcar project. One of the key attractions for the site is the potentially low real estate cost, as the parcels are considered difficult to develop for other uses. Overall, the maintenance facility site is very constrained. While there are some sketches showing shop requirements, this facility will need to be designed in sufficient detail early in the project to first, verify that the shop capacity and layout are feasible for efficient operation, and second, to be able to make a reliable cost estimate. The cost estimate includes line items for the shop and support areas. However, some shop concepts also include automobile parking under the shop as part of a potential joint development, which is not included in the estimate. Some parking will be required, at least 40 spaces, and the shop design does not address this requirement. The cost estimate includes a line item for a wheel-truing machine and the shop design description indicates its usefulness. However, there is not apparent space in this shop design for a wheel-truing machine and it is ultimately not included in the cost estimate. The estimated cost of vehicle lifts and other shop machinery is not included in the cost estimate. Overall, the PMOC is concerned that the cost estimate for the shop is understated, especially given the accommodations that will be needed to utilize this constrained site. The design of the shop needs to be progressed sufficiently to be able to estimate the construction cost accurately and this effort needs to be done early in Project Development. Specifically, the building footprint and internal shop layout (vehicle spots, clearances, material handling and access) need to be fully developed and the track layout for the shop and yard need to be fully developed. Both of these design concepts need to be reviewed and approved by the Streetcar Manager of Operations before being accepted and a cost estimate developed. Although this site was included in the LPA proposal as a feasible site for the maintenance facility, there are significant limitations that make an alternate location more desirable for construction, operations, and expandability of the facility. Schedule: No schedule is given.


28

Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The grantee’s cost estimate for the Light Maintenance Facility only includes $75,000 for utility relocations. The site visit showed several vaults and manholes throughout the proposed footprint of the facility, including storm, water and Verizon utilities. Utility relocations are likely to cost significantly more.

• The grantee’s cost estimate for the Light Maintenance Facility does not include square footage for the underground parking proposed in one of the design sketches.

• There are no costs included for wheel truing, vehicle hoists, exterior car washer, and other shop equipment.

Risks:

• The shop as designed may be difficult to operate efficiently due to its location and congestion in the small shop footprint. The shop may need additional track or equipment.

• The shop as designed may not be able to support service expansion. • Failure to achieve a joint development agreement for the maintenance facility could delay

or disrupt the project. The underground parking as designed includes parking spaces for the proposed joint development, but the cost does not. There are schedule and cost risks until a joint development agreement is signed and the size of the underground parking is determined.

Recommendations:

• The shop should be taken to a higher level of design early in project development to be able to quantify the construction and operating cost of a shop on the proposed site.

• It is recommended that an alternate location be investigated for the maintenance shop. Yard and Yard Track (SCC 30.05) Scope: The scope of this section is the layover storage yard for the vehicles. The storage yard shown in one sketch has a capacity of seven vehicles, less than the 13 vehicles proposed for the project. As noted in the discussion of the maintenance shop, the design of the entire facility, including the storage yard, needs to be progressed as soon as possible to a higher level of design early in project development to be able to quantify the capacity and the construction and operating cost of a storage yard on the proposed site. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The cost estimate is for a simple building to enclose and secure the storage area. Some sketches show parking as an overbuild of the storage yard but that is not included in the cost estimate.

• The yard tracks are shown as all embedded track. Risks:

• An additional storage yard may be required if sufficient capacity is not available. • Coordination of land transfer and joint development on maintenance facility site.


29

• Potential of having to find different maintenance facility site poses a Schedule risk. Recommendations:

• The yard design should be taken to a higher level of detail early in project development to be able to quantify the capacity and the construction and operating costs of a storage yard on the proposed site.

• It is recommended that an alternate location, if available, be investigated for the maintenance shop that will have adequate space for the storage yard facility.

• The use of ballasted track in the storage yard may present an opportunity to reduce costs. SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

40 Sitework and Special Conditions $14,756 $1,900 $16,656 $18,511

Note: All values in $ thousands Demolition, Clearing and Earthwork (SCC 40.01) Scope: The project will require significant demolition of the existing paving, curbs and sidewalks along the alignment to accommodate the guideway. Clearing and earthwork should be relatively limited due the current built up environment. One exception would be the regrading required along South Jefferson Street to bring the vertical alignment to a maximum of 7.5% grade. Current grades are in the range of 10%. This re-profiling will also require the construction of retaining walls on both side of South Jefferson Street. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• A lump sum figure has been provided for demolitions along South Jefferson Street only. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Utilities (SCC 40.02) Scope: Utility drawings have not been provided for review. However, the proposed alignment, for the most part, runs in existing streets and roadways in a built up urban area. It is assumed with some degree of certainty that utility conflicts will occur between the existing utilities and the proposed streetcar track slab construction, ductbank construction and other related facility construction.


30

The proposed project alignment has been broken down into seven sections for utility analysis. CPS has investigated the availability of as-built utility information available for each section and conducted a walking site inspection for utilities in each section. No subsurface investigations have been conducted. A tabulation of utilities has been provided identifying the level of impact (major/moderate/minimal), type of impact (transverse/longitudinal) and the utility type by segment (Engineering Report, Table 18.1 Utility Tabulation). Utility agreements were not provided. These agreements should be advanced, executed and drawings developed for impacted utilities to be relocated at the expense of the project. The referenced table indicates a significant portion of the necessary utility relocation work will be by others. There is a potential for government (DOD, etc.) communications facilities in the area. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Costs were developed on a running foot basis depending on assumed disturbance levels (minimal, moderate, major on Columbia Pike). Utility costs on South Jefferson Street are an allowance.

Risks:

• There are schedule and cost risks until the utility agreements are in place. • There are schedule and cost risks associated with unknown utility interferences. There

are schedule and cost risks associated with utility relocations being performed by others. • Unexpected security sensitive utilities may be identified or unearthed during design or

construction phases. • Verizon duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate in maintenance facility location. • Verizon and Dominion duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate and may need

protective structure. • Hayes Stop - requires modification to WMATA ventilation structure. • Washington Boulevard Interchange project - utility adjustment agreement not executed.

Recommendations:

• Provide utility agreements with the involved utilities and/or jurisdictional agencies. Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soil Removal / Mitigation, Ground Water Treatment (SCC 40.03) Scope: No specific scope is identified in the documents Schedule: A detailed construction schedule was not provided. The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: None at this time.


31

Risks: • There is a potential risk (slight) to encounter hazardous or contaminated material along

the corridor. Recommendations: None at this time. Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historical/archeological, parks (SCC 40.04) Scope: No provision has been made in the documents provided for this category. No work is detailed for the existing footings of the Four Mile Run Bridge; however, should modification of the existing footings or new footings be required to support the necessary structural revisions, environmental mitigation or protection may be required. A historic boundary marker for the District of Columbia is located on South Jefferson Street approximately 600’ south of Columbia Pike in the area requiring re-profiling. Although it is reported that this monument has been relocated in the past, the proposed profile and alignment has been designed to eliminate any impact to this monument at its current location. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Costs were provided on a running foot basis for erosion and sedimentation control. Costs were also provided on a running foot basis for environmental mitigation.

Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Site Structures including Retaining Walls, Sound Walls (SCC 40.05) Scope: Existing grades along South Jefferson Street are in the range of 10%. Regrading will be required for approximate 500 feet of South Jefferson Street to bring the vertical alignment down to the maximum allowable grade of 7.5%. This re-profiling will also necessitate the construction of retaining walls on both sides of South Jefferson Street. Sound walls are not contemplated for this project. An additional retaining wall may be required near South Dinwiddie Street, which is currently being widened; however, the current design for South Dinwiddie Street does not require a retaining wall. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Some cost for the retaining walls at South Jefferson Street are in the estimate. Risks: None at this time.


32

Recommendations:

• Determine if retaining walls are required at other locations along the corridor. Access and Accommodation, Landscaping (SCC 40.06) Scope: Pedestrian access has been addressed in the plans and cost estimate. Schedule: The schedule relating to construction is a bar graph schedule with a single two-year duration activity shown with construction running from mid-2015 to mid-2017. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• Pedestrian access cost was included under SCC 50. • Landscaping is noted as not being included in the project.

Risks:

• There are potential constructability issues related to the Multimodal Project at Columbia Pike near South Dinwiddie Street.

• Pedestrian access cost to be adjusted from SCC 50 to SCC 40.06. Recommendations: None at this time. Automobile, Bus, Van Accessways including Road and Parking Lots (SCC 40.07) Scope: There are three alternatives for the Transit Center configuration at Jefferson Street. Two include an at-grade park and ride lot of 200 spaces, the third involves reconfiguring Stop R. The Transit Center will include a platform incorporating a bus stop, canopy, fare machines, message board, and benches. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• A lump sum cost has been provided for the Transit Center. Risks:

• Jefferson Street regrading - potential drainage and ROW issues. Recommendations:

• Confirm the final configuration of the South Jefferson Street Station. Temporary Facilities and other indirect cost during Construction (SCC 40.08) Scope: Grantee’s capital cost estimate includes allowances for maintenance and protection of traffic, but not other temporary facilities or indirect costs. Maintenance and protection of traffic will require a major effort during construction, particularly if Columbia Pike is to remain open during construction.


33

Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• An allowance is provided for maintenance of traffic. • An allowance of approximately 3% of construction cost is included for contractor

mobilization. Risks:

• Construction staging / laydown parcel may become entangled with land transfer deal with federal government.

Recommendations: None at this time. SCC 50 Systems Elements



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

50 Systems $26,857 $2,686 $29,543 $32,834 Note: All values in $ thousands Train Control and Signals (SCC 50.01) Scope: Currently, there is no signaling or powered track switches on the line. All switch operation is planned to be hand-throw operation. Hand-throw is a time consuming operation that could result in operating delays. Schedule: No schedule is given. Cost: There was no cost included for train control or powered switches. The PMOC has made an addition to the cost estimate of $1.4 million. Risk

• There is a risk that hand-throw switch operation is inadequate and could adversely affect operations.

Recommendation:

• The project should utilize powered track switches operated by an on-board remote control device.

Traffic Signals and Crossing Protection (SCC 50.02) Scope: The scope consists of the following:

• New traffic signals and controllers (8) • Add streetcar signal to existing signal (2)


34

• Modify existing controller (2) • Modify traffic signals to accommodate catenary system (47) • Traffic signs and roadway striping – entire route

Schedule: Work not specifically identified on schedule. There should be no schedule concerns with this work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• An allowance of $650 per signal is used for modifying the traffic signals to accommodate the catenary system. In our opinion, the cost is too low and a cost of $1,000 per location should be used.

Risks:

• Crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with traffic operations issues. • Greenbrier Stop - traffic operations analysis required, additional traffic signal may be

needed. • The cost of modifying existing traffic signal cantilevers may be underestimated.

Recommendations:

• Increase the estimate for modifying the existing traffic signals to accommodate the catenary system.

Traction power supply: substations (SCC 50.03) Scope: The streetcar system is planned to be powered by an overhead contact system (OCS) rated 750 volts dc. The plan provides for four TPSSs along the right-of-way, each rated 1 MW (mega-watt), and one substation in the shop rated 0.5MW. The utility company, Dominion Power, will supply high voltage power to each substation site. It is not clear from the documents how the substation sites were chosen. There are a number of locations where the alignment is on severe grades (up to 7%) and this will affect the traction power system. A traction power simulation was performed, but it did not include an analysis of vehicle bunching. An updated power simulation study should be performed that includes an analysis of vehicle bunching and other operational situations to determine the best substation locations. The project team indicated that one or more substations might be located below grade. Water penetration has been a serious problem at below grade stations due to the conduits that run from the substation to the field. The project should locate all substations at grade to save costs and reduce the potential for flooding. The design includes a decorative enclosure for the substation (typically brick façade) to meet the aesthetic needs of the community. Schedule: The project schedule does not show traction power substation work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The unit price for a 1.0 MW TPSS is $2 million, which is at the higher end of the range. This higher cost is appropriate because the substation is planned to be below grade, which adds a significant cost.


35

• There is no cost for supplying electrical utility service to the substations. • The cost allowance for the 0.5 MW TPSS at the Shop appears to be too low. An

allowance of $750,000 should be used. Risks:

• There is a risk that future power simulation studies could show that additional substations or substation equipment may be required to meet all contingency requirements.

• There is a risk that a below grade substations could be subject to water penetration. • There is a risk that the cost of the Shop substation is too low. • Location of traction power substations is not determined which may have ROW, systems

design, and zoning/permitting risks. Recommendations:

• Perform an updated power simulation study, including contingency analysis, to determine if the TPSS design is adequate and the substations are properly located.

• Build all substations at grade to eliminate the risk of flooding and reduce costs. • Add the cost of supplying electrical service to the substation sites to the project estimate. • Increase the cost of the Shop substation by $250,000.

Traction Power Supply: Catenary and Third Rail (SCC 50.04) Scope: Power will be supplied to the streetcars via a 750 volt dc OCS consisting of poles, foundations, a constant tension single wire system and ancillary equipment including insulators, hangers, and rail cross-bonds. There is approximately 40,000 route feet of single guideway catenary and 6,000 feet of double guideway catenary. Included in this cost category is an underground duct bank with three 4-inch conduits and power feeder and negative return cables. Schedule: The project schedule does not show traction power supply and distribution work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The estimate uses $330 per foot for single guideway design and $440 per foot for double guideway design. The cost includes the cost for an underground ductbank, power and negative return cables. The estimate is at the higher end of the range of costs and is acceptable for this stage of the project.

Risks:

• The OCS design may not be aesthetically acceptable to the community. Recommendations:

• None


36

Communications (SCC 50.05) Scope: The project assumes that the system will utilize the Arlington County fiber optic communications network being installed on Columbia Pike and allows for 150-foot extension to the station sites to connect to the fare collection equipment, emergency phones, and the message board, and for an extension into South Jefferson Street. The network will also be used for radio communications between the control center and the vehicles. A total of 3,700 feet of fiber cable is planned. The scope indicates that a message board will be installed at the seven stops not included in the Super Stop project. There is no public address system included in the scope of work. Schedule: The project schedule does not show communications work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• There are no costs in the project estimate for a two-way radio communication system. Add $200,000 to the estimate for base stations, modifying field installations, and for procuring radios for supervisors and maintenance staff.

• The costs for communications equipment at station locations is in the stations portion of the estimate (SCC 20). That estimate does not have any costs allocated for emergency phone communications.

• The estimate for procurement and installation of a message board is $7,500 per location. It is our opinion that this cost is too low and that a cost of $25,000 per location is more appropriate. This will add about $100,000 to the estimate for the locations that will need message boards as part of this project.

Risks:

• The costs for the communications could increase significantly if the Arlington County fiber optic network is not available for the project.

• The communications estimate is too low based on the omission of a radio system, emergency telephones and the low unit cost of the message boards.

Recommendations:

• Update the communications cost estimate to include the cost of a radio system and emergency telephones and increase the unit costs of the message boards.

Fare Collection Systems and Equipment (SCC 50.06) Scope: The fare payment system is based on an off-vehicle “proof of payment” system. The project assumes that two fare machines will be located at each platform and that they will be simple single paper ticket dispenser. In addition, there would be an on-board validator. The design documents do not discuss multi-ride options including weekly, monthly, or other fare options that may be considered. In addition, there is no consideration of transfers to other systems. In our opinion, the current fare collection design is too simplistic; it will most likely require multi-trip fares and transfers to other systems.


37

Schedule: The project schedule does not show fare collection work. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The cost of the fare collection is in the station estimate (SCC 20) and should be assigned to this SCC code.

• The project estimate uses a unit cost of $4,000 for procurement and installation of one ticket vending machine, or $8,000 per platform. Recent proposals for similar ticket vending machines of the type proposed for CPS are roughly $23,000 installed. This has increased the cost for fare collection by $1.2 million.

• There are no costs in the estimate for on-board validators. • There are no costs in the estimate for back-office support equipment.

Risks:

• The cost estimate for fare collection appears to be too low. Recommendations:

• Revise the cost estimate for fare collection. Central Control (SCC 50.07) Scope: The Maintenance Building includes a control center room with a dispatcher’s desk, a computer system, monitors and a radio system for communicating with streetcar operators. There is no control of any track switches, nor is there any monitoring or control of traction power substations. In addition, it is not clear in the design documents if there is a GPS-based vehicle monitoring system in the control center. In the PMOC’s opinion, there should be some level of monitoring and control for the traction power substations and a vehicle location monitoring system should be included. Schedule: The project schedule does not show installation of the control center. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The cost of the control center is in the Shop estimate (SCC 30). • The project budget has an allowance of $200,000 for the control center. In the PMOC’s

opinion, this estimate is too low. (Add $800,000 allowance). Risks:

• The cost estimate for the control center is too low and should include monitoring and control of the traction power substations in the project scope.

Recommendations:

• Add monitoring and control of the traction power substations to the project scope. • Include a GPS-based vehicle location monitoring system. • Update the estimate for the control center.


38

Review of Procurement Items SCC 60 ROW, Land and Existing Improvements



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

60 Right-of-Way (ROW), Land, Existing Improvements $10,797 $1,620 $12,417 $13,177

Note: All values in $ thousands Scope: The construction of this project will require real estate acquisition of several parcels. The project intends to acquire property for the maintenance facility in Pentagon City area, traction power substation sites along the streetcar corridor and for a bus transfer center in the Bailey’s Crossroad Shopping Center along South Jefferson Street. The real estate along the corridor for widening of Columbia Pike and utility relocations is part of another Arlington County project – the Columbia Pike Multimodal Street Improvements Project with limits from South Joyce Street to South Jefferson Street. Furthermore, another Arlington County project – the Columbia Pike Super Stops Project is upgrading numerous bus stops along the Columbia Pike corridor. The scope of this project will include the real estate acquisition for the 24 Super Stops (12 pairs) that will serve as future streetcar stops. Schedule: The project schedule does not show real estate acquisition activities. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The project has identified three parcels required for the maintenance facility – two owned by Vornado and the other by Verizon. Arlington County intends a land swap with Vornado at no cost. The parcel owned by Verizon has an appraised value of $7.417 million (Base Year).

• The project will acquire parcels for the four traction power substations along the corridor. The recent detailed cost estimate indicates a $4.37 million (Base Year) cost estimate.

• At the west terminus, real estate acquisition is required but not identified for the bus transfer center in the Bailey’s Crossroad Shopping Center. The estimate includes a Base Year cost of $629,050.

• The contingency utilized for real estate is 15%. Risks:

• The potential for additional real estate parcels is a cost risk. • The coordination with two other major projects that if not advanced or completed can

substantially increase the cost and affect the schedule. • The contingency for real estate is low. • The project does not anticipate any business or residential relocations, but if required this

will have a cost and schedule impact. • Walter Reed westbound stop: ROW issues for Super Stop. • Insufficient information regarding activity durations for tasks such as appraisal, appraisal

review, acquisition, relocation, closing, condemnation, etc.


39

• ROW properties associated with the TPSSs may have unique zoning or ordinance requirements.

• The cost estimate provides insufficient detail and cannot be effectively reviewed for content or methodology used. Acquisition of ROW properties may cost more and take longer than expected.

• Potential for realignment of Columbia Pike between Air Force Memorial and South Joyce Street. Affects streetcar alignment location and length. ROW for shop and yard may become available.

• County ROW group is not knowledgeable concerning Federal real estate statutes. • Real Estate Cost Methodology is not complete.

Recommendations:

• Develop a Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan in accordance with FTA requirements. Provide a matrix of all potential parcels and conduct an appraisal. Include acquisition support costs and contingencies in the cost estimate for real estate acquisition.

SCC 70 Vehicles



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

70 Vehicles $49,140 $2,457 $51,597 $58,525 Note: All values in $ thousands Light Rail Vehicles (SCC 70.01) Scope: The vehicle contemplated for use on this line is similar to the vehicle used by the Portland Streetcar and the District of Columbia streetcar. This design was developed by Skoda in the Czech Republic and is licensed to United Streetcar of Portland, Oregon. There are other manufacturers in the streetcar market in the United States. One issue discussed at the workshop was the effect of setting the design criteria both for the vehicle and for civil construction. The impact of specifying vehicle type and size using a 20-meter vehicle such as the design discussed above may limit the current and future options for streetcar operations. Several vehicle designs that might be considered are 24 meters in length. If the design criteria specifies a slightly longer vehicle, the track alignment and shop design will provide adequate clearances for a wider variety of streetcar manufacturers. CPS has estimated the current cost of a streetcar at $3.6 million each. As a comparison, Portland ordered six streetcars in 2009 at a contract value of $20 million1, a unit price of $3.33 million. The CPS estimate was escalated by 13.4% representing 4.25 years of escalation; however, the procurement will need to be made earlier than that timeframe and so the estimated escalation

1 Joint Media Release-City of Portland/Oregon Iron Works, Inc. /./United Streetcar, LLC., August 14, 2009.


40

would be less. However, until the contract is awarded, there should be additional contingency maintained to protect against market price fluctuations. It is not clear that the CPS project is budgeted for consultant support and inspection for the procurement of these vehicles. An allowance of 2% to 6% of the cost of the vehicles should be added to the base vehicle cost. Schedule: Given the size and capacity of the manufacturers of these vehicle and given the need to have vehicles available for system testing, the delivery of the first vehicles should be scheduled for at least 12 months and preferably 18 months before the targeted start of revenue service. This is suggested to allow for a less aggressive vehicle production rate and to prevent rail vehicle delivery from becoming the project critical path. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The cost for vehicles is supported by recent procurements. However, the cost should be escalated to the award of the contract and not to mid-point of construction.

• An allowance for engineering and inspection support for vehicle procurement does not appear to have been included.

• The project estimate includes an allocated contingency of 5% for vehicle procurement, which may be understated until the vehicle procurement contract is awarded.

Risks:

• The procurement cost of the vehicles may exceed the estimate with the currently allocated contingency.

• Potential for excessive grades along Columbia Pike and Jefferson Street - risks associated with design criteria and vehicle performance.

• There is a risk that the number of vehicles is inadequate to provide reliable service. Recommendations:

• Revise the cost estimate to include engineering and inspection support for the vehicle procurement.

• Until contract award, additional contingency should be maintained for market price fluctuations.

• Design criteria should accommodate a wider variety of streetcar designs. Other vehicles (SCC 70.06) Scope: This item is used for non-revenue vehicles to support maintenance of the line, such as utility trucks and bucket trucks. If the line will be operated by an outside contractor, then the provision of maintenance vehicles could be included in the operating contract. However, if Arlington County or another government agency will operate and maintain the line, these vehicles will be needed. Schedule: No schedule impact.


41

Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations: • The detailed estimate backup indicated that there was no scope provided for this line

item. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Spare Parts (SCC 70.07) Scope: This section covers spare parts for the rail vehicles. Given the small fleet, an allowance of 5% to 10% is reasonable. CPS is estimating this line item at 5% of the fleet value. Schedule: No schedule impact Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• The allowance for vehicle spare parts is 5% with an allocated contingency of 5%. Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time. Other Project Costs SCC 80 Professional Services



2012 Base Year Cost

Baseline Cost Est.

80 Professional Services $31,821 $0 $31,821 $35,016 Note: All values in $ thousands SCC 80.01 – 80.07 Professional Services Scope: The current project estimate includes 3% of the current estimate for Preliminary Engineering. With the need to complete NEPA support during Preliminary Engineering, this percentage is likely to be low. The need for an allowance up to 6% of construction cost is more likely needed for Preliminary Engineering, especially so if alternative project delivery methods are used. There needs to be a separate estimate for Project Management and Construction Management. Project Management is estimated from the staffing plans in the PMP. Construction Management for a project of this magnitude will likely be a third party contract. SCC 80.04 should be reserved for this contract.


42

The estimate for line item SCC 80.08 indicates 3% for systems testing. This allowance needs to be included under the SCC 50 line items. However, there does need to be an allowance for pre-revenue operational training; an allowance has been added as a PMOC adjustment. Cost: The following percentages of construction (before contingency) were derived from SCC 80 line items:

• 80.01 Preliminary Engineering 3% • 80.02 Final Design 8% • 80.03 Project Mgmt. for Design/Construction 13% • 80.04 Construction Admin. & Management Included with 80.03 • 80.05 Insurance 4% • 80.06 Legal, permits; review fees by others 1% • 80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 1% • 80.08 Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work 3%

Risks: The risks presented in this section include a restatement of the programmatic risks included in prior sections of this report:

• The Preliminary Engineering percentage is set at 3%. PE costs can sometimes be as high as 6% and this percentage may be more reasonable.

• There is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer constructability review comments on the design.

• Project delivery method – Risk associated with the potential need to respond to unsolicited proposals under the Public-Private Transportation Act.

• Delays in obtaining approvals at key milestones. • All third party agreements have not been identified, which may affect project cost and

schedule. • Obtaining agreements with government agencies, such as DOD, may affect the schedule. • The PMP needs to be completed in the area of Design Organization, Procurement,

Contract Administration, Cost Control, Project Documentation, Quality Assurance, Design and Engineering Management, and Safety and Security Management.

• An experienced streetcar operator needs to be retained to provide input to design requirements and concepts as they relate to the operation of the completed system.

• Because of Capital Program Manager’s dual roles on the project (Quality Assurance and Project Administration) and other non-project responsibilities, there is a risk of insufficient attention to each CPS project role.

• Staffing may be inadequate in the engineering and finance area, which may affect cost and schedule.

• The decision on governance of the CPS project, and planned Crystal City and Leesburg Pike projects may affect the schedule for design and construction of the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project.

• The Project may stall due to an inability of the political leaders of both Arlington and Fairfax Counties to align their priorities.

• There is a risk of compromised decision making with regard to safety and security due to the reporting relationships shown in Figure 7 “Project Team Detail” in Rev 2 of the PMP.


43

• There is a risk that budget may not be adequate for a project that may take longer than currently envisioned.

• There is a risk that project schedule development and management may not get adequate emphasis.

• Because the County lacks its own employees with FTA related quality experience, there is a risk of inadequate emphasis, approach, and attention to the details necessary for an effective quality program.

• There is a risk of delay if timely decisions are not made on whether to use Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build.

• There is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer constructability review comments on the design.

• There is a risk of delay and cost growth if the challenges of coordination with other parties and completing adjacent work are not appropriately managed.

Recommendations:

• The percentage basis for SCC 80.01 Preliminary Design should be increased in the cost estimate.

SCC 80.08 Start-Up / Agency Force Account Work Scope: There is no description of Start-Up in the project scope. Schedule: No start-up schedule developed at this time. Cost: A review of line items resulted in the following observations:

• There is a 3% allowance for system testing shown in the estimate. These costs should be moved to the SCC 50 section.

• An allowance of $300,000 should be included for start-up after system acceptance but before revenue operation.

Risks: None at this time. Recommendations: None at this time.


44

Project Cost Review Review and Analysis of Project Cost The PMOC reviewed the cost estimate documentation supplied by the Grantee. Cost estimate provided divides the estimate into three cost centers; Mainline (4.7 route-miles), S2 Skyline Segment (1,035 route-feet) and Pentagon City Segment (125 route-feet). Review and Analysis of Project Cost Estimate The PMOC reviewed the Grantee’s estimate of project cost to determine if it is (1) mechanically correct and complete, (2) free of any material inaccuracies or incomplete data, (3) consistent with relevant, identifiable industry or engineering practices, (4) uniformly applied by the Grantee’s cost estimators and consistent in its method of calculation and (5) consistent with the project scope adopted in the LPA. The Grantee’s estimate format diverges from the official Standard Cost Categories at the secondary summary level. The PMOC reviewed grantee cost data and assessed the degree to which the definition of project scope (inclusive of construction work quantities) in material design deliverables correspond to the quantity data contained or implied in the grantee cost data. The PMOC reviewed the estimate unit costs that the Grantee Estimate Report indicated as having been developed as follows: The majority of composite unit costs used for the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative capital cost estimates are developed based on a “bottom up” approach. In this approach, the cost of major work elements, as generally defined by typical sections, is determined by totaling the cost of their component parts on a per unit basis. Sufficient engineering data is required to define the scope of work and quantities represented by each typical section. Unit prices are developed and combined with the estimated quantities to determine the costs for each major category of work. Bottom up: The advantage of this approach is the ability to adjust costs for minor changes of scope, as well as the higher confidence level inherent in a bottom up estimate. The disadvantage is that at the conceptual level of planning, the level of engineering detail available is typically not sufficient to warrant itemizing each feature to the degree desirable for a complete bottom up estimate. In general, this approach was used here for the following cost categories: guideway, maintenance facilities, systems, and right of way. Top down: In this method, an order-of-magnitude cost is determined, usually derived from data from similar projects, and this cost is used directly, as a percentage of the overall construction project, or converted to some unit of measure (such as route feet) and applied as a unit cost. This method is faster than the bottom up approach; and for conceptual planning purposes, it can be sufficiently accurate. The disadvantage is that site-specific elements of the source project are not identical to elements of the alternative being evaluated. A greater emphasis was placed on the top down approach to estimate costs for the following categories: stations, site work and special conditions, vehicles, and soft costs.


45

Cost estimates prepared for this project included a blend of bottom-up and top-down approaches, making the best use of available unit cost data and data from completed projects. The Grantee did not follow the guidelines with regard to allocating costs to the SCC categories. As a result, the breakdown of costs between categories is not accurate and the PMOC advised the Grantee to revise the format of the project cost estimate. Accuracy of Cost Estimates The estimating methods described above represent professionally accepted standards for preparing capital cost estimates to a level of accuracy that is consistent with the level of project definition. Accuracy is traditionally expressed as a +/- percentage range around the point estimate that has been produced and is greatest in the early stage of project definition and progressively decreases as project definition increases. For example, for typical transportation projects, the expected accuracy range of an estimate prepared from final design documents is approximately +10/-5 percent. For projects at the General Plan stage (15 percent plus design), which is generally accepted to be at the point where the majority of major construction items can be quantified, the accuracy range could be expected to be about +20/-15 percent. The cost estimates summarized as part of this memorandum are based on a level of design detail appropriate to the Alternatives Analysis-Environmental Assessment phase of FTA New Starts/Small Starts project development--prior to Preliminary Engineering. One of the primary techniques used to address uncertainties inherent in the estimating process at this stage is the application of appropriate design allowances or contingencies. As a project progresses through subsequent phases, the level of detail in the design will increase and the design allowances will decrease proportionally. The estimate was provided by the Grantee in the form of an Excel workbook that included the calculation and pricing of the scope as described in the Capital Cost Estimate Memorandum dated March 26, 2012. As the project is still in the planning phase, detailed drawings are not yet developed and the cost estimate includes only high-level quantities and pricing. No quantity or pricing calculations are available. The lack of traceability of the cost estimate is a cause of concern, but the major quantities are verifiable. Quality and mathematical checks for accuracy and traceability were performed on the Project Cost Estimate. Individual line items were checked and summed to confirm the title level subtotals. PMOC found some minor errors in calculations that appear to be due to rounding up. This is not uncommon when creating estimates with a spreadsheet. The Grantee’s estimate backup tracks the rounding of quantities to the appropriate number of significant figures. The computed subtotals were generally accurate.


46

Grantee Baseline Cost Estimate Table 2 shows the Columbia Pike Streetcar project cost data as presented in the most recent submission.

Table 2 – Summary of Grantee’s Project Cost Estimate

SCC Description Direct Cost* Allocated Contingency

2012 Base Year Cost

Grantee Baseline Cost Est.

10.00 Guideway and Track Elements $34,762 $2,392 $37,154 $41,293

20.00 Stations $5,256 $547 $5,803 $6,449

30.00 Support Facilities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings $13,402 $996 $14,398 $16,003

40.00 Sitework and Special Conditions $14,756 $1,900 $16,656 $18,511

50.00 Systems $26,857 $2,686 $29,543 $32,834 Total Construction Cost $95,033 $8,520 $103,553 $115,091

60.00 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $10,797 $1,620 $12,417 $13,177

70.00 Vehicles $49,140 $2,457 $51,597 $58,525 80.00 Professional Services $31,821 $0 $31,821 $35,016

Subtotal Project Cost $186,791 $12,597 $199,388 $221,809 90.00 Unallocated Contingency $21,626 $24,140 100.00 Finance Cost $0 $0

Total Project Cost $221,014 $245,949 Note: All values in $ thousands Baseline Cost Estimate in $YOE; Direct Costs and Allocated Contingency in 2012 Base Year costs.

* The Grantee did not follow the guidelines with regard to allocating costs to the standard SCC categories. As a result, the breakdown of costs between categories is not accurate and the PMOC advised the Grantee to revise the format of the project cost estimate.

Recommended Cost Adjustments Using this cost estimate as a base, the PMOC estimate includes cost additions found during its review but not incorporated into the project cost estimate. These modifications are shown in Table 3. The total amount of PMOC additions recognized at the November 8-9, 2012 workshop was a $27.3 million increase in Base Year Costs.


47

Table 3 – Identification of PMOC Adjustments

SCC Code Description Cost

Addition Comment

10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure $500 Addition of column reinforcement and bracing - Four Mile Run

10.10 Track: Embedded $2,500 Increase in cost of track slab construction 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility $2,500 Building cost estimate 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility $4,000 Equipment, car wash facility, wheel truing machine 30.02 Light Maintenance Facility $250 Increase in cost of maintenance shop substation 30.05 Yard and Yard Track $1,800 Additional track 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $2,000 Relocation of Verizon ducts at Pentagon City 40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $1,000 Relocation of utilities along Columbia Pike 50.01 Train control and signals $1,600 Power control of switches 50.05 Communications $300 Additional communications equipment 50.06 Fare collection system and

equipment $1,200 Increase in cost of fare collection equipment

50.07 Central Control $800 Increase in cost of control center 70.01 Light Rail $2,800 Increment for larger vehicle (i.e. 24 meter length) 70.01 Light Rail $3,600 One additional vehicle 70.07 Spare parts $180 Spare parts allowance for additional vehicle 80.01 Preliminary Engineering $2,000 Additional Preliminary Engineering 80.08 Start up $300 Start-up costs -- training for operators and central control

staff TOTAL $27,330

Note: All values are Base Year Costs in $ thousands Escalation The cost estimate provided for the workshop, Streetcar Project, Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate, dated October 16, 2012, used a constant escalation of 3.0% per year in its worksheet to generate the BCE. This rate of escalation is not adequate although it is consistent with inflationary indices maintained by the Engineering News Record (ENR) magazine. The average rise in ENR’s Construction Cost Index and Building Cost Index has been 3.36% and 3.01%, respectively, for the past five years. Owners have experienced a favorable bidding environment during the recent economic downturn. However, as the economy accelerates, market conditions are expected to increase the rate of escalation that has been experienced in the near past. The PMOC recommends increasing the escalation to 4% per year. Risks:

• Inflation rates may be higher than projected. • Bid risks, including cost and schedule delays. • Buy-America for materials and equipment may increase project costs.

Recommendation:

• Use a 4% escalation rate to calculate the BCE.


48

Project Risk Identification Risk Register A preliminary Risk Register has been developed for the CPS project and provided to the PMOC. During the PMOC’s review of project data, the project’s Risk Register was updated and enhanced. For this report, the Risk Register was formatted in the FTA OP-40 recommended format and data from the existing Risk Register was entered into that format. Risks were added by the PMOC team during their review of the project data and after the workshop. After the workshop, the PMOC rated each risk item as to probability of occurrence, cost impact, and schedule impact using the criteria shown in Figure 4 as guidance. Similarly, the Grantee was asked to also rate the risk factors in the same manner. Consensus as to risk factors is recorded in the Risk Register included as Appendix B.

Legend Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Very High (4) Significant (5)

Probability < 10% 10%><25% 25%><50% 50%><75% >75%

Cost < $250K $250K><$1M $1M><$3M $3M><$10M >$10M

Schedule < 1 Mths 1><3 Mths 3><6 Mths 6><12 Mths >12 Mths

Score <=6 6.1-18.9 >=19

Figure 4 – Risk Rating Chart

Risk and Contingency Assessment Cost Risk Assessment Methodology FTA has directed the use of the Modified Cost Range Analysis (MCRA) for estimation of the probable range of projects costs. This method uses the existing cost estimate as a base for calculation of the cost range for each of the first level SCC codes based on the level of overall development observed in project definition, completeness of project design, and the level of detail in the cost estimate. The analysis generally follows the method described in the AACE International Recommended Practice (RP) 17R-97 - Cost Estimate Classification System2 and is calibrated to parameters derived from the TCRP G073 study. The project estimate is classified according to Figure 5, which is taken from AACE RP 17R-97 Table 1 – Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix4.

2 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97 Cost Estimate Classification System, revised November 29, 2011. 3 Transit Cooperative Research Program Project G-07 — Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation, Final Report, November 2005. 4 Page 2 of 7, AACE International Recommended Practice No. 17R-97, November 29, 2011.


49

Primary Characteristic Secondary Characteristic

ESTIMATE CLASS

MATURITY LEVEL OF PROJECT

DEFINITION DELIVERABLES Expressed as % of complete definition

END USAGE Typical Purpose

of estimate

METHODOLOGY Typical estimating

method

EXPECTED ACCURACY RANGE

Typical +/- range relative to index of 1 (i.e. Class 1 estimate)

Class 5 0% to 2% Screening or feasibility

Stochastic (factors and/or

models) or judgment

4 to 20

Class 4 1% to 15% Concept study or feasibility

Primarily stochastic 3 to 12

Class 3 10% to 40% Budget

Authorization or control

Mixed but primarily stochastic

2 to 6

Class 2 30% to 75% Control or bid/tender

Primarily deterministic 1 to 3

Class 1 65% to 100% Check estimate or bid/tender Deterministic 1

Figure 5 – Generic Cost Estimate Classification Matrix

Calculation of the estimated project cost and the estimated range of project costs using the MCRA Model is conducted in six steps:

1. Develop Adjusted Estimate 2. Assessment of Project Development by SCC 3. Recommended Contingency Levels by SCC 4. Conditioned Estimate 5. Application of Cost Ranges by SCC 6. Summarizing and reporting results of the MCRA

Project Cost Risk Assessment Adjusted Cost Estimate An adjusted cost estimate is the initial condition of the estimate. The first step in the process is shown in Table 4. The project cost estimate shown in Table 2 provides the first level SCC code budget cost shown in Column A and expressed in YOE dollars. The budgeted allocated contingencies (at YOE) are shown in Column B. The project cost adjustments identified by the PMOC in Table 3, expressed in YOE, are shown in Column C. The Adjusted Estimated SCC estimate (D) is calculated as the Sponsor Estimate (A) less the Allocated Contingency (B) plus PMOC Adjustments (C).


50

Table 4 – Calculation of Adjusted Estimate

All costs are in $ thousands.

Development Level of the Cost Estimate The second step is to characterize the development level of the cost estimate as provided using the maturity of the project scope definition and the estimate methodology to classify the estimate according to AACE Cost Estimate Classification (Class 5 through Class 1). Table 5 shows the description of the Project Development Level and a comparison to the AACE Cost Estimate Classification. The PMOC is of the opinion that the cost estimate is at Class 5 or Class 4.

Table 5 – Project Development Level

(A) (B) (C) (D)(A-B+C)

SCC CategorySponsor YOE

Estimate

Sponsor Contingency

(YOE)

PMOC Adjustments

(YOE)Adjusted Estimate

10 Guideway and Track Elements 41,293 2,658 3,334 41,969 20 Stations 6,449 608 - 5,841

30Support Facil ities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 16,003 1,107 9,503 24,399

40 Sitework and Special Conditions 18,511 2,112 3,334 19,734 50 Systems 32,834 2,985 4,334 34,183 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 13,177 1,719 11,458 70 Vehicles 58,525 2,787 7,464 63,202 80 Professional Services 35,016 - 2,531 37,547 90 Unallocated Contingency 24,140 24,140

Total 245,948 38,116 30,500 238,332

Development Level

Development Milestone

Degree of Scope Development

AACE Estimate Class

AACE Estimating Methodology

AACE Level of Project Definition

Level 1 Conceptual / early Project Development

0% to 15% Class 5 Stochastic or judgment 0% to 2%

Class 4 Primarily stochastic 1% to 15%

Level 2 Mid-stage Project Development 15% to 30%

Class 3 Mixed but primarily stochastic

10% to 40%

Level 3 Entry into Engineering ~60% Class 2 Primarily

deterministic 30% to 75%

Class 1 Deterministic 65% to 100% Level 4 Ready to Bid ~90%

Level 5 Start of Construction ~100%


51

Project Development Level For the CPS project, the PMOC has characterized all of the SCC codes 10 through 60 as being at Level 1, which is Conceptual or Early Project Development with the exception of SCC 20 – Stations, which is at Level 2 since the platforms will be the same as the Super Stops program. In the previous sections of this report there were numerous occasions where it was identified that the costs were incorrectly assigned to SCC codes. However, since all of these SCC codes are taken at roughly the same level of development, this does not affect this analysis. Since an existing vehicle design has been identified and since the design criteria for the fixed plant will be set, as a minimum, to accommodate this vehicle, SCC 70 is assigned Level 3. SCC 80 is assigned Level 2 since project management costs are reasonably well known. Recommended Contingency and Conditioned Estimate The Recommended Contingency Percentage based on Development Level shown in Table 5.

Table 6 – Recommended Contingency and Range Factor by Development Level

Development Level

Development Milestone

Recommended Contingency

Recommended Range Factor

Level 1 Concept / early Project Development 30+% >0.45

Level 2 Mid-stage Project Development 30% 0.45

Level 3 Entry into Engineering 20% 0.33 Level 4 Ready to Bid 15% 0.25

Level 5 Start of Construction / In Construction 10% 0.18

In Table 7 the Development Level is noted in column (E). For Level 1 the PMOC is of the opinion that a Recommended Contingency of 35% and a Range Factor of 0.54 are appropriate. The Conditioned Estimate is calculated using the Adjusted Estimated SCC estimate (D) multiplied by the Recommended Contingency Percentage (F) to calculate the Factored Contingency (G). The sum of the Factored Contingency values for each SCC is the Recommended Contingency for this project, which is $71.8 million. The Factored Contingency value (G) plus the Adjusted SCC estimate (D) is the Conditioned Estimate (H) for each first level SCC code. The sum of the Conditioned Estimate line items is the project Conditioned Estimate of $310.1 million.


52

Table 7 – Calculation of Conditioned Estimate

Reviewing the results leading to the Conditioned Estimate, the original Grantee contingency was $38.1 million, which was 18.3% of the Grantee BCE without contingency, or $207.8 million. The PMOC addition of $30.5 million is 14.7% of the same $207.8 million. The Adjusted Estimate is $207.8 million plus the PMOC addition, a total of $238.3 million. Using this higher basis with the recommended contingencies from Table 6 results in a contingency recommendation of $71.8 million, which is 30.1% of the Adjusted Estimate. Potential Project Cost Range The Recommended Range Factor corresponding to the Development Level of the first level SCC code (see Table 6) is used to calculate the possible range of project costs. As shown in Table 8, the Conditioned Estimate (H) is multiplied by the Recommended Range Factor (I) to determine the estimated possible Cost Range (J) for this first level SCC line item. The Cost Range represents the total estimated range of cost from the low end to the high end of possible costs. The Total Cost Range for this project is $146.5 million.

(D) (E) (F) (G) (H)(A-B+C) (D*F) (D+G)

SCC CategoryAdjusted Estimate

FTA Development

LevelRecommended Contingency %

Factored Contingency

Conditioned Estimate

10 Guideway and Track Elements 41,969 1 35% 14,689 56,658 20 Stations 5,841 2 30% 1,752 7,593

30Support Facil ities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 24,399 1 35% 8,540 32,939

40 Sitework and Special Conditions 19,734 1 35% 6,907 26,640 50 Systems 34,183 1 35% 11,964 46,147 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 11,458 1 35% 4,010 15,468 70 Vehicles 63,202 3 20% 12,640 75,842 80 Professional Services 37,547 2 30% 11,264 48,811 90 Unallocated Contingency

Total 238,332 71,767 310,099


53

Table 8 – Calculation of Project Cost Range

Distribution of the Potential Project Cost Range The lower and upper end of the likely range of project cost is established by first level SCC using the Conditioned Estimate and the Cost Range (see Table 9). The low end of the likely range for a first level SCC line item is 37% of the Cost Range subtracted from the Conditioned Estimate. The upper end of the likely range for a first level SCC line item is 63% of the Cost Range added to the Conditioned Estimate. The sum of the calculated Low End values (K) for the SCC line items is the Low End of the Project Cost Range. Similarly, the sum of the calculated High End values (L) for the SCC line items is the High End of the project Cost Range.


54

Table 9 – Calculation of Limits of Cost Range

For the CPS project’s proposed budget of $245.9 million, the analysis using the MCRA model indicates that the low-end project cost is $255.9 million; the high-end budget is $402.4 million; the most likely, or conditioned, project estimate is $310.1 million. Secondary Cost Mitigation Recommendation As protection against a higher level of project cost than anticipated, FTA recommends that the Grantee plan to provide Secondary Cost Mitigation, which is the ability to mitigate cost increases over that recommended by the Project Conditioned Estimate. The planned Secondary Cost Mitigation should be achieved through additional budget contingency, potential scope reductions, or additional available funding. Using the MCRA method, the Recommended Secondary Mitigation (M) amount is 33% of the Project Conditioned Estimate (H) and is applied as a project-wide recommendation. The recommended secondary mitigation required for the CPS project is approximately $23.7 million. Cost Model Comparison In order to gain further actual data to evaluate the model in use by FTA for estimating the range of possible project costs, a comparison was made of four different models using the data provided as part of the review of the Columbia Pike Streetcar project. This is also one of the first uses of the Modified Cost Range Analysis (MCRA) method for estimating the project cost range. Table 10 compares the modeling results, using the CPS data, of the MCRA method and the Beta Range Factor and other models described in OP-40. This data is indicative of the results at the Pre-PE phase only, as the Beta Factors and Range Factors vary at other project phases.

(H) (J) (K) (L) (M)(D+G) (H*I) (H-(37%*J)) (H+(63%*J)) (33%*G)

SCC CategoryConditioned

Estimate Cost RangeCost Range

Low EndCost Range

High End

Recommended Secondary Mitigation

10 Guideway and Track Elements 56,658 30,595 45,338 75,933 20 Stations 7,593 3,417 6,329 9,746

30Support Facil ities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 32,939 17,787 26,358 44,145

40 Sitework and Special Conditions 26,640 14,386 21,318 35,703 50 Systems 46,147 24,920 36,927 61,847 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 15,468 8,353 12,378 20,730 70 Vehicles 75,842 25,028 66,582 91,609 80 Professional Services 48,811 21,965 40,684 62,649 90 Unallocated Contingency

Total 310,099 146,450 255,912 402,362 23,683


55

There is a small difference between the input data for the MCRA model and the Beta Range Factor models due to the fact that the MCRA method uses only the first level SCC codes and the Beta Range Factor models use a reassignment of second level SCC costs from the Detailed Project Estimate with unadjusted escalation factors. For the MCRA model, the Adjusted Estimate was $238.3 million; for the Beta Range Factor Models the equivalent was $238.4 million.

Table 10 – Comparison of FTA Cost Models

Model Most Likely Cost

Secondary Mitigation

OP-40 Beta Range Factor (50% at Pre-PE) $417,269 OP-40 Beta Range Factor (90% at 20% Const.) $317,154 Contingency Analysis $309,863 OP-40 Revised Beta Range Factor $314,131 $23,220 Modified Cost Range Analysis $310,099 $23,683 All costs are in $ thousands.

With the exception of the unrevised OP-40 Beta Range Factor Model at Pre-PE all of the other models are clustered between $309.8 million and $317.2 million, a range of roughly 2.3% of the estimate average. The PMOC is of the opinion that the cost models in use by FTA are consistent in their prediction of the recommended BCE for this project. Risk Mitigation Strategy Risk and Contingency Management Plan The Risk and Contingency Management Plan is the primary planning tool for managing risk mitigation. The primary role of the RCMP is to identify, categorize, prioritize, and track risk mitigation activities. The RCMP also contains the project monitoring plan that will be used to define and track mitigation deliverables for discussion among FTA, the PMOC, and the Grantee. The RCMP should be developed to guide contingency management through the Project Development, Engineering, and Construction phase of the project within 90 days after approval into Project Development. Primary Mitigation At the November 8-9, 2012, the PMOC and grantee reviewed the key project milestones and proposed mitigation efforts identified at each milestone and updated the Risk Register. The complete Risk Register is attached as Appendix B. Mitigation Deliverables The basis for scheduled mitigation is the management and completion of tasks, which effectively mitigate the identified risk. Reporting of these accomplishments and monitoring of those efforts


56

by the PMOC will be reported with the attainment of the specified Mitigation Milestones. A list of typical Mitigation Deliverables to achieve the specified Mitigation Milestones is found in Table 11.

Table 11 – Mitigation Deliverables

# Mitigation Deliverable Status 1 PMP 2 Acceptance of Project Delivery Method 3 Accepted Final Alignment at Skyline 4 Approved Final Alignment of Columbia Pike at South Joyce Street 5 Pentagon City Shop and Yard Refined Concept 6 Development of an adequate Rail Fleet Management Plan 7 Development of an adequate RAMP 8 Development of an adequate RCMP 9 Streetcar Manager of Operations Retained 10 Streetcar Contract Awarded 11 TPSS Power Simulation Study 12 Monthly Progress Report 13 Top 10 Risk List

Top 10 Risks The PMOC recommends the use and maintenance of a table of Top 10 Risks (Table 11 item 13) as part of the Monthly Progress Report (Table 11 item 12) to continuously focus project management attention on the high probability, high impact risks facing the project. Mitigation of these risks has the greatest benefit to the project. It is recommended that the Top 10 List become a part of the monitoring deliverables that are reviewed with the PMOC on a monthly basis. Table 12 shows the Top 10 Project Risks at the current stage of project development. This initial table of Top 10 Risks is ordered from the most pressing to the least pressing of the major risk items facing the project.

Table 12 – Top 10 Project Risks

Risk No.

Risk Category Cost Sched. Risk Description Mitigation

R-11 X X The shop may need additional track or equipment to operate efficiently.

Review maintenance facility program - space allocation and cost; Review proposed facility for ability to accommodate additional program elements; Study two alternative site (already identified); Make decision to change facility location or accept operational inefficiencies of original site.


57

Risk No.

Risk Category Cost Sched. Risk Description Mitigation

R-39 X X An experienced streetcar operator needs to be retained to provide input to design requirements and concepts as they relate to the operation of the completed system.

Request additional staff position. Include in PMC scope for assistance as stop-gap.

R-1 X X There are potential cost and schedule risks due to impacts from other related construction projects along the alignment.

Identify each interfacing project, and assess risk of each.

R-12 X X Potential of having to find different maintenance facility site. Coordination of land transfer and joint development on maintenance facility site.

Continue seeking alternative site. Related to R-11

R-17 X X There is a risk that hand-throw switch operation is inadequate and could adversely impacts operations

Evaluate adequacy, and if necessary redesign and incorporate into cost estimate.

R-6 X X Alternate Skyline alignment - potential for structural issues with the construction of alternate terminal station

Analyze during preliminary engineering and make determination.

R-26 X X Potential for realignment of Columbia Pike between Air Force Memorial and South Joyce Street. Affects streetcar alignment location and length. ROW for shop and yard may become available.

R-27 X X County ROW group lacks knowledge of Federal real estate statutes.

Staffing plan includes new hire in real estate. Add real estate support into PMC contract.

R-33 X X Project delivery method -- Risk associated with the potential need to respond to unsolicited proposals under Virginia’s Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA).

Develop review procedures for unsolicited proposals.

R-8 X X Alternate Skyline alignment - location of terminal station not set. Accommodate planning for potential future extension(s).

Analysis during preliminary engineering as an early action and make determination.


58

Conclusions and Recommendations As the CPS project enters into the next stage of project development and completes the NEPA process and Preliminary Engineering, the PMOC recommends that Arlington County take the following steps:

• Hire or retain the services of individuals that will directly represent Arlington County for the CPS project. Among the positions Arlington County or seconded staff should fill are the Streetcar Manager of Operations and the Quality Assurance Manager.

• Retain the services of a program management consultant to support CPS’s management of the NEPA effort and management of the design and construction contractors.

• Complete the CPS PMP and obtain FTA approval as soon as possible as a means of specifying the needed services from the program management consultant. Recommendations for issues to be addressed in the PMP are:

o CPS needs to develop a staffing plan to show the positions envisioned for the project, when they will be filled, and from where the staff will come. This plan is essential to assure that appropriately skilled staff is on board to timely support the Project Development Phase schedule and that resources are programmed to support the staff.

o The Project Management Team (PMT) should include the Director of Environmental Services who serves as the chair of this group. The PMOC is concerned that the grantee’s matrix type organization will not function adequately when conflicting resource priorities arise.

o Revise the organization plan to include hiring of staff experienced with FTA funded rail transit projects of similar or greater complexity as the CPS project in the areas of operations, maintenance, and engineering.

o Revise the organizational plan to include as key staff a Streetcar Manager of Operations whose responsibility includes planning for revenue operations and maintenance.

o Designate and fill a full-time position for a Quality Manager. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a quality program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Quality Assurance Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager.

o Designate and fill a full-time position for a Safety and Security Manager to support the design and all follow-on phases of the Project. Require the person filling that position to have significant experience managing a safety and security program for FTA funded rail transit projects. Organize so that the Safety and Security Manager reports at least one level above the Project Manager.

o Establish a position for Manager of Project Controls including cost and schedule, risk management, and possibly document control. Project controls should be separate and distinct from project administration.

o Assign specific responsibility for coordination with other projects that will affect the Streetcar Project such as Super Stops, utility relocation work, and the South Jefferson Street Transit Center.


59

Two key decisions are needed early in the Project Development phase of the project:

• Determine the project delivery method to be used for construction with consideration for the fact that Arlington County may not have adequate experience with Design-Build and other alternative contracting methods.

• Determine who will operate and maintain the system since this decision will affect the configuration of budgets, contracts, and project management.

During the Project Development phase, Arlington County needs to negotiate and finalize agreements and identify cost-sharing measures with a variety of stakeholders including VDOT, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the US Department of the Interior, the US Department of Defense, Fairfax County, other department within Arlington County, and the proposed developers of 12th Street South. The PMOC has reviewed several project documents and has documented its findings with regard to scope, schedule, and cost issues. The PMOC recommendations that Arlington County take action on the following issues during the Project Development phase to address the risks identified during this review:

• Develop a RAMP identifying all parcels for the maintenance facility, TPSS locations, and the South Jefferson Street Transit Center, including acquisition support costs and contingencies, and complying with the Uniform Relocation Act.

• Perform an updated power simulation study, including contingency analysis, to determine if the TPSS design is adequate and the substations are properly located.

• Consider the installation of passing sidings or pull-offs and power operation of switches to improve operating reliability.

• Investigate the opportunity to simplify the road and streetcar alignment of Columbia Pike near the Air Force Memorial.

• Develop a Fleet Management Plan that describes how the number of vehicles was determined.

• Develop design criteria that can accommodate a wider variety of streetcar designs. • Pursue and finalize the location and configuration of the Skyline terminus. • Advance additional studies to determine if existing pier foundations and piers of the Four

Mile Run Bridge are adequate to support streetcar system loads. • Conduct a detailed evaluation of the cost and constructability of building track using

block rail versus standard 115 RE rail and develop a fully detailed embedded track section indicating components and method of construction.

• Take the maintenance shop and storage yard design to a higher level of detail to quantify the capacity and the construction and operating costs of a shop and yard on the proposed Pentagon City site.

• Investigate an alternate location for the maintenance shop that will have adequate space for the shop and yard facilities.

The current CPS project budget is $245.9 million. The PMOC review of the scope and cost highlighted some areas where, in the PMOC’s opinion, additional cost may be needed for the project as currently configured. The recommended cost additions were:

• Engineering – $2 million


60

• Utility relocation – $3 million • Additional bracing and foundations at Four Mile Run Bridge – $0.5 million • Track slab construction cost – $2.5 million • Shop and Yard facilities – $8 million • Systems, including communications, fare collection, and central control – $4 million • Vehicles – $6.5 million

These additions total approximately $27 million in Base year cost, which when escalated for inflation is about $30.5 million in budget cost. The PMOC’s analysis of the project cost including appropriate contingencies indicated that the final cost of the project could range from a low-end project cost of $255.9 million to a high-end of $402.4 million with the most likely project estimate being $310.1 million. Although the analysis performed for this review has predicted a cost higher than that originally budgeted, the PMOC is of the opinion that at this stage of development there are opportunities to reduce the likely cost of the project by attending to the pressing risks and mitigating those risks. In summary, the PMOC is of the opinion that of the CPS project has a high likelihood of meeting the stated project purposes and goals if the recommendations outlined in this report are adopted. Arlington County needs to further develop its capabilities to manage a project of this type, size, and complexity. Arlington County has adequately defined the project scope for Project Development. Having achieved an approved LPA, it is adequate to progress toward NEPA approvals. Arlington County needs to make a decision early in Project Development concerning project delivery method that is consistent with their capacity to administer the project. The PMOC recommends that this project be considered as a New Starts project and that FTA consider approval of this Grantee into Project Development.


Appendices Appendix A – List of Acronyms AA-EA Alternatives Analysis – Environmental Assessment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 CPS Columbia Pike Streetcar DB Design-Build DBB Design-Bid-Build DOD Department of Defense ENR Engineering News Record Magazine FCDOT Fairfax County Department of Transportation FTA Federal Transit Administration MCRA Modified Cost Range Method NEPA National Environmental Policy Act OCS Overhead Contact System PD Project Development PMC Project Management Consultant PMOC Project Management Oversight Contractor PMP Project Management Plan PMT Project Management Team PTWG Project Team Working Groups RAMP Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan RCMP Risk and Contingency Management Plan ROW Right-of-Way SCC Standard Cost Category TPSS Traction Power Substation VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority YOE Year of Expenditure

Note: The Risk Rating Legend for Probability, Cost, Schedule, and Score is shown at the end of this Appendix. Columbia Pike Street Car Project 62 December 2012 Review at Entry into Project Development - Final

Appendix B – Risk Register

SCC No.

Standard Cost Categories

Risk Number

Risk Identification and Description

Prob p

Cost c

Sched s

Score p*(c+s) Action Status

10.00 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS

R-1 There are potential cost and schedule risks due to impacts from other related construction projects along the alignment.

4 3 4 28 Identify each interfacing project, and assess risk of each.

10.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way

R-2 12th Street between Hayes and Fern Streets - street width, ability to have transit-only lanes, on-street parking

3 1 1 6 Analysis during preliminary engineering

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic R-3

Trackway alignment on Army-Navy Drive - may change to median running; coordination with cycle track project

4 3 1 16 Change design, carry revised alignment into PE


Construction of 12th Street by two private developers. Risk of delay in completing agreement. 2 2 4 12

Monitor; communicate risk with CMO; encourage accelerated negotiations; identify required timing and decision point in the Work Breakdown Structure


Construction of 12th Street by two private developers. Risk of market failure of private project. County constructs the street. 1 5 4 9

Secondary mitigation - prepare for ROW acquisition; identify required timing and decision point in the Work Breakdown Structure

10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure R-6

Alternate Skyline alignment - potential for structural issues with the construction of the relocated terminal station

4 3 3 24 Analysis during preliminary engineering and make determination.

10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) R-7

Number and location of crossovers, turnouts, or passing tracks along Columbia Pike are not determined.

3 3 2 15 Analysis during preliminary engineering

Appendix B (continued) – Risk Register

Columbia Pike Streetcar Project December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

63

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


20.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform

R-8 Alternate Skyline alignment - location of terminal station not set. Accommodate planning for potential future extension

5 1 3 20 Analysis during preliminary engineering as an early action and make determination.


R-9 Conformance with ADA laws and ADA reviews may affect cost and schedule. 1 1 1 2

Continue to monitor compliance with ADA regulations

30.02 Light Maintenance Facility R-10

Failure to achieve a joint development agreement for the maintenance facility could delay or disrupt the project.

2 2 1 6 Continue to press for analysis of joint development potential.

30.02 Light Maintenance Facility R-11

The shop may need additional track or equipment to operate efficiently.

5 4 3 35

Review maintenance facility program - space allocation and cost; Review proposed facility for ability to accommodate additional program elements; Study two alternative sites (already identified); Make decision to change facility location or accept operational inefficiencies of original site.

30.05 Yard and Yard Track R-12

Coordination of land transfer and joint development on maintenance facility site poses a cost risk. Potential of having to find different maintenance facility site poses a Schedule risk.

3 4 5 27

Continue seeking alternative site. Related to R-11

30.05 Yard and Yard Track R-13 An additional storage yard may be

required. 4 3 2 20 Continue seeking alternative site.

40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation R-14

Washington Boulevard Interchange project - utility adjustment agreement not executed

1 1 0 1



64

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation R-15 There are schedule and cost risks until

the utility agreements are in place. 2 3 4 14 Initiate utility agreements.

40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots

R-16 Jefferson Street regrading - potential drainage and ROW issues 2 2 1 6

Analysis during PE

50.01 Train control and signals R-17

There is a risk that hand-throw switch operation is inadequate and may adversely affect operations 5 3 2 25

Evaluate adequacy, and if necessary redesign and incorporate into cost estimate.

50.02 Traffic signals and crossing warning R-18

Alignment crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with traffic operations issues

3 1 1 6 Analyze in PE in close coordination with VDOT

50.02 Traffic signals and crossing warning R-19

Greenbrier Stop - traffic operations analysis required, additional traffic signal may be needed 1 1 1 2

Transfer risk to Super Stops program. Will be addressed in CY2013 phase.

50.03 Traction power supply: substations R-20

Location of traction power substations is not determined. ROW, systems design, zoning/permitting risks.

4 2 2 16

Confirm power system design in PE and pursue ROW immediately. Develop interdepartmental agreement on review and permitting process. Incorporate reviews into project schedule.

Changed to substation SCC for tracking.

50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail

R-21

The OCS design may not be aesthetically acceptable to the community

1 3 1 4

Community involvement in PE; check what cost estimate assumed in terms of pole and line design; off-wire system is not under consideration - confirm with policy officials.



65

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


50.05 Communications R-22 The communications estimate is too low based on the omission of costs for radio system, emergency telephone, and a low unit cost of the message boards.

5 2 1 15 Agree to include in design and incorporate into cost estimate.

50.05 Communications R-23 The costs for the communications could increase significantly if the Arlington County fiber optic network is not available for the project.

1 3 2 5 Wireless communications with stations. Confirm ability to access County DOT fiber

50.06 Fare collection system and equipment

R-24 The cost estimate for fare collection may be too low. 5 3 1 20

Agree to include in design and incorporate into cost estimate.

50.07 Central Control R-25 The cost estimate for the control center is too low. Monitoring and control of the traction power substations should be included in the project scope.

4 2 1 12 Agree to include in design and incorporate into cost estimate.

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate R-26

Potential for realignment of Columbia Pike between Air Force Memorial and S Joyce Street. Affects streetcar alignment location and length. ROW for shop and yard may become available.

4 4 2 24

. This has the potential to significantly reduce net costs. Impacts should be reviewed as benefits.


County ROW group lacks knowledge of Federal real estate statutes. 4 2 4 24

Staffing plan includes new hire in real estate. Add real estate support into PMC contract.


Real Estate Cost Methodology is not complete. 1 1 0 1

Complete RAMP and update cost methodology for related acquisition cost.

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate R-29 The contingency for real estate is low. 2 2 0 4 Update real estate cost

estimate. Monitor.

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate R-30 The potential for additional real estate

parcels is a cost risk. 1 4 3 7 Analyze in PE



66

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


70.01 Light Rail Vehicles R-31

Potential for excessive grades along Columbia Pike and South Jefferson Street - risks associated with design criteria and vehicle performance 2 3 1 8

Analyze in PE. Engage vehicle manufacturers in discussions of capabilities. Incorporate requirements into performance specifications for vehicle.

70.01 Light Rail Vehicles R-32 There is a risk that the number of vehicles (13) is inadequate to provide reliable service.

3 4 1 15 During PE, refine operating plan and fleet requirements.

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R-33

Project delivery method -- Risk associated with the potential need to respond to unsolicited proposals under the Public-Private Transportation Act.

3 3 4 21 Develop review procedures for unsolicited proposals.

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R-34 Delays in obtaining approvals at key

milestones 2 2 4 12

80.01 Preliminary Engineering R-35

The Preliminary Engineering percentage is set at 3%. The allowance for PE may be too low. 5 4 0 20

Agree to include increase in cost estimate and budget. Proceed with PE procurement to nail down PE costs.

80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction

R-36 All third party agreements have not been identified which may affect project cost and schedule

3 3 3 18 Identify third party agreements.


R-37 Obtaining agreements with government agencies, such as DOD, may impact the schedule.

2 2 4 12 Identify and draft agreements.


R-38

The PMP needs to be completed in the area of Design Organization, Procurement, Contract Administration, Cost Control, Project Documentation, Quality Assurance, Design and Engineering Management, and Safety and Security Management.

1 1 1 2 Complete PMP. Include in PMC scope for assistance.



67

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s



R-39

An experienced streetcar operator needs to be retained to provide input to design requirements and concepts as they relate to the operation of the completed system.

5 3 3 30

Request additional staff position. Include in PMC scope for assistance as stop-gap.


R-40

Because of dual roles on the project by the Manager of Capital Projects (QA and Project Admin) and other Capital Program Manager responsibilities, there is a risk of insufficient attention to each Streetcar Project role.

3 1 3 12

Include in PMC scope for assistance


R-41 Staffing may be inadequate in the engineering and finance area, which may impact cost and schedule.

2 2 3 10 Include in PMC scope for assistance


R-42

The decision on governance of the CPS project and planned Crystal City streetcar project may affect the schedule for design and construction of the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project.

2 3 2 10


R-43 The Project may stall due to an inability of the political leaders of both Arlington and Fairfax Counties to align their priorities.

1 3 4 7 The Project Director to lead mitigation efforts.


R-44

There is a risk of compromised decision making with regard to safety and security due to the reporting relationships shown in Figure 7 “Project Team Detail” in Rev 2 of the PMP.

1 1 1 2

Revise reporting relationships in the PMP organization chart for safety, security, and quality control


R-45 There is a risk that budget may not be adequate for a project that may take longer than currently envisioned.

1 1 1 2



68

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s



R-46 There is a risk of not managing the project effectively due to a lack of qualified County employees assigned to the project.

1 1 1 2


R-47 There is a risk that project schedule development and management may not get adequate emphasis.

2 3 4 14

80.04 Construction Administration & Management

R-48

Because the County lacks its own employees with FTA related quality experience, there is a risk of inadequate emphasis, approach, and attention to the details necessary for an effective quality program.

1 1 1 2

Include in PMC scope for assistance

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic D-1 Washington Boulevard Interchange

project - schedule slip 1 1 0 1 Retired. Refer to D-5.

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic D-2

Alignment crossing Leesburg Pike (Route 7) - risk associated with VDOT coordination and approvals

2 1 2 6 Initiate coordination. Interlocal agreement?

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic D-3 Hayes Stop - Trackway geometry to

make turn onto 12th Street 2 1 1 4 Analyze in PE.


If a deeper track slab section (>15") is required due to ground conditions, the costs are not presently included.

2 1 1 4 Analyze in PE.


Catenary clearance at Washington Boulevard is a concern due to low bridge clearance.


10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure D-6

Reinforcement of Four Mile Run Bridge. Cost and schedule risk due to unforeseen conditions.


10.10 Track: Embedded D-7 The choice of track construction method could affect cost and schedule. 2 1 0 2

Analyze in PE. Opportunity for design-build innovation?



69

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


10.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening D-8

If excessive noise from the turn onto South Jefferson Street is not mitigated, there is a risk that community objection may impact progress. 3 2 1 9

Additional noise analysis is included in mitigation plan in the FONSI report. Conduct analysis during PE in consultation with the public.


D-9 Hayes Stop - coordinate platform length and position with landscape design for the Pentagon City Multimodal Project.

2 1 0 2 Set platform location and identify landscape modifications during PE.

30.05 Yard and Yard Track D-10

Location of traction power substations is not determined. ROW, systems design, zoning/permitting risks.

2 1 1 4

Analyze in PE and nail down locations. Coordinate with zoning and permitting staff to determine and agree to review and approval requirements.

TPSS location should not be an issue at the shop and yard if overall space is adequate.

40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation D-11

Verizon and Dominion duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate and may need protective structure

3 1 1 6 Complete Utility Rules of Practice, prior to PE


Verizon duct banks - may be infeasible to relocate in maintenance facility location. 3 1 1 6

Complete Utility Rules of Practice, prior to PE. Address utilities as part of the maintenance facility assessment (see R-11)


Hayes Stop - requires modification to WMATA ventilation structure 4 2 2 16

Analyze in PE in coordination with WMATA.


The design may be affected by the discovery of the existence of security sensitive utilities.

2 2 1 6 Continue to coordinate with utilities

50.02 Traffic signals and crossing warning D-15

The cost of modifying existing traffic signal cantilevers may be underestimated.

2 1 0 2 Analyze in PE



70

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


50.03 Traction power supply: substations D-16

There is a risk that future power simulation studies could show that additional substations or substation equipment may be required to meet all contingency requirements.

1 2 1 3

Analyze in PE


There is a risk that the below grade substations could be subject to water penetration. 3 2 1 9

Minimize below grade substations. Engage in discussion of trade-offs between operational issues and aesthetics.


There is a risk that the cost of the Shop substation is too low 4 1 0 4

Examine the cost estimate and include updates in project budget development.

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate D-19

Walter Reed westbound stop - ROW issues for Super Stop

1 1 2 3

Examine design of Super Stop to address site constraints (conceptual design of Super Stop does show the constrained site). Make sure to account for streetcar specific elements such as ticket vending.


Insufficient information regarding activity durations for tasks such as appraisal, appraisal review, acquisition, relocation, closing, condemnation, etc.

2 2 3 10 Draft the RAMP


ROW properties associated with the TPSSs may have unique zoning or ordinance requirements 3 1 2 9

Initiate interlocal agreement with the zoning office. Research Form Based Code.



71

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s



The cost estimate provides insufficient detail and cannot be effectively reviewed for content or methodology used. Acquisition of ROW properties may cost more and take longer than expected.

3 3 3 18

Draft the RAMP

60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses

D-23 The project does not anticipate any business or residential relocations, but if required this will have a cost and schedule impact.

1 1 2 3 Draft the RAMP

80.01 Preliminary Engineering D-24

There is a risk of delay if the Grantee does not make a timely decision on whether to use design-build or design-bid-build.

3 0 4 12 Proceed with PE; include two options for project delivery; obtain PMC assistance


D-25

There is a risk of delay, disputes, and claims if qualified and experienced construction staff is not on board during the preliminary design phase to offer constructability review comments on the design.

1 1 1 2

Add to staffing plan; engage PMC for assistance

10.10 Track: Embedded M-1 Availability of U.S. made block rail or girder rail. 1 1 2 3

Advance preliminary engineering and have PE research costs of block rail.

10.50 ALL CONSTRUCTION SCC 10 - 50

M-2

Buy-America for materials and equipment may increase project costs

1 3 2 5

Obtain clarification on Buy America with respect to private utility relocation. Market studies during PE phase.

70.01 Light Rail Vehicles M-3 The procurement cost of the vehicles may exceed the estimate with the currently allocated contingency.

1 4 0 4



72

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s


10.04 Guideway: Aerial structure C-1

Reinforcement of Four Mile Run Bridge. Cost and schedule risk due to unforeseen conditions.

1 1 1 2 Advance PE

40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation C-2

There are schedule and cost risks associated with unknown utility interferences. 2 2 2 8

Conduct additional survey during PE. Standard procedure to include Miss Utility and supplemental survey in construction contract.

40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation C-3 Unexpected security sensitive utilities

may be unearthed during construction. 4 1 1 8

40.03

Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments

C-4

There is a potential risk to encounter hazardous or contaminated material along the corridor. 2 3 3 12

Develop response protocol.

40.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping

C-5 There are potential constructability issues related to the Multimodal Project at Columbia Pike near South Dinwiddie Street.

3 1 1 6 Advance final design of road segment and develop construction phasing plan to ensure constructability.

40.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction

C-6

Construction staging / laydown parcel entangled with land transfer deal with federal government 3 2 3 15

Advance interlocal agreement. Devise a back up plan for another site or a temporary lease on this site prior to ultimate transfer.

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate C-7

The coordination with two other major projects (Multimodal and Super Stop) that if not advanced or completed can substantially increase the cost and impact the schedule.

1 4 3 7

Maintain coordination. Identify schedule problems early.



73

SCC No.


Risk Number


Prob p

Cost c

Sched s



C-8 There is a risk of delay and cost growth if the challenges of coordination with other parties and completing adjacent work are not appropriately managed.

1 1 1 2 Interlocal agreements

Risk Rating Legend

Legend Low (1) Med (2) High (3) Very High (4) Significant (5)

Probability < 10% 10%><25% 25%><50% 50%><75% >75%

Cost < $250K $250K><$1M $1M><$3M $3M><$10M >$10M

Schedule < 1 Mths 1><3 Mths 3><6 Mths 6><12 Mths >12 Mths

Score <=6 6.1-18.9 >=19


74

Appendix C – Project Baseline Cost Estimate

M A I N W O R K S H E E T - B U I L D A L T E R N A T I V E (Rev.14, August 5, 2011)

Arlington County and Fairfax County 10/12/12

Columbia Pike Streetcar 2011

Conceptual Design 2017

Quantity Base YearDollars w/o

Contingency(X000)

Base Year Dollars


(X000)

Base YearDollarsTOTAL(X000)

Base YearDollars Unit

Cost(X000)

Base Year Dollars

Percentageof

ConstructionCost

Base YearDollars

Percentageof

TotalProject Cost

YOE Dollars Total

(X000)

10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS (route miles) 4.93 34,762 2,392 37,154 $7,536 36% 17% 41,29310.01 Guideway: At-grade exclusive right-of-way 0.19 34,762 2,392 37,154 $195,547 41,29310.02 Guideway: At-grade semi-exclusive (allows cross-traffic) 0 0

10.03 Guideway: At-grade in mixed traffic 4.74 0 $0 010.04 Guideway: Aerial structure 0 010.05 Guideway: Built-up fill 0 010.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover 0 010.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 0 010.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill 0 010.09 Track: Direct fixation 0 010.10 Track: Embedded 0 010.11 Track: Ballasted 0 010.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) 0 010.13 Track: Vibration and noise dampening 0 0

20 STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL (number) 18 5,256 547 5,803 $322 6% 3% 6,44920.01 At-grade station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 18 5,256 547 5,803 $322 6,44920.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 0 020.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc. 0 020.05 Joint development 0 020.06 Automobile parking multi-story structure 0 020.07 Elevators, escalators 0 0

30 SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMIN. BLDGS 4.93 13,402 996 14,398 $2,921 14% 7% 16,00330.01 Administration Building: Office, sales, storage, revenue counting 0 030.02 Light Maintenance Facility 13,402 996 14,398 16,00330.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility 0 030.04 Storage or Maintenance of Way Building 0 030.05 Yard and Yard Track 0 0

40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 4.93 14,756 1,900 16,656 $3,378 16% 8% 18,51140.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork 14,756 1,900 16,656 18,51140.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation 0 040.03 Haz. mat'l, contam'd soil removal/mitigation, ground water treatments 0 040.04 Environmental mitigation, e.g. wetlands, historic/archeologic, parks 0 040.05 Site structures including retaining walls, sound walls 0 040.06 Pedestrian / bike access and accommodation, landscaping 0 040.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways including roads, parking lots 0 040.08 Temporary Facilities and other indirect costs during construction 0 0

50 SYSTEMS 4.93 26,857 2,686 29,543 $5,992 29% 13% 32,83450.01 Train control and signals 26,857 2,686 29,543 32,83450.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 0 050.03 Traction power supply: substations 0 050.04 Traction power distribution: catenary and third rail 0 050.05 Communications 0 050.06 Fare collection system and equipment 0 050.07 Central Control 0 0

4.93 95,033 8,520 103,553 $21,005 100% 47% 115,09160 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 4.93 10,797 1,620 12,417 $2,519 6% 13,177

60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 10,797 1,620 12,417 13,17760.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 0 0

70 VEHICLES (number) 13 49,140 2,457 51,597 $3,969 23% 58,52570.01 Light Rail 13 49,140 2,457 51,597 $3,969 58,52570.02 Heavy Rail 0 070.03 Commuter Rail 0 070.04 Bus 0 070.05 Other 0 070.06 Non-revenue vehicles 0 070.07 Spare parts 0 0

80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (applies to Cats. 10-50) 4.93 31,821 0 31,821 $6,455 31% 14% 35,01680.01 Preliminary Engineering 3,107 3,107 3,41880.02 Final Design 8,284 8,284 9,11680.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 13,462 13,462 14,81380.04 Construction Administration & Management 4,142 4,142 4,55880.05 Professional Liability and other Non-Construction Insurance 1,036 1,036 1,13980.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other agencies, cities, etc. 1,036 1,036 1,13980.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 755 755 83180.08 Start up 0 0 0

Subtotal (10 - 80) 4.93 186,791 12,597 199,388 $40,444 90% 221,80990 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 21,626 10% 24,140Subtotal (10 - 90) 4.93 221,014 $44,830 100% 245,949100 FINANCE CHARGES 0 0% 0Total Project Cost (10 - 100) 4.93 221,014 $44,830 100% 245,949Allocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 6.74%Unallocated Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 11.58%Total Contingency as % of Base Yr Dollars w/o Contingency 18.32%Unallocated Contingency as % of Subtotal (10 - 80) 10.85%YOE Construction Cost per Mile (X000) $23,345YOE Total Project Cost per Mile Not Including Vehicles (X000) $38,017YOE Total Project Cost per Mile (X000) $49,888

Construction Subtotal (10 - 50)

Today's Date

Yr of Base Year $

Yr of Revenue Ops

Columbia Pike Streetcar Project 75 December 2012 Readiness for Entry into Project Development - Final

Appendix D – Modified Cost Range Analysis Worksheet

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M)(A-B+C) (D*F) (D+G) (H*I) (H-(37%*J)) (H+(63%*J)) (33%*G)

SCC CategorySponsor YOE

Estimate

Sponsor Contingency

(YOE)

PMOC Adjustments

(YOE)Adjusted Estimate

FTA Development

LevelRecommended Contingency %

Factored Contingency

Conditioned Estimate

Recommended Range Factor Cost Range

Cost Range Low End

Cost Range High End

Recommended Secondary Mitigation

10 Guideway and Track Elements 41,293 2,658 3,334 41,969 1 35% 14,689 56,658 0.54 30,595 45,338 75,933 20 Stations 6,449 608 - 5,841 2 30% 1,752 7,593 0.45 3,417 6,329 9,746

30Support Facil ities – Shops, Yards, Admin. Buildings 16,003 1,107 9,503 24,399 1 35% 8,540 32,939 0.54 17,787 26,358 44,145

40 Sitework and Special Conditions 18,511 2,112 3,334 19,734 1 35% 6,907 26,640 0.54 14,386 21,318 35,703 50 Systems 32,834 2,985 4,334 34,183 1 35% 11,964 46,147 0.54 24,920 36,927 61,847 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 13,177 1,719 11,458 1 35% 4,010 15,468 0.54 8,353 12,378 20,730 70 Vehicles 58,525 2,787 7,464 63,202 3 20% 12,640 75,842 0.33 25,028 66,582 91,609 80 Professional Services 35,016 - 2,531 37,547 2 30% 11,264 48,811 0.45 21,965 40,684 62,649 90 Unallocated Contingency 24,140 24,140

Total 245,948 38,116 30,500 238,332 71,767 310,099 146,450 255,912 402,362 23,683


Appendix E – Interview Questionnaires Mary Shavalier, Streetcar Project Manager, Arlington County

Agency: Arlington County Project: Columbia Pike Streetcar

Position: Project Manager Interviewee: Mary Shavalier Firm or Company: Arlington County

Date of Interview: November 7, 2012

Interviewed By: Vince Gallagher Ed Nicholson

1. What is your educational background? May we have a copy of your complete resume?

BS – Environmental Planning – Western Washington State University MS – Urban and Regional Planning – University of Toronto Resume provided

2. Briefly describe your work experience prior to coming to Arlington County, specifically on

projects of comparable complexity and dollar volume?

At HART (Tampa, FL) – administered project grants, planning, and alternatives analysis for LRT, BRT, bus stop accessibility programs, among others. Project dollar volumes ranged from $100,000 to $300 million.

3. Briefly describe your role and responsibilities as Project Manager for the Columbia Pike

Streetcar Project.

Assemble the project team, select and manage the Program Management Consultant and the Design Engineering firm. Coordinate project management and report to upper management.

4. Describe your prior project experience that gave you the skills to perform the duties of

Project Manager on a project of this size.

In Tampa and Atlanta – managed grants program and interfaced with FTA. In Marietta – managed O&M contract for bus system. In Calgary, managed the LRT planning process

5. Describe actions taken by you to complete other similar sized projects on budget and

schedule. What actions would you take if you saw the project overrunning the project budget and schedule?

On BRT project – separated long lead items and procured them in advance to maintain project schedule. Apply VE to project scope to contain costs.

Appendix E (continued) – Interview Questionnaires


77

6. Describe your working relationship with the Arlington County Department of Environmental Services, Divisions of Transportation & Development and Facilities and Engineering. What resources, if any, are available for this project from these Divisions and how will they be engaged?

Only been with Arlington County for seven weeks, still learning the relationships with other units. The Division of Transportation and Development is working on projects including the Super Stops and Multi-Modal projects that need to be coordinated with the Streetcar Project.

7. You have read, if not written, the PMP. Do you have any concerns about the organization

and the assigned responsibilities?

PMP needs to be completed. Organization Chart needs to be revised. Full duty deputy PM would be helpful. Concern about staff resources - staff will be matrixed from other units and may not be available as needed due to existing workload. Need to bring PMC on board.

8. What key support staff are assigned to assist in specific disciplines?

a) Environmental monitoring and reporting – none yet – consultants performing work now. b) IGA interpretation/compliance – Steve Del Giudice and Law Dept. c) Third Party coordination (treat these individually)

• WMATA – described in PMP;

• VDOT – Bill Roberts;

• NVTC – not known yet; utility companies – not known yet. d) ROW acquisition – Yuri-Arkin. e) Grants administration – Bee Buergler. f) PMP updating – Matt, Bee and me. g) Project Controls (AGENCY staff) – Bee; need someone for finance controls. h) Contract administration – Bee and staff. i) Estimating – Matt and staff. j) CO/Claims – Bee, me and Procurement. k) Consultant oversight – Matthew and Bee. l) DBE monitoring – not identified yet – trying to hire someone. m) Document control – Bee. n) Reporting – staff and PMC.



78

9. Is this a full-time or part-time position? Do you report to anyone else beside the Transit Bureau Chief (TBC), Arlington County? How do you interface with your supervisor? What other responsibilities does your supervisor have and to whom does he/she report?

Also oversee Crystal City Streetcar Project – will need to go full-time as project advances. Report only to TBC. Meet and talk regularly. TBC also responsible for Super Stops, Multi-Modal and Crystal City Streetcar projects.

10. Describe the group that you will head up? How will it function? Who reports and will report

to you? What are their responsibilities and how do you interface with each? Did you work with them prior to this project?

Group still under development. Matthew reports to me and I report to Steve Del Giudice. Only on team for seven weeks.

11. Who has the authority to make personnel changes on this project?

Steve DelGiudice and Dennis Lamb. 12. Do you envision Project staff beyond that described in PMP Rev. 2 dated October 22, 2012?

Yes – as project advances, specialized staff may be required. 13. Please describe your interface with:

a) Leonard Wolfenstein – Streetcar, Deputy Project Manager – primarily at project meetings – issues related to Fairfax County.

b) Matthew Huston – Streetcar, Design Oversight – daily – work the closest with.

c) Shannon Whalen-McDaniel – Streetcar, Community Relations – contact driven by public event schedule.

d) Justin Cowan - Streetcar Safety and Security – not very much – will need to increase involvement on this project.

e) Bee Buergler – Streetcar, QA/QC and Project Administration – meet quite frequently – work together on procedures and attend project meetings.

f) Greg Emanuel – Dir. Dept. of Environmental Services – at high level meetings and at pre-Board work sessions.

14. What do you see as the main challenges to completing the Streetcar Project on schedule and within budget?

Schedule – coordination with Super Stop and Multi-Modal projects, 12th Street work to be performed by two developers, need DOD agreement to re-align Columbia Pike; Budget – 4-mile bridge construction, crossing over WMATA (underground tunnel), Washington Blvd. interchange, project grades.

15. What is your role in addressing those challenges?

Need to address issues early in project. Coordination with other projects is within Arlington County staff; DOD alignment issue needs management to address.



79

16. Describe the County’s approach to limit scope increase changes to the Project. How will

scope issues (scope creep) be managed?

Only on the job seven weeks – don’t know County’s approach. 17. What do you see as the greatest engineering challenge and how would you address it?

Grade issues. 18. How will you coordinate with other related projects such as the Columbia Pike Super Stops

Project, Pentagon City Multimodal Project, Columbia Pike Arterial Street Completion Projects, and Washington Boulevard Interchange Project? What do you see as the greatest construction challenge and how would you address it?

Working group for all Columbia Pike projects set up to coordinate. Coordination of construction contractors for Columbia Pike projects is the biggest construction challenge.

19. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Management Plan and its contents?

Yes. 20. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan its

contents? Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the QA/QC Plan?

Yes to both

21. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Certification Program Plan? Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the Plan?

Yes. Will be reviewing the plan. 22. Do you feel that the Streetcar organization plan as currently depicted is adequate? If not,

where do you feel it should be augmented?

Plan needs to be revised to reflect PMC reporting to me. Also, needs supplemental staff.

23. How will you interact with the Project Management Team (PMT), the Policy Committee (PC), the Columbia Pike Working Group, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT), and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)?

Provide project status for PMT, am a member of the Working group, deal with VDOT and VDRPT related to grants, need to clarify WMATA’s role.

24. Describe your experience with the FTA’s NEPA process.

Worked on Environmental process in Region 4 during the grants process.



80

Leonard Wolfenstein, Chief, Transportation Planning Section, Fairfax County


Position: Deputy Project Manager Interviewee: Leonard Wolfenstein, AICP Firm or Company: Fairfax County


Interviewed By: Vince Gallagher Mike Radbill


Master’s Degree in planning from UNC Chapel Hill, and a BA in Government from Cornell Univ. Resume enclosed.

2. Briefly describe your work experience prior to coming to Fairfax County, specifically on


After receiving his Masters Degree, he worked for Fairfax County from 1987 to 1994; from 1994 to 1997, he was Chief of the Planning Section, Department of Public Works, in Prince Georges County, MD; then from 1997 to the present he was Chief of Planning in the Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT).

3. Briefly describe your role and responsibilities as Deputy Project Manager for the Columbia

Pike Streetcar Project.

His Project responsibilities are not typical Deputy PM functions. He has been the lead Fairfax County representative on the project for years. FCDOT has a Capital Projects Section that picks up a project after planning. As the Streetcar Project advances into design, an engineer from the Capital Projects Section will pick up his role. That person will be either Caijun Luo, PE or Michael Guarino, PE. Whoever picks up the Deputy slot will be the lead point of contact for Fairfax County, responding to questions from Fairfax County and getting Fairfax County staff involved.

4. Describe your prior project experience that gave you the skills to perform the duties of Deputy Project Manager on a project of this size.

In Fairfax County, he worked on a park and ride lot project; since then, he has had a coordinating role for budget and schedule for projects. He was the lead from Fairfax County reviewing the Dulles Corridor EIS.

5. Describe actions taken by you to complete other similar sized projects on budget and




81

This question was skipped. 6. Describe your working relationship with Arlington County, and specifically with its

Department of Environmental Services, Divisions of Transportation & Development and Facilities and Engineering. What resources, if any, are available from Fairfax County for this project and how will they be engaged?

The relationship is cooperative. The job of the Fairfax County PM is to make available needed resources to accomplish the Project. Resources include Randy Dittburner, FCDOT Capital projects Section, Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services is another resource that has engineers who are utilities experts. Leonard did say that nothing has been formalized with VDOT.

7. You have read the PMP. Do you have any concerns about the organization and the assigned responsibilities?

“Not really. It looks ok. I have no concerns other than how my position will transition.”

8. What level of personal involvement do you anticipate in the following project activities?

a) Project Administration – a modest amount of involvement b) Contract Administration – modest c) Project Controls to include cost and schedule, document control, and

configuration management – more than modest d) Procurement – if procurement is competitive, Fairfax County will be a member of

the selection committee. e) Design Oversight – high degree of involvement f) Community Relations – high g) Safety and Security – moderate

h) Environmental monitoring and reporting – moderate

i) Utility relocation – high. The County will take the lead for work in Fairfax County.

j) Quality assurance & quality control – moderate

k) Systems engineering – moderate

l) Real estate acquisition – if it is within Fairfax County, Fairfax will take the lead.

9. Is this a full-time or part-time position? Do you report to anyone else beside the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project Manager?

Part time for me and all follow-on persons.

10. What key support staff are assigned to assist in specific disciplines.



82

a) Environmental monitoring and reporting – environmental planner in FCDOT

b) IGA interpretation/compliance – if between Arlington and Fairfax, I (Leonard) will take the lead.

c) Third Party coordination (treat these individually) • VDOT – FCDOT Group within FCDOT that deals with agreements. • Utilities – the FC Department of Public Works and Environmental

Services • The Office of County Attorney will review the main agreement

d) ROW acquisition – group and person within FCDOT (He was not more specific) e) Grants administration – a group within FCDOT (no specifics)

f) PMP updating – no response

g) Project Controls (AGENCY staff) – FCDOT staff h) Contract administration – N/A

i) Estimating -

j) CO/Claims

k) Consultant oversight

l) DBE monitoring

m) Document control

n) Reporting

11. Who has the authority to make personnel changes on this project? Director, FCDOT 12. Do you envision Project staff beyond that described in PMP Rev. 2 dated October 22, 2012?

Yes, when needed. 13. Please describe your interface with:

a) Mary Shavalier – Streetcar, Project Manager – I was on the hiring committee. We continue to work with her.

b) Matthew Huston – Streetcar, Design Oversight – no response

c) Justin Cowan - Streetcar Safety & Security – no response

d) Bee Buergler – Streetcar, QA/QC & Project Administration – I interfaced with her when she was a consultant working on a VRE Project; and on a bus service master plan for PG County, MD.

FCDOT staff



83

e) Greg Emanuel – Dir. Dept. of Environmental Services – no response. 14. What do you see as the main challenges to completing the Streetcar Project on schedule and

within budget? – FTA funding commitment, unknowns such as maintenance facility joint development agreement, and cooperation with VDOT.

15. What is your role in addressing those challenges? – identify risks ASAP and develop a

mitigation strategy. 16. Describe the Project Team’s approach to limit scope increase changes to the Project. How

will scope issues (scope creep) be managed? – Any scope changes need to be approved by the Policy Committee.

17. What do you see as the greatest engineering challenge and how would you address it? – he

did not say how he would address these, perhaps because the follow-on engineer will have to:

• Jefferson Street Grade issue • Signal timing for the Leesburg Pike (Route 7) crossing • Coordination between Fairfax County and VDOT

18. What do you see as the greatest administrative challenge and how would you address it? –

Development of a working relationship with Arlington County. The Counties have worked well at the staff level, but the political level on this project may be a challenge.

19. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Management Plan and its

contents? – Familiar with the requirement but not the contents. Fairfax County will review the plan but not draft it.

20. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan its

contents? Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the QA/QC Plan? – Familiar with the requirement but not the contents. Fairfax County will review the plan but not draft it.

21. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Certification Program Plan?

Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the Plan? – Familiar with the requirement but not the contents. Fairfax County will review the plan but not draft it.

22. Do you feel that the Streetcar organization plan as currently depicted is adequate? If not,

where do you feel it should be augmented? – Presently, very adequate. The key for Fairfax County was having someone like Mary coming in.

23. What, if any, changes to the Streetcar Project organization will enhance the Project’s

successful planning and implementation of the work? – Right now, pretty good. Get engineers transitioned six months from now.



84

24. Are you familiar with development of the cost estimate? Yes! What will your role be in the future? – I will not have a role in the future. The engineers will. The project team was concerned about staying a Small Starts project.

25. What is your role in identifying the environmental mitigation measures? List the

environmental issues and what your proposed solutions may be? – I expect all have been identified in the EA. One concern is about noise at the turn from Columbia Pike into Jefferson Street. The steel wheels screeching as the turn on the steel rails.



85

Matthew Huston, Senior Transit Engineer, Arlington County


Position: Design Oversight Interviewee: Matthew Huston, PE Firm or Company: Arlington County


Interviewed By: Vince Gallagher Ed Nicholson


BS – Civil Engineering – Princeton University. Resume provided. 2. Briefly describe your work experience prior to coming to Arlington County, specifically on


Performed transportation planning working for HNTB. Worked on the Dulles Airport pedestrian tunnel and people and baggage movers.

3. Briefly describe what you see as your role and responsibilities as head of Design Oversight for the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project.

Coordination of the disciplines reviewing the project design; interface between the design team and the PMC; coordinate between other Arlington County units including operations and safety and security and the design team.

4. Describe actions taken by you to complete other similar sized projects on budget and schedule. What actions would you take if you saw the project overrunning the project budget and schedule?

Catching problems early and addressing them. Risk management – identifying project risks and dealing with them.

5. Describe your working relationship with the Arlington County Department of Environmental Services, Divisions of Transportation & Development (T&D) and Facilities and Engineering (F&E). What resources, if any, are available for this project from these Divisions and how will they be engaged?

Environmental Services is the overall Department. I work within the T&D division. F&E works on non-transit projects. Staff are to be available as part of a matrix organization – concerned that qualified staff won’t be available when needed. Prefer to have dedicated staff.

6. What, if any, design and engineering concerns do you have regarding the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project?

Western terminus not yet determined; supplemental EA may be required; 4-mile Bridge design, catenary clearances, utility relocations, crossing WMATA tunnel, coordination with VDOT.



86


a) Environmental monitoring and reporting – low to medium – see that environmental commitments are met.

b) Utility relocation – high – big issue on project.

c) Quality assurance & quality control – high. d) Systems engineering medium – not his area of expertise - oversight only.

e) Real estate acquisition – medium to high – need to procure TPSS sights, yard, and shop facility.

f) Safety and security – medium. g) Contractor’s design submittal reviews – high. h) Project controls – medium.

i) Change order negotiation – high for PE phase. j) Safety certification – low. k) Commissioning and final acceptance – medium – conformance with design

documents. l) Streetcar Operations – minimal.

8. Is this a full-time or part-time position? Do you report to anyone else beside the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project Manager? Did you work with the Project Manager prior to this project?

One of several projects working on. Previously only 10% of time on this project – now about 50%. Will be full time in the future. Project Manager is new – worked for Bee.

9. Describe the group that you will head up? How will it function? Who reports and will report to you? What are their responsibilities and how do you interface with each? Did you work with them prior to this project?

Will be a matrix organization, not direct reports. Staff will be assigned from other units as needed. Concerned that staff may be busy on other projects when needed. Worked with some individuals on other planning projects. Managed smaller groups on planning projects.

10. Who has the authority to make personnel changes on this project?

Steve Del Giudice; Greg Emanuel. 11. Do you envision Project staff beyond that described in PMP Rev. 2 dated October 22, 2012?

No. 12. Please describe your interface with:

a) Mary Shavalier – Streetcar, Project Manager – talk frequently – Mary sets priorities.



87

b) Leonard Wolfenstein – Streetcar, Deputy Project Manager – occasional – issues related to Fairfax County.

c) Shannon Whalen-McDaniel – Streetcar, Community Relations – weekly – more frequently if required for public events.

d) Justin Cowan - Streetcar safety & Security – has not met him. e) Bee Buergler – Streetcar, QA/QC & Project Administration – every day – his

direct supervisor. f) Greg Emanuel – Arlington County, Dir. Dept. of Environmental Services – at

meetings. 13. What do you see as the main challenges to completing the Streetcar Project on schedule and

within budget?

Staff levels, interface with Super Stops and Multi-modal projects, Shop & Yard facility, 12th St. construction with private developer (agreements are not in place), ROW acquisition, new state law limiting public property taking


Raise issues to higher levels 15. Describe the County’s approach to limit scope increase changes to the Project. How will

scope issues (scope creep) be managed?

Not aware of control procedures. 16. What do you see as the greatest engineering challenge and how would you address it?

ROW & design – no big engineering issues. 17. What do you see as the greatest construction challenge and how would you address it?

Coordination with Super Stop project, phasing work on Columbia Pike to minimize business disruption.

18. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Management Plan and its contents?

Yes. Attended workshop. 19. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan its

contents? Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the QA/QC Plan?

Yes. He doesn’t know if he will be involved in reviewing the plan. 20. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Safety and Security Certification Program Plan?

Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the Plan?

Yes. He doesn’t know if he will be involved in reviewing the plan 21. Do you feel that the Streetcar organization plan as currently depicted is adequate? If not,


Unfilled positions creating staffing issues. Need dedicated staff.



88

22. What, if any, changes to the Streetcar Project organization will enhance the Project’s successful planning and implementation of the work?

In addition to dedicated staff, need a junior engineer to support his work. 23. Are you familiar with development of the cost estimate? What will your role be in the

future?

Yes. Role will be design review. 24. What is your role in identifying the environmental mitigation measures? List the

environmental issues and what your proposed solutions may be?

Use the FONSI report as guidance. Primary issues are permits and noise.



89

Bee Buergler, Transit Capital Program Manager, Arlington County


Position: QA/QC & Project Administration

Interviewee: Blanche (Bee) Buergler Firm or Company: Arlington County


Interviewed By: Vince Gallagher Mike Radbill


The PMOC received Ms. Buergler’s resume on October 23, 2012.

2. Briefly describe your work experience with Arlington County, especially on transportation infrastructure projects. On projects of comparable complexity and dollar volume?

Ms. Buergler’s experience is management of transit and non-transit projects to include planning, design, and construction. Prior to Arlington County, she worked 6 months as a consultant with a large firm. She managed the final design phase of the $17M Crystal City Transit Way project, which became an FTA grantee for formula funds. She also worked on the $6M Shirlington Bus Station, owned and operated by Arlington County. Challenges she dealt with on the Shirlington project included utilities, redesign, renegotiation of the contract due to relocating the Station, re-permitting, oversight of construction, and commission of all systems. The facility opened in the summer of 2008. The Shirlington project finished on schedule and $300K under budget. Currently, she is overseeing the management by a member of her staff of the $36M second entrance to the Rosslyn Metro Station, a project funded by Arlington County, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Federal Transit Administration. The project scope includes installing three high-speed elevators and an emergency stair tower 75 feet below grade. This project is currently on schedule and budget. For this project, the project team developed a QAP and an SSMP.

3. The Project Management Plan has you in two positions—Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Project Administration. Let’s review your experience in these areas separately.

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

4. Describe your experience in a QA/QC role on.

a) an FTA funded transit project: as transit capital project manager, she is responsible for QA/QC and risk management.

b) other project(s). There was no response to this question.

5. Briefly describe your role and responsibilities as Project QA/QC Manager.



90

She will be monitoring the implementation of a quality program. She has not prepared a quality plan previously but is familiar with the FTA’s 15 quality elements. She expects to get to one full-time person monitoring quality.

6. What County resources are available to assist you to fulfill your assigned QA/QC responsibilities in following areas?

a) Preparation of Streetcar Project Quality Program Plan (QPP) No one from the County. A project management consultant will be engaged to prepare the QPP.

b) Implementing and maintaining QPP – No one from the County. A project management consultant will be engaged to implement the QPP.

c) Preparation of Streetcar Project Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP) – A project management consultant will be engaged to assist.

d) Implementing and maintaining the SSMP – The project management consultant the County will retain.

e) Review of designer’s and construction contractor’s, or design-builder’s: -System Safety/Security Certification Management Plan -Environmental, Safety and Health Plan -Procedures related to system and construction safety – All will be addressed by the project management consultant to be hired by Arlington County.

f) Audits/reviews of project related County and consultant activities – No answer was recorded for this question.

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

7. Describe your experience in a Project Administrator Role on:

a) an FTA funded transit project – purchasing, procurement procedures, document control procedures, and contract administration procedures.

b) other project(s) – same as “ a)” above plus full time procurement specialist.

8. Briefly describe your role and responsibilities as the Manager of Project Administration.

She will lead the Project Administration Working Group. She will monitor the work of her subordinates. Ms. Buergler noted that as the Streetcar Project begins and continues, she will remain Manager of Capital Program in the Transit Bureau of the Division of Transportation & Development of the Department of Environmental Services of Arlington County.

9. What County resources are available to assist you to fulfill your assigned Project Administration responsibilities in the following areas:

a) Contract administration – Contract Specialist, Michelle Chaney

b) Budget administration – Budget Specialist, Giovanni Calabrese c) Finance – Sr. Finance Specialist, Jean Wilson (in different Department. but

works closely with my Department.



91

d) Project controls including schedule, cost, configuration management, and document control – No response recorded.

e) Procurement administration – Elizabeth Dooley, the purchasing agent plus two new people to be hired; also, hire a procurement officer for the Transit Bureau, a concept for which the County’s Purchasing Agent, Transit Director, DES Director, and the Purchasing Director are on board.

GENERAL QUESTIONS 10. Describe actions taken by you to complete other similar sized projects on budget and


She communicates with the team. She asks, “Why is it happening? “Can you modify the scope?” An example of this approach was on the Crystal City Bus Transit Way. Easements were not in place, but the project team was ready to go out for bids. She checked to see if all the easements were in place and found that they were not; so, she had the project team change the design to reduce easement needs.

11. Describe your working relationship with the Arlington County Department of Environmental

Services, Divisions of Transportation & Development and Facilities and Engineering. What resources, if any, are available for this project from these Divisions and how will they be engaged?

Ms. Buergler stated that she knows and has worked with these Departments; her group collaborates with other Department’s groups and other groups within her Department on many programs. She also noted the existence of the Columbia Pike Working Group, which was established to ensure close coordination among three projects: the Streetcar, the Multi-Modal, and the Super Stop Project. This Working Group is represented by the Director DES, project managers from other projects, transportation engineering, right of way acquisition, utility relocation, traffic operations, transit, and planning. Ms. Buergler noted that there are already quarterly coordination meetings with DOD.

12. What, if any, project administration concerns do you have regarding the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project?

Getting the project management consultant on board is critical. We welcome PMOC feedback on the need for more staff. The time line to get new hires on board is a concern.


Ms. Buergler stated that she makes sure they all get done. She directly interfaces with people doing the following listed functions. She oversees them. The level of involvement she expects is noted below:

a) Procurement – medium b) FTA Reporting – light, the grants administrator will take care of this



92

c) Real estate acquisition – little if any. She sees Matthew Huston getting involved in this.

d) Project controls – high: filing, document control. When asked, she replied that she had not thought about a scheduler.

e) Change order negotiation – light to medium. She will be coordinating this. She has negotiated changes in the past. She expects the PM, Mary Shavalier and the Lead for the Design Working Group, Matthew Huston getting involved too. She noted that the project will have to develop supplemental procurement procedures.

f) Contractor’s use of DBE’s – medium to high. She plans to hire a full-time DBE Title VI Specialist sometime in 2013.

14. Is this a full-time or part-time position? Do you report to anyone else beside the Columbia

Pike Streetcar Project Manager? Did you work with the Project Manager prior to this project?

Ms. Buergler has not worked with Mary Shavalier before. Right now, Ms. Buergler reports to Steve Del Giudice. Right now she is part-time on the project. At some point, 3 to 9 months, this position will grow into a full-time position. When asked if she had too much on her plate, she indicated Steve Del Giudice is working on this. She expects that soon, she will be working overtime. She believes that her current position of Transit Program Manager will have to be backfilled. She is not sure of the timing on this.

15. Describe the group that you will head up? How will it function? Who will report to you? What are their responsibilities and how do you interface with each? Did you work with them prior to this project?

She will lead the Project Administration Work Group; the people in that Group are listed in the PMP on page 25. These people will report to her. The Working Group meets regularly. People report in and tackle issues. She will interface with them individually. Each person will have goals and a work plan schedule.

16. Who has the authority to make personnel changes on this project? Steve Del Giudice.

17. Do you envision Project staff beyond that described in PMP Rev. 2 dated October 22, 2012?

Yes! It depends on what we pick up through the consultant team. 18. Please describe your interface with:

g) Mary Shavalier – Streetcar, Project Manager – actively/proactively on a regular basis. Regular PMT meetings.

h) Leonard Wolfenstein – Streetcar, Deputy Project Manager – coordination will be through the PMT Group. Coordination will be on funding and administrative grants.



93

i) Matthew Huston – Streetcar, Design Oversight – reports to Ms. Buergler currently, but will report to Mary Shavalier, the PM, on the Project.

j) Justin Cowan – Streetcar, Safety & Security – He is new to Arlington County.

Ms. Buergler has not worked with hi previously. Consultants will bring Justin in on the SSMP.

k) Greg Emanuel – Arlington County Director Dept. of Environmental Services – He

is in the Columbia Pike Working Group, which meets monthly. She goes through Steve del Giudice to raise issues to Gregg.

19. What do you see as the main challenges to completing a quality Streetcar Project on schedule

and within budget? • Ambitious schedule. • All items on the risk register. • Completing the multi-modal and super stops projects before the Streetcar project

begins. • Right-of-Way issues. • Coordination with VDOT, which controls intersections.


Participating on the Columbia Pike Working Group. She sees her job as making sure that people with shared duties are not conflicted. She has a hiring role too. She says her eyes are wide open to the potential problems resulting from borrowing people for the Project part time from other groups.

21. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Project Management Plan and have you read the current revision of that Plan? – Yes!

22. Are you familiar with the requirement for a Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan its

contents? Will you be involved in drafting or reviewing the QA/QC Plan? Yes to both! 23. Do you feel that the Streetcar organization plan as currently depicted is adequate? If not,


It is a good start but not complete. In the administration area, a budget specialist should be close to full time or full time. The Project will need a safety Manager. She and Mary Shavalier are going to need an Admin Assistant.

24. What, if any, changes to the Streetcar Project organization will enhance the Project’s ability to be successful?

A good Project Management Consultant team is critical to success; filling staff positions; understanding part-time obligation.


Appendix F – Grantee Data PMOC Review at Pre-PD -- Documents Requested from County -- Data Provided by County

Document Date Filename Programmatic County Board of Arlington County - Minutes of Meeting 7-23-12 (Adopt LPA)

7/23/2012 Arlington Cty Board 7-23-12.doc

Supplemental Material to Board Agenda Item 7-17-12 7/17/2012 Arlington Cty Board Supplemental Report 7-17-12.pdf County Board Agenda Item – Columbia Pike Transit Initiative 7/21/2012 Arlington Cty Board 7-21-12.pdf Report Of Actions of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (Adopt LPA)

7/31/2012 Fairfax Board Minutes12-07-31.pdf

Columbia Pike Streetcar FAQs (website page) 8/20/2012 ColumbiaPikeStreetcarFAQs08-20-12.pdf Columbia Pike Transit Initiative – Locally Preferred Alternative Report

7/16/2012 LPA_Report_7-16-12.pdf

Public Meeting Presentation - June_2012 Public_Meeting_Exhibits-June_2012.pdf Columbia Pike Transit Initiative - Alternatives Analysis / Environmental Assessment - Volume I

5/22/2012 10 items covering 6 chapters – Available on website www.piketransit.com

Columbia Pike Transit Initiative - Alternatives Analysis / Environmental Assessment - Volume II

5/22/2012 19 items covering 17 chapters – Available on website www.piketransit.com

Plans, Technical Specifications, Studies, Etc. Existing Conditions VISSIM Model – Calibration Methodology and Results

2/14/2011 2 1 VISSIM_Model_Calibration_Methodology_02-14-2011.pdf

Total Annual Streetcar Cost 11/8/2012 Copy of 3 4 O+M Calculations.xls Columbia Pike Risk Register 10/23/2012 Columbia Pike Risk Register.xls Peer Review Meeting Notes 8/5/2011 Peer Review meeting notes 07-20-11_rev.08-05-11.doc Columbia Pike Transit Initiative - Engineering Report - October 2012

10/18/2012 Engineering Report with Appendices 10-18-12.pdf

Project Alignment on Photographic Aerial Backgrounds 10/15/2012 Conceptual Plans - colored aerial photos.pdf WMATA Tram-LRT Design Criteria Volume I - 2003 8/29/2003 2 2 WMATA Tram-LRT Guideline Design Criteria Vol I 2003.pdf

http://www.piketransit.com/

http://www.piketransit.com/

Appendix F (continued) – Grantee Data


95

Document Date Filename WMATA Tram-LRT Design Criteria Volume II - 2003 8/29/2003 2 3 WMATA Tram-LRT Guideline Design Criteria Vol II 2003.pdf Compilation of Comments – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

10/5/2012 5 7 DEQ Compilation of Comments 10-12.pdf

Cost Estimates Baseline Cost Estimate (FTA New Starts Template) 10/15/12 3 1 SCC Workbook 10-15-12.xls Streetcar Project, Order of Magnitude Capital Cost Estimate 11/1/2011 3 3 Pike Capital Cost detailed 10-16-2012.xls Development of Units Costs for Streetcar Build Option 10/31/2012 3 3 Tech Memo Unit Cost.pdf Columbia Pike Transit Initiative - Engineering Report - October 2012 - Appendix J - Cost Estimate Memorandum

3/26/12 Appendix J Cost Estimate Memorandum.pdf

Columbia Pike Super Stops Project Budget and Fund Sources 6/28/2011 SuperStopsProject_BUDGET_rev_08-29-11(1).xls Schedules Project Schedule – Bar Chart 10/15/2012 4 1 Project Schedule 10-15-12 .pdf Project Implementation Schedule(graphic) 2/16/2012 Implementation_Schedule-021612.pdf Project Plans Columbia Pike Streetcar Project Management Plan (PMP) 10/22/2012 Streetcar PMP 10 -22- latestms.doc Arlington County Department of Environmental Services (DES) Organization Chart

8/6/2012 DES Org Chart with names_080612.pdf

DES Transportation Division Organization Chart 4/20/2012 DOT_042012.pdf DES Engineering and Capital Projects Division Organization Chart 10/20/10 EngCapProjectsDiv.pdf Organization of Fairfax County Government 11/5/2012 R county-org-chart.pdf Fairfax County Department of Transportation Organization Chart 6/1/2012 FCDOT_OrgChart.pdf Project Key Personnel Resumes 10/23/12 Project Management Resumes.pdf Columbia Pike Streetcar Overall Organization Chart 10/23/12 Columbia Pike Streetcar Overall Org Chart – document.ppt


96

Appendix G – PMOC Evaluation Team PMOC team members assigned to this project are as follows:

PMOC Team Member Name / FTA Role Organization / Contact Info Technical Assignment

Vince Gallagher, PE Program Manager Task Order Manager

Hill International, Inc. Office: 215-557-3270 Cell: 609-970-0949 [email protected]

Contract Packaging, Program Management, Third Party Agreements, Political Issues

John Lehman, PE Risk Assessment Manager Rail Vehicle Maintenance Manager

Hill International, Inc. Office: 212-244-1152 Cell: 914-414-8562 [email protected]

Track, Yards and Support Facilities, Vehicles, OP-40 Risk, Economic Issues,

Michael Radbill Task Order Manager

Hill International, Inc. Office: 215- 496 4926 Cell: 267-251-8431 [email protected]

Program Management, Technical Capacity, Civil, Roadways

Larry Veit, PE Construction Management Manager

Hill International, Inc. Office: 215-557-3274 [email protected]

Civil, Roadways, Structures, Environmental

Edward Nicholson, PE Systems Integration Manager

Hill International, Inc. Cell: 201-819-0882 [email protected]

Operations, Transit Capacity, Systems, Start-up

Kevin Meehan Cost Estimation Manager

JCMS, Inc. Office: 609-631-0700 [email protected]

OP-33 Cost Estimate Review, Economic Issues, General Conditions, Professional Services




