MTA's Planned Exposition Line Chooses A Leader - Joel Sandberg

Joel, please share with our readers what the Expo Line involves. What is it's route? Who is it intended to serve?

The expo line is a 9.6-mile light-rail line beginning in downtown Los Angeles at the Redline station at Seventh and Flower. It utilizes the existing Long Beach Blue Line track for the first 1.5 miles to Washington Blvd. Then it proceeds down Flower Street to Exposition Boulevard, into the abandoned railroad right of way that is owned by LACMTA (Metro). From there, it goes west to Culver City in the initial phase, which is what we have funding for. Phase two will take the line west to Santa Monica.

The project will be overseen by its own construction authority. How is this authority being created and what is it meant to do?

In 2003 the state Legislature passed a law to set up a single purpose authority for final design and construction of the Expo Line, modeled on the same legislation that established a construction authority for the Pasadena Gold Line. As a single purpose agency it can focus on that one project and be more efficient in getting it completed. This was also the rationale for the Pasadena Gold Line construction authority. The Expo Line authority Board members are being appointed by the member agencies now. Some have already been appointed and others are expected to be appointed either this week or next week. The board will consist of seven members. The County Board of Supervisors has two members. Those are expected to be Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke, because the project is in their districts, and they have indicated they want to be representatives. The City of LA has two representatives. Initially we were told that Bernard Parks and Martin Ludlow had been nominated to be the representatives, but I understand that Martin Ludlow may be giving up his seat, so that is likely to change. Culver City has a representative on the board and that is Gary Silbiger. The City of Santa Monica has a seat and the representative is Pam O'Conner. Metro has a representative and that is Martha Wellbourne. Metro's CEO Roger Snoble sits on the board as a non-voting, ex-officio member.

We are expecting that the board will have its first organizational meeting either late this month or early July.

What, in your experience, are the added benefits to forming such a construction authority to oversee the project, as opposed to what has been done at MTA before.

I had direct experience with the Pasadena Gold Line. I worked on it for two and a half years as the chief project officer. I did get to work with the board, and from that experience, I would say that the main benefit is that as a single purpose authority, when you have board meetings, there's only one agenda, and that is to deal with items pertaining to the specific project. At Metro our board has to deal with all kinds of operating issues, funding issues for other activities and the details of multiple projects. It is not possible for the board to be as focused on any one project. With a single-purpose agency, it is easier to get action in a timely fashion when it's necessary for the board to approve something. Of course, having a single purpose agency makes it much easier to keep the board informed. The Gold Line authority had five members; this board on the Expo project will have seven. In contrast, the Metro board has 13 members. It is much easier to keep the board members informed and to provide good coordination with the project activities with a smaller board.

What will be the construction authority's first order of business? I assume it will be the procurement process.

That is pretty near the top, but they are going to have to elect officers and adopt an administrative code first. Approving the RFP will be the next priority.

Tell us a little bit about the procurement process you are using.

We intend to use what has been labeled negotiated design-build procurement, which differs from conventional design-build in that the contractors will submit their initial bids based on estimates of design and construction costs that we will provide. At that point they will basically be bidding their fees and their qualifications. Selection will be made on a best value basis, according to weighted criteria we apply. Once selected, the contractor will be given a notice to proceed with the design. With the conventional design-build process, the contractor would be given a notice to proceed and would be free to construct or design the project in whatever sequence they determine is most efficient to complete the project. In using the negotiated design-build process, we want the contractor to completely design discreet packages, at which point we will sit down with them and negotiate a fixed price for construction of those packages. That's where we get the term "negotiated". At that point we will have a firm price, and we expect that because the design will be completed, they will be able to give us a much better price.

When you use the conventional design-build process, the contractor has to give the price up front for the construction, when there is very little design to go by. This means that the contractor has to put a lot of risk and contingency money in their bid. What we are hoping to do is to eliminate that by having them complete the design before we negotiate the final price.

What are the other advantages to using the negotiated design-build procurement process?

I believe that the number one advantage is that the project will be lower cost, which is of interest to all of us. I also believe that the project will be better designed, because the designer/builder will have the opportunity to do the design of each package completely before they start construction. That way they can work out all of the issues with the community and with the third parties. That is one of the drawbacks that we found with the conventional design-build process used on the Gold Line. There is not much opportunity, once the design builder is on board, to work out issues that come up with the community or third parties, without it having a cost impact on the contract.

What is the timeline for this project?

The overall schedule for the project is to complete construction and open for operations in June of 2010. In order to do that, we have determined that we need to issue the RFP for the final design and construction by August of this year. Then we will hope to award the contract by February of 2006. Most of the first year will be focused on design activities so the heavy construction isn't expected to start until early 2007. However, we do expect that there will be some advance utility relocation.

One last question: Why is the project needed and who will it serve?

Well, if you look at the traffic on the Santa Monica Freeway going in either direction, you will see that the Westside is in serious need of alternative modes of transportation. So far the rail program has not gone into the Westside beyond the Redline station at Wilshire and Western. This will extend much further into the Westside community, which is probably suffering as much gridlock as any part of LA. Being involved with it since last July has been quite a refreshing change for me, because we have a great deal of community support for the project, more than I have ever seen on our previous projects, and very little opposition. There is some of the usual NIMBY opposition, but it seems like not only the Metro recognizes the importance and need of this, but the community does too and embraces it.