Meeting_Body
CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE
JULY 17, 2024
Subject
SUBJECT: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COMPARISON OF METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA TO 11 CITIES ALONG THE SOUTHEAST GATEWAY LINE
Action
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
RECEIVE AND FILE Office of the Inspector General Comparison of Metro Rail Design Criteria to 11 Cities Along the Southeast Gateway Line.
Issue
ISSUE
The Metro Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated a study to determine what differences exist between the Metro Technical Specifications and Rail Design Criteria (MRDC) for the design of construction projects and the typical design specifications of cities in Los Angeles County to warrant the creation of costly permitting packages, lengthy permitting review processes, permitting fees, contractor frustrations, and schedule delays resulting therefrom, and if improvements can be made in consistency between the two specifications to reduce these impacts.
Background
BACKGROUND
The OIG’s Construction Change Order Spot Check Program focuses on approved change orders and modifications that exceed $500,000. In the course of performing our review of change orders, it appears that the change orders are subjected to review by cities, permitting fees, and can result in schedule impacts. Change orders can result from several circumstances including differences in design specifications of Metro and the city where Metro construction is occurring. The Southeast Gateway (SEG) Line alignment will be going through Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Vernon, Bell, Cudahy, Downey, South Gate, Paramount, Bellflower, Cerritos, and Artesia (the “11 Cities”). Those cities’ specifications were chosen as examples to study. The OIG, along with its consultant, Mott MacDonald, endeavored to compare the MRDC with the design specifications from those SEG Line 11 Cities.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Focus on Section 3 of the MRDC.
The MRDC consists of 12 sections. Each section covers the criteria for the disciplines involved in the planning, design, construction, and operation of Metro facilities. In comparing the 11 Cities design criteria with the MRDC, there are many sections that the MRDC covers in detail that are absent from the 11 Cities criteria. This is because the 11 Cities are not doing rail construction. In the absence of any relevant design criteria from the 11 Cities, the design of these Metro facilities is governed by the MRDC. These relevant rail-related MRDC sections include Environmental Considerations, Guideway and Trackwork, Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Systems, Operations, Yards and Shops, and Safety Security Systems Assurance. Section 3 of the MRDC provides criteria for the design of transit alignments, track subgrades, drainage systems, right-of-way clearances, access control, service roads, streets, parking facilities, site work, and utility relocations. Notable references that provide a basis for Section 3 criteria include the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Caltrans Standard Plans & Specifications, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, and the AASHTO Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Section 3 of the MRDC provides the most detailed information for direct comparison to the 11 Cities’ criteria. Therefore, the focus of the review was on Section 3 of the MRDC to the 11 Cities specifications.
Consultant findings on differences between the MRDC and the SEG Line cities.
Uniform design and construction standards, conformed from the MRDC and the criteria of the 11 Cities, would be valuable to guide the development of the SEG Line project and improve project delivery costs and schedule.
Based on a high-level review by the OIG expert consultant of the MRDC to the SEG Line 11 Cities' specifications inconsistencies are rare. Out of over 5,000 specifications compared, only 21 (about .5%) were found to be different.
The 21 specifications identified as different, which the consult refers to as ”exceptions”, are set forth in Attachment A to the attached report. Importantly, these inconsistencies account for an incredibly small percentage of the total design criteria. The MRDC and the 11 Cities specifications are essentially 99.5% the same.
Potential Cost and Schedule Savings
1. MRDC Updating. Material conflicts between Metro designs and a city's requirements can create change orders. Change orders are costly and cause delays. Because of this, Board Deputies have asked the Inspector General what the differences are between our design specifications and other cities. This report substantially answers that question. The study by this independent expert consultant in the construction industry confirms that there is less than a 1% difference between most cities and the Metro specifications. While change orders can occur due to several reasons, such as differing site conditions, utility relocations, and other reasons, change orders due to differing specifications should be very limited with respect to any inconsistent specifications, so long as Metro’s MRDC remains current and consistent with new laws, regulations and best practices.
Recommendation 1: For this reason the OIG recommends that Metro continue to make a strong effort to make all updates to its MRDC promptly as requirements change and include best practices to ensure cities can trust Metro’s MRDC to reflect legally correct and good quality requirements.
2. Permitting Process. Much of a permitting process is to confirm that the Metro specifications are consistent with the reviewing city's specifications. The permitting process is costly. Metro pays a consultant to compile permitting packages comprised of specifications for a project, schematics, and other voluminous information. The city's personnel time is burdened; they charge Metro to review the packages, and those fees are charged against the budget of the project. Review of the thousands of specifications are performed by a city as time and availability allows, that is a potentially lengthy process. Contractors have expressed frustration with the process and used it as a basis to charge Metro. Since we have confirmed that the deviation of Metro’s MRDC from most cities’ specifications is less than a 1% deviation, it does not warrant a review and permitting process for the entire other ninety-nine percent (99%+) of the project specifications.
Recommendation 2: Metro should endeavor to be self-permitting for all aspects of a project that are substantially consistent or more stringent standards than a city where we are performing construction.
Recommendation 3: The permitting process, if used, should be limited to those nonconforming specifications that are a lower or materially different standard than what a city requires. Again, this is less than 1% of the specifications of a project. This would also result in less burden on the cities where we build. It might also result in more proposers for Metro projects at a lesser cost. It would save money and schedule time on a project. This would mean more funds would be available for safety-related construction, amenities, and higher-quality products for the construction.
This would not result in any less transparency on the projects to the public or the cities. The full set of specifications could still be made available to the cities to review as they wish. A city would have to have faith in Metro that when it brings to them the exceptions to permit, that is all the exceptions. Self-permitting for the conforming specifications involves of some trust by the cities' permitting authorities, and that trust must be earned by Metro by having an MRDC that is accurate, up to date, and addresses typical city concerns and certifying that the exceptions brought forward are verified as the only significant variances.
Recommendations Recap -
The OIG recommends a frequent and regular review and update of the MRDC to ensure consistency with local cities design criteria.
The OIG also recommends that excerpts from reference criteria in the MRDC be removed from the MRDC and replaced with citations referencing to the governing source criteria that form the basis of the MRDC. It should be clearly noted that newer versions of the source criteria, published prior to the start of a notice to proceed with project design, shall govern. Any updates to referenced source criteria after the notice to proceed should be discussed with the affected city.
Lastly, the OIG recommends that self-permitting occur for the specifications that conform to a city’s specifications, and an accelerated, abbreviated permitting process be established for the SEG Line project and for other Metro projects in the future, for the non-conforming “exception” specifications related to the project.
This report does not have a financial impact on the Agency, but action taken on the recommendations has the potential to reduce costs related to construction planning, design, and permitting and improve Metro efficiency.
Equity_Platform
EQUITY PLATFORM
Of the 11 Cities, nine cities have areas Metro has identified as Equity-Focused Communities. Those are Bell, Bellflower, Cudahy, Downey, Huntington Park, Los Angeles, Paramount, and Southgate. In the opinion of the OIG, we considered whether these design criteria presented any equity-related issues on their face. The OIG did not receive any data concerning community impacts. These low-income equity-based communities along the Southeast Gateway Line will benefit from having increased access to Metro Light Rail. The OIG observed no obvious disparate impacts created by the design criteria on small businesses or low-income persons, or by the implementation of the design criteria in a manner that impacted a disadvantaged community beyond what is typical and usual when conducting any construction.
Implementation_of_Strategic_Plan_Goals
IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
The Office of the Inspector General review and comparison of MRDC to the 11 Cities design criteria is in support Metro’s Strategic Plan Goal #5: Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization and CEO goals to exercise fiscal discipline to ensure financial stability. The OIG mission includes reviewing expenditures for fraud, waste, and abuse in Metro programs, operations, and resources.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
Our preliminary review with management regarding the OIG’s report and recommendations was generally positive. Management’s response is attached. Management will continue to review the recommendations and implement as appropriate whether to utilize self-permitting or in another form that will increase the path forward on construction projects.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Report on Comparison of Metro Rail Design Criteria to 11 Cities along the Southeast Gateway Line
Attachment B - Management’s Response
Contributions by:
Suzanna Sterling, Construction Specialist Investigator (213) 244-7368
Prepared_by:
Alan Bennett, Legal Research Specialist (213) 244-7313
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Karen Gorman, Inspector General (213) 922-2975
