Meeting_Body
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 2016
Subject/Action
PROJECT: WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION
CONTRACT C1078 MAINTENANCE OF WAY/NON-REVENUE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE BUILDING
ACTION: APPROVE LIFE OF PROJECT (LOP) BUDGET INCREASE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A FUTURE CONTRACT MODIFICATION
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
CONSIDER:
A. APPROVE the staff recommendation to increase Life of Project (LOP) Budget by $5,000,000 from $2,773,879,593 to $2,778,879,593 for the Westside Purple Line Extension Section 1 Project, No. 865518.
B. AUTHORIZE the CEO to negotiate and execute Contract Modification No. 1 to Contract C1078, Clark Construction Group to incorporate design direction based on Alternative A1, to revise the Baseline design of the building floor plans and site plan, in an amount not-to-exceed $4,500,000 increasing the total contract price from $52,830,310 to $57,330,310.
C. AUTHORIZE the CEO to negotiate with the City to allow as-needed access through the MOW site for maintenance vehicles to service the electric and sewer vaults in the 6th Street Viaduct right of way.
Issue
ISSUE
As directed by the July 2015 Metro Board Report Item 40.1 related to Item 40 for the C1078 Contract - Maintenance of Way/Non-Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Building (MOW Building), staff formed a Design Advisory Working Group to explore the objectives of: 1) site placement of the MOW facility, operational functionality and applicable codes; 2) optimization of parking on the site and 3) adoption of architectural design that reflects Metro’s most recent efforts. Although there are aesthetic considerations regarding views and integration with the City of LA 6th Street Bridge design, there is no practical design solution that meets all of the objectives set forth by the Board that completely satisfies the desires and aesthetic preferences. Therefore, a decision must be made to avoid significant delays and inefficiency costs.
Background
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2015, the Metro Board authorized the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to award a 28 month firm fixed price contract, under Invitation for Bid No. C1078 to Clark Construction Group for the final design and construction of the Maintenance of Way/Non Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Building to be constructed as part of the Division 20 Yard and Shops expansion for a firm fixed price of $52,830,310. The Board approval included direction to the CEO to:
Establish a design advisory working group that includes representatives from the following entities:
1. Metro Operations
2. Metro Construction
3. Metro Arts
4. Metro Planning
5. MOW/Design-Build Team
6. City of Los Angeles 6th Street Bridge Design-Build Team
7. Arts District Community
B. Report back to the Board on a monthly basis on progress that is made with the advisory group to explore the following objectives:
1. Site placement of the MOW Facility is placed the farthest distance from Santa Fe as allowed by operational functionality and applicable codes.
2. Parking on the site is optimized
3. Adoption of architectural design that reflects Metro’s most recent efforts
C. Report back in 60 days with a detailed outreach and engagement process for incorporating art into the Maintenance of Way facility including the following elements:
1. Forming a selection panel including Downtown-based art professionals to select the artist to work on the Maintenance of Way Facility
2. Soliciting larger arts district and community feedback for consideration in artist selection from the existing MTA pre-approved artist pool.
3. Coordination with the aforementioned Design Advisory Working Group.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
Following the award of the C1078 Contract, Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued to Clark Construction Group on September 30, 2015 and staff has held meetings with the Design Advisory Working Group and provided monthly progress reports to the Metro Board of Directors.
The first meeting of the Design Advisory Working Group was held on December 14, 2015. Clark Construction Group’s architectural designer (Gruen Associates) presented six alternatives with a brief analysis of how each of the alternatives met the objectives directed by the Metro Board. Site placement of the MOW Facility to place it the farthest distance from Santa Fe was severely constrained by the presence of an existing 90” City of LA storm drain located in the northeast corner of the site, which would add significant cost and schedule impacts and concerns by the City of LA related to construction of the MOW building over the storm drain. Based on this major constraint, the number of alternatives was reduced to two alternative locations.
The second meeting was held on January 28, 2016 to further review the analysis of the alternatives prepared by Clark Construction Group’s architectural designer (Gruen
Associates) to ensure that each alternative met the objectives directed by the Metro Board. After initial review, two alternative locations to the base design have emerged:
• Alternative A1 Mirror Image
• Alternative C1 Triangular Shaped
Evaluation of how each alternative meets the objectives-based on recent feedback and analysis is summarized in Attachment D and are described as follows:
1. Property Ownership - Two properties are required for the MOW Building. Metro has acquired one property and is in the process of conducting a property exchange for the second property. The baseline design as awarded by the Metro Board, as well as Alternative A1, would allow construction to begin on the property that is already under Metro ownership. Alternative C1, however, would delay construction of the building until a right of access can be secured for the second property. Also, both Alternatives will be impacted if the City of LA requires access rights through Metro’s MOW Building site.
2. Track Access/Length - The MOW Building requires direct track access from the adjacent Division 20 Rail yard dictating that the location of the building on the site be governed by track geometry and distance. A recent property acquisition of a portion of the Lucky Brand Jeans property by the City of LA for the 6th Street Bridge Project requires that an accommodation to the baseline design will need to be made to allow for this track connection. Both of the alternatives that would move the MOW Building to the north could provide this track access. However, Alternative A1 adds more track length and potential costs if the City of LA requires structural supports if the track is located over the 90” City of LA storm drain.
3. Functionality/Circulation - The building program for the MOW Building requires approximately 86,000 square feet and 208 parking spaces. The floor plans have specific size and adjacency requirements and parking for maintenance and employee vehicles must be maintained to ensure operational functionality. Feedback from Metro Rail Operations indicates that Alternative A1, which is a mirror image of the plan originally approved, still meets the objectives. Alternative C1 which is a triangular shaped building could potentially provide the necessary floor space despite some operational challenges due to the non-rectilinear rooms. However, Alternative C1 would only provide 153 parking spaces (26% reduction). Additional parking in an underground configuration is possible; however the costs of such construction would greatly exceed the project budget. One offsite parking opportunity has been identified on land owned by the City of Los Angeles (former “Gallo Property”), but it would not be available for several years and is encumbered by a railroad easement that would preclude its use at this time.
4. -View to the Bridge (new 6th Street Bridge) - The site location and massing of the building should aesthetically complement the views of the new 6th Street Bridge which is currently in the early phases of construction. Alternative A1 would improve the view of the future bridge in comparison to the baseline design. Alternative C1 is more desirable because the geometry, form and axis of the building would better provide view corridors from the surrounding streets to the west.
5. Cost and Schedule Impacts of Alternative MOW Building Designs:
The following assumptions are based on information provided by the C1078 Design/Build Contractor, Clark Construction Group:
Alternative A1 -
a. Additional Cost (ROM) - $3.97 Million
b. Schedule Impact ROM - An additional 4 months beyond current Substantial Completion
c. Assumptions/Clarifications:
i. Assumes Building Pad Over-excavation/Compaction for new
location
ii. Assumes Metro direction is to be provided on 2/5/2016
iii. Setback Requirements need further review based on
building location
iv. Assumes no contaminated soil will be encountered
v. Assumes in rack sprinklers are not required
vi. Excludes property purchase costs (To be handled by Metro)
Alternative C1
d. Additional Cost (ROM) - $5.65 Million
e. Schedule Impact ROM - An additional 6 months beyond current Substantial Completion
f. Assumptions/Clarifications:
i. Assumes Building Pad Over-excavation/Compaction for new location
ii. Assumes Metro direction is to be provided on 2/5/2016
iii. Excludes property purchase costs (To be handled by Metro)
iv. Assumes subsurface features are removed by others for "triangular" property
v. Assumes no contaminated soil will be encountered
vi. Assumes in rack sprinklers are not required
vii. Assumes property will be available to meet Construction Schedule.
The Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) costs and schedule impacts above were based on Metro providing direction by 2/5/2016. If an Alternative from the Baseline is selected, contingency for additional cost and schedule impacts of at least 3 months should be added to allow staff to negotiate the change and execute a Contract Modification to the C1078 Contract with Clark Construction Group.
Determination_Of_Safety_Impact
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
As this is an operations and maintenance facility, the current baseline design has been reviewed by Metro staff. However, if Alternative A1 is approved, it will need to be evaluated during Final Design development to ensure that it meets Metro’s safety standards.
Financial_Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Life of Project budget recommendation includes a cost increase of $5 million to cover the costs to negotiate and execute the Contract Modification, plus contingency and other soft costs. The cost increase can be supported by Measure R 35% Transit Capital funding for this project in the Measure R Expenditure Plan. Approval of the cost increase will reduce funds for the Westside Purple Line Extension Section 3 Project, as discussed in the Attachment G - Measure R Cost Management Process and Policy Analysis.
Since this is a multi-year project, the Executive Director of Program Management and the Westside Purple Line Extension Section 1 Project Manager will be responsible for budgeting costs in future years.
Impact to Budget
The source of funds for this action is Measure R Transit 35%. The funding for Project No. 865518 was assumed in the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Westside Purple Line Extension Project, and does not have an impact to operations funding sources. Board approval of the Recommendation at this time is required to maintain the overall schedule for the Westside Purple Line Extension Section 1 Project and reduce the potential of schedule delays and their resulting costs. Staff will continue to work with the Design Advisory Working Group to review the architectural design of the building including building materials, landscaping and artwork. In the event that further changes in the design result in new costs outside of the approved budget, staff will return to the Board with the status of the current approved Contract Modification Authority of $5.28 million and a supplemental funding plan for approval.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTIONS
The Board could decide to not approve the staff recommendation to redirect the Clark Construction Groups efforts to proceed with Alternative A1 above. The Board could also select Alternative C1, but this Alternative is not recommended because it does not meet the design objectives described above. Therefore, if neither Alternatives A1 or C1 are approved, the Board could reaffirm the Baseline design that was awarded by the Board in 2015.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the staff recommendation to proceed with Alternative A1, the architectural design of the building including building materials, landscaping and artwork will be developed and reviewed as part of the Design Advisory Working Group process. Staff will continue to work with the Design Advisory Working Group and coordinate with the 6th Street Viaduct team to provide input on the design details of the MOW building including the use of color, fenestration, and façade features, the design of the site fencing and other building elements that will impact the community and continue to provide the Board with monthly updates.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Alternative A1
Attachment B - Alternative C1
Attachment C - Baseline Design
Attachment D - Alternatives Comparison
Attachment E- Procurement Summary
Attachment F - Contract Modification Change Log
Attachment G - Measure R Cost Management Process and Policy Analysis
Attachment H - DEOD Summary
Prepared_by
Prepared by:
Dennis S. Mori, Executive Officer, Project Director (213) 922-7221
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by:
Richard Clarke, Executive Director, Program Management (213) 922-7447
