Chief Safety Security Compliance Officer Tim Europe Tim you're not good morning
mr. mr. chair members of the board mr. kettle I'm Cody Nelson I'm the assistant
director system safety Tim is out of the office today so I'll be handling our
safety briefing this morning our safety briefing this morning just want to
remind everybody of our location we're at one Gateway Plaza in the metro board
room or three and the event if there was a fire we're going to evacuate this
building, we'll evacuate out to my left, we'll go down the stairs and we'll meet
out in front of the building near the Metro customer service area. In the event
of an earthquake we'll want to hang on duck cover under the tables if possible
until the shaking stops. At that point we can do an assessment and see if we need
to evacuate the building. If there's any hazards in the room during evacuation,
electrical cords, backpacks, chairs, please be mindful of those. We'll exit in an
orderly fashion. I'll have the captain be the first one out of the building.
Captain Ben Sahilie from LASD,
I'll be the last out to make sure
we get everybody out of the building.
In the event of a first aid situation,
we do have our first responders in the room from LASD.
There is also an AED at the security desk in the hallway.
If the first responders aren't present,
then I've asked Luis Cascaro to be our lead for CPR.
I can be a backup to that.
In the event of an active attacker,
the procedure to follow will be run, hide, fight,
and that concludes my briefing unless there's any questions.
you very much. Next, we'll have a Pledge of Allegiance. I would like to remind everybody that
Sunday, the 10th of November is the Marine Corps birthday, and on Monday the 11th is Veterans Day,
so keep them in mind as we pledge our republic. So any Marines in the house, happy birthday.
we have a roll call, please
Dr. Wapner
Director Dutray director Marquez
Vice chair chafee
director Nguyen
director Murphy here
director do me true
second vice chair Burkson
director Spiegel
director Middleton
director Vargas
director Tremblay
director angler
director Barger
director Corcoran
director Najarian
director Solis
director he's Leslie
director O'Connor
director Allen
director preciato
director angler
here McCallen here. We do have a quorum present
Very good. Thank you
X's our public comment part of the agenda
Madam secretary. Do we have any public comment?
We I will be sending the board a few written public comments regarding the schedule change after the meeting and we do have two
Requests to speak under public comment, so I'll go ahead and call up the first one
Armando Saldana
I come from Irvine, which is South Orange County
Using the train for 14 years my wife and I
Irvine to LA
We've been making
for 14 years using the train for 14 years
We made like decisions based on the train.
This new schedule is throwing everybody a curve ball
that I talked to on our line.
Friendships were built on this train.
Commodity, when things happen, we built a community
on the train.
This new schedule destroyed those relationships.
I'm here on behalf of all commuters, but me and Lee,
the OSE line.
Currently, the new schedule has an hour between lines.
Irvine is 6-12, 7-12, 8-12, every hour.
The trains are running late almost every day,
from what I've seen.
So the previous schedule had trains
about every half hour, give or take.
So if we bring back, I would like to request
to bring back trains by every half hour
during the early morning rush hour, between six and eight,
to cover those trains late.
That would help have a buffer.
So if there's a delay from BNSF, it is not your fault.
That help create a buffer for those commuting
to get to work on time still.
This is having the stress of my train's half an hour late,
I gotta get to work.
Still, there's new trains to spread out.
Say that's always late.
The interval will be helpful,
the intervals will be helpful.
Sherman, sorry, Mr. Kettle's profile on,
Metrolink says, Metrolink is a,
sorry, that's my space here.
Safe, easily affordable, and stress-free transportation.
Two of those are not true anymore.
That's no longer stress-free,
but we're seeing more transients on the train people.
That's my next point.
People are seeing,
requesting more security on the train.
There's one person, one conductor walking around,
and people can get on on the other end of the trains.
Trains are constantly, you can still add,
You can add more frames to the, what do they call it,
trains or the passenger car, thank you.
You could add passenger car but it's late,
it's still gonna be late.
If you add more lines, more lines in between
will help to alleviate some of the heavy crowdedness
on the train, excuse me.
I've heard Michelin employees think about transferring
to Amtrak, they're gonna feel safe anymore.
Companies are reimbursed for education,
Like my work kind of Sonic.
You're reimbursed for this is throwing a lot of people's
schedules off and now it's becoming ground upon.
Oh, you're picking the train.
You're trying to restrict people from using the train
because it's schedules are getting,
there's not as many friends anymore.
Pre-scheduled change in mid-October,
you had more lines in the afternoon.
Sorry, sorry, I'm a little nervous,
excuse my nervousness here.
Pre-1421st you had more trains in the morning and afternoon.
Which link said they added more trains.
But they added in the middle of the day.
But took away trains from the prime time where needed.
Which is the earlier the morning and afternoon.
So we're requesting you look at you,
assess the writing pattern and see if there's room
to add trains back in in the prime time.
which is 6 to 8 a.m., or as well as the afternoon.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Your time is up, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Your question?
Next.
Kea Lohilani Juliana.
Good morning.
So first of all, I am a student
and I use the adventure pass to get around on Metrolink.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be able
to afford public transportation.
I'm currently in nursing school and that takes up
a lot of money but this public comment is most specifically
for the SB line with this new schedule change.
It just sucks is the best way to put it the short term
change between Covina and L.A. have ruined
the reliability and on time performance of that line
and with the train tracker being in a format
that is no longer supported for digital,
so it glitches out a lot,
it's super hard to see where my train is
or when it is coming late.
Removing the trains on the SP line
that has the highest ridership in the system
and not adding any trains back,
I feel like makes all the trains packed,
especially the trains that are running four car concepts.
I know that all the trains are supposed to be five cars,
sometimes there's four cars, sometimes there's six cars.
But with the on-time reliability,
I have to get up an hour and a half earlier now,
just to be able to make sure that I can catch a train
that will get me to a new station
before a 91 PV train leaves at 7.30 in the morning.
And so I usually will take the first or second train out
because once the Covina trains start,
it just ruins the time.
And I know that yesterday was announced
that they're canceling about four Covina trains,
but I think that there should be no Covina
short-term trains or extend the trains to Montclair.
During the Dodgers game,
all the Covina trains went to San Bernardino,
did the full route, the Express did the full route,
so it was possible for every train to run
on a 30-minute headway, and that time was the best time
I've seen for the San Bernardino line to be on time.
Thank you for your comments.
Derek, Derek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the board, the comments from the two
public commenters are representative of comments
we've heard over the course of the last few weeks,
and we've experienced ourselves.
The operations team is looking very closely
at where we can make adjustments.
we absolutely know we do have to make adjustments.
That last commenter mentioned that we've been announcing
some changes on the San Bernardino line
that we believe will improve our reliability
on that San Bernardino line and our on-time performance
as it relates to the first commenter
on the Orange County line we have,
and I've shared with this board,
been absolutely hammered by the lack of BNSF
dispatching our trains as they're contractually
obligated to do and we are we are doing everything we can to escalate that. We
have made some adjustments on some of our passenger cars so busiest trains are
operating on six car sets but we operate on a seven line network and we have one
train goes down that happens to be a six car set on one line that was going
someplace else and we end up having to backfill it with a five car set so it is
complicated environment to operate within but what we hear from those
commenters is absolutely correct and we're doing what we can to try to address
it so that you will hear more things over the course the next few weeks as it
relates to San Bernardino line and then some of the things that we're looking at
on lines that the Orange County line and the IE the the Paris Valley excuse me
Paris Valley line so stay tuned for more on that we are taking it very
very seriously to get this right.
This new model is the right way for this agency to go.
We just have to make improvements and adjustments
where there were things that we could not have anticipated
and just the simulations and the modeling
of how this might work.
So I appreciate the commenters taking their time
to come here today to share that.
As you all know, I'm a writer on the Ventura County line.
I've seen it firsthand.
We have room to make some serious improvements
and we're committed to doing that.
Thank you very much for those comments.
I'd like to recognize that Director Spiegel has arrived
and Director Kokorian also has arrived.
And today, Paul Kokorian is joining us
for the last Metrolinx board meeting.
I remember when I first met you,
It was in Armenia, in a hotel that
sat in the disputed land with Azerbaijan.
And I came up to you and said, oh, Paul,
I'm going to be joining you on the Metrolink board.
This was several years ago, several years.
And it's sad that you're going to be leaving us.
But you were appointed to our board in August of 2013,
and you've been looking out for the agency's best
interests for the past 11 years as an involved voting
member who is known for asking hard-hitting questions.
And we appreciate those hard-hitting questions
because they bring a lot of issues to light.
Your background and experience as an attorney
has been valuable to the agency
and the Metrolinx legal team.
You always take an active role in our annual budget process
and served as audit and finance committee chair
from 2020 to 2022,
which overlapped your election
as the president of the Los Angeles City Council,
which I'm sure kept you a little busier.
The board will miss your thorough
Thoughtfulness, your tremendous government experience,
and credibility on all of the issues.
When you speak, we all listen.
I personally and all of our fellow directors
wish you well in your next adventure.
And whatever comes your way, we hope that God blesses that time.
Thank you, Paul, for your service.
with that all Metrolink related stuff that you will obviously cherish for the
rest of your life would you like to say anything other than goodbye well yes
actually if this is if this is the appropriate time I just want to thank
all of the board members that I've had the privilege to serve with current
board members and former board members over those 11 years, this has been really a time
that we've seen this agency turn around in so many areas from when I started.
Every time I start talking about this, I look at Karen because I remember we had the same
high blood pressure at the time when I first came in, especially about the agency's finances
And the incredible amount of things
that we just didn't know as a board
that really negatively impacted
the finances of this agency.
And that's completely, in turn, completely.
The commitment of this board to safety
and being the first commuter railway in the country
to adopt positive train control,
the first to go with 100% clean fuels.
Thank you for that initiative, Darren.
And in so many other ways,
we've gone from an agency that was troubled,
to an agency that I think all of us
are really, really proud to be a part of.
And so I'm grateful to all of you.
And to do my part with all of you
in pushing those initiatives forward.
Thank you all very much.
I don't know what the next chapter holds, but
There's a fairly significant possibility that whatever it is it will involve my continuing to come here
Well, we look forward to that chapter of your life
Well now we're going to our regular calendar
7a is approval of our meeting minutes of October 25th
Is there a motion on the calendar?
Second we have a motion and second any opposition to the motion any
abstentions
Seeing none. It's unanimous
Mr. Chair if I could just room I've just found out that director Trembly will not be joining us today
He is in Camarillo his hometown and felt it was important that he stay in his neighborhood
if I could ask director angler to bring his name badge and join us here at the
what we affectionately call the adults table.
It's, thank you Mr. Chair.
Okay, so now we'll go on to our second item, 7B, the train operation and maintenance services
contract presented by Don Felipe, our chief operating officer along with Arnold Hackett,
our chief financial officer and Angela,
Angela's, I'm sorry, Angela,
our senior manager of contracts and compliance, Don.
All right, good morning, directors.
I will be presenting contract number MSOP 158-24,
train operations and maintenance services.
So next slide.
So the background, the recommendation to award
was initially presented to SCRA's Board of Directors
on October 25th, 2024.
Directors provided constructive feedback
and carried staff about decisions
that informed this recommendation.
This report is intended to address directors' questions,
bolster directors' confidence,
and staff's recommendation,
and advance the important procurement.
Next slide.
It is recommended that the Board authorize the CEO
to award contract number MSOP158-24
for train operations and maintenance services
to Alston Transport USA Incorporated
in a total not to exceed amount of $1,121,666,447.86.
This covers mobilization, a base contract term of five years,
and one three-year option to be exercised
at the authority sole discretion.
Next slide.
Discussion.
All authority requests to award require
one immutable priority, and that is safety.
Protecting our employees, customers,
and assets is fundamental.
For this request to award each proposer's safety record
was the first category assessed.
Additionally, to optimize efficiencies,
contractor management, and contractor accountability,
the authority is continuing to its business strategy,
approved by the board in May 2019
to bundle its operations and maintenance contracts.
In May 2019, the board authorized the issuance
of requests for proposals, number MSOP150-20,
rail operations, maintenance, and support services.
This RFP was subsequently canceled in March, 2020,
due to affordability concerns.
In April, 2020, the board directed staff
to pursue a bundled approach
to procuring train operations and maintenance services.
In February, 2021, the board approved awarding
a five-year contract for track
and signal infrastructure maintenance
and support services to Herzog.
On November 22nd, 2023, RFP MSOP 158-24 was issued
for train operations and maintenance services.
Per the authority RFP process,
proposers submitted their approach
to performing the scope of services for this procurement.
Relevant past performance and experience
of both the company and the proposed team,
their safety records, as well as their approach
to the advertised scope of services
were included in their technical proposal.
The best value procurement considered both technical
and cost criteria to select the highest ranked proposer.
Proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria,
relevant experience and key personnel 25 points,
past performance 20 points, approach to service 20 points,
workforce retention 10 points, price 25 points.
The authority received three proposals
by the due date of July 16th, 2024.
The three bidders were Amtrak, Herzog, and Alstom.
A technical evaluation committee comprised
of internal and external subject matter experts,
a team of internal subject matter experts
provided as needed support
to the technical advisory committee.
The TEC evaluated and scored the three bids
per the technical evaluation, criteria A through C,
listed in the previous slide.
All three proposals compiled, or I'm sorry,
complied with California Labor Code section 1072,
statutory workforce retention, that was criteria D,
which means they agreed to retain employees
currently employed by the three contractors
who provide the existing services.
Technical proposals that met or exceeded
the minimum technical score of 70%, 52.50,
were excluded in the competitive range,
or I'm sorry, included in the competitive range,
meaning they were capable from a technical standpoint
of being awarded a contract proposers,
contract proposers with an unacceptable safety record
would not be considered in the competitive range.
Herzog and Alstom exceeded the minimum technical score
under criteria A through D,
and the two firms were invited to present their teams
and their proposals.
Amtrak did not meet the minimum technical score.
In accordance with the RFP,
the technical committee scored the proposals
after the interviews.
Based on the additional feedback obtained from proposers,
the technical committee updated the scores
of both proposers in the competitive range.
And I will ask Angelos to go through this slide with you.
So the evaluation process was divided into steps.
The phase one, it was the definition
of the competitive range where the evaluation committee
scored the proposals from the technical proposals.
And the table depicts the results of the technical score
for the two proposals that were in the competitive range.
Herzog Transit Services obtained 67 points.
And Alstom Transport USA obtained 53.5.
After that phase was completed,
and as Don already mentioned,
the Amtrak was not selected to be in the competitive range.
There was the phase two, which was including interviews
with those proposers who were in the competitive range.
And after the interviews,
the technical evaluation committee had the ability
to update their technical scores.
And the final scores after that step
were as in the second table with Herzog
obtaining 66.5 points and Austin 52.25.
Next slide please.
The last step of this process includes adding
the price score that is calculated based on a formula
that was advertised with the RFP.
And after adding that score from the price,
the total score, the final score was 86.2 points
for Herzog and 77.25 for Aston Transport USA.
Herzog was the highest ranked proposer
when the final technical and price scores were combined.
In September negotiations between Herzog
and the authority's procurement team
comprised of representatives from operations,
finance, contracts, and legal.
The teams negotiated in good faith over multiple days
to better understand the details of Herzog's proposal
and price and to explore areas of savings.
Despite significant efforts by both sides to reach a chord
on an affordable price for the authority,
without compromising safety, both parties agreed.
The gap between the authority,
The gap between what the authority could afford
and what Herzog was willing to provide was unbridgeable.
Per the rules of the RFP, the authority notified Herzog
on September 24th that it was stopping negotiations
Herzog did not object.
On October 2nd, 2024,
the authority opened negotiations with Alstom.
Negotiations were in two distinct but related areas,
technical and price.
First, the technical negotiations focused
on those areas in which Alstom had scored lower than Herzog.
Example, the parties agreed on the staffing
of three key personnel, the general manager,
the assistant manager of safety,
and the assistant general manager of operations.
Alstom provided clarity on their approach
to providing the Metrolinx service.
Second was the authority negotiated
with Alstom on his price proposal.
No, John, could I stop you for a minute?
Sure.
The most concern at our last meeting
was the fact that we wanted to know
what were the changes that were made
that caused the technical scores to be,
if you will, raised up.
We would like the specifics of that.
And this doesn't address that.
So could you tell us the specific changes that were made
or that resulted in these scores being higher
than they are now?
So I will touch on one item
and then I'll let Angelo's touch on the rest.
So the bullet that I just read,
if you look at section A of the scoring,
they scored lower than Herzog.
They addressed that with those three key personnel changes.
Chair, I would like to clarify that the scores
didn't go up after that step of the process
because when we enter the negotiations with the proposers,
the Technical Evaluation Committee is already dismissed.
So there's no re-scoring,
and that's why we cannot present updated scores.
However, in that process,
ASWM was able to address all the concerns that were raised.
And as Don mentioned, they were primarily focused
on the first criterion because the team thought
that it was important to make sure that we have people
on the other side that we can work with.
If I asked a question.
That was the only change?
Section A, the key personnel were extremely important.
We're talking about the general manager,
the assistant general manager of safety,
and the assistant general manager of operations.
So, those not having the right personnel in there
definitely concerned us and gave us pause.
The second portion of their scoring
that we definitely had concerns with
was the approach to service,
and you can see the approach to service scored low.
There wasn't necessarily things
that they changed in their proposal.
There was a conversation in negotiation
that brought out clarity of exactly what they meant
and how they would execute their approach to service.
It also gave us a very good understanding
that they understood the contract.
They understood what we were asking in the proposal
and they were able to clarify on all of that.
We have, go ahead.
I'm sorry, just a question of what you just discussed.
I guess what I understand is after the interviews,
their scores dropped, they didn't increase.
So you're seeing all the things that remedied the problems,
but yet their final after the interview
is still dropped down to below the threshold
for actually competing.
Director Wapner, the scores dropped
after the evaluation committee completed the interviews
with the proposers, but the steps that we're talking about,
the changes happened after that fact.
It was at the point where the evaluation committee
was already dismissed.
How did it even continue if at that point
you're under the threshold for the minimum.
Because that was, the threshold is only used
to define the competitive range.
They were already in the competitive range.
Actually, that was the same question I had about,
I was curious when this additional information
came to light given the fact that reading the slide,
much as my colleague did, it appears that after they
interviewed and clarified things got worse, not better,
and that I was just not understanding
the connection there.
Thank you.
So just I may comment on that.
So the first phase was reviewing the technical proposals.
No conversations with the contractors at all.
That created a score.
The second phase was an interview.
We brought both proposers in, the ones
that made competitive range.
We let them talk to us about their proposal
and about their key personnel.
That is what you see in phase two.
Both parties were still in the competitive range
regardless of scoring in phase two.
They had already made the competitive range.
It could not be eliminated from competitive range.
But their scores could be adjusted in phase two
after we interviewed with them.
That was our first contact with the proposers.
What we were talking about is in terms of
how they addressed some of our concerns,
those were in the negotiation phase.
And the technical evaluation committee
had already been dismissed,
scores had already been cemented,
and now we were moving forward with deeper conversations
and deeper understandings of how each proposer
would meet the proposal.
Director Corrann.
Thank you.
So just on that point, I apologize if it's in here,
it probably is and I've missed it,
but what was Amtrak's initial,
how far below the 70% threshold was Amtrak's initial scoring?
As you have seen, we have not published the score
for Amtrak.
Amtrak has already requested a debrief
and we're gonna let them know all the feedback
that the evaluation committee had for their proposal.
I can, with certainty say that their proposal,
as submitted, does not reflect the firm, the company.
Amtrak is a well-known and established company,
but the proposal in response to our scope of work
was not found by the evaluation committee
as passing the minimum score.
Right, okay, so, and then how much staff, time and effort
was required to go to that second phase
of actually interviewing those who were
in the competitive range?
How laborious of a task is that?
How many days did it take to do those interviews?
The interview was one day for each of the proposals
that were in the competitive range,
but they were like four hours, yeah.
So what I struggle with here a little bit,
and again, not knowing where Amtrak came in,
can't speak to it thoughtfully,
but this is a contract RFP in excess of a billion dollars
for, it's the most important contract this agency
has ever or will ever enter into.
in its existence and I'm not sure what the advantage is
in excluding one of our three bidders
from the competitive range prior to interviews
when we see here that interviews change technical scores
and in fact resulted in one of the remaining two
falling below the competitive range.
I don't understand why that is valuable at all
rather than just having three bidders that you interview
spend an extra four hours to talk to the third bidder
so that we have at least three bidders.
Again, going to the point that I raised last time,
we knew going into this with a bundled scenario.
This is why I've had a problem with the bundled scenario
for since we've been talking about it is that the more you bundle the fewer
bidders you're going to get and if we have three I don't understand the value
of eliminating one from consideration before we even talked so so why why did
we do that we follow the advertised process in the RFP and every step of
the process we described today is what was advertised as the process that we
would follow. I need to underline 70% of the technical score is a pretty high
number. It is a difficult number for firms to reach. They have to be very good.
As I said, Amtrak's proposal does not reflect on how good or bad Amtrak is as
a company. It reflects only on their response to the scope of work that the
authority advertised and how we expected, the evaluation committee expected,
that response to respond to the technical criteria
that were advertised.
Right, and that's why because it isn't reflective
of one of the largest operators of trains in the world,
I would have thought that this would be an opportunity
for us to spend the extra time to find out
why it is not reflective of their agency
and to spend the four hours of interviewing them
to see if something, you know, there was a technical error
or something else that, you know,
would eliminate them from consideration,
especially since we did that with the other two agencies.
Director Smedel?
I hope we're all learning from this process.
Couple of different questions that all come into it.
I'm not hearing anywhere in here
what we're doing with the contract
It hurts off already got and is in place with the maintenance.
We have a contract with her so for the maintenance of way
signals and track.
That's not part of the bundle.
No, it is unrelated.
OK, the three year option.
That's not part of the 1.1 billion, correct?
Oh, it is.
It is.
OK, so the total cost includes because it doesn't always
includes the option.
So I just want to make sure.
And then the next question is what,
and I don't see the actual contract,
but what safeguards do we have if they're not performing?
And that we have these questions
that are being brought to our attention
that we are concerned about,
how do we unwind this mess if they're not performing?
The messes, they're not performing.
I can speak about the contract.
Don can speak about the scope.
both documents, the contract document and the scope document
address performance by the contractor
who will be awarded this contract.
And there is a liquidated damages program
that is literally prevents the contractor
from not performing because if they do,
they will be dinged with liquidated damages.
I think that this program is straightforward, clear,
and it gives a message to any contractor
who will be awarded on what the priorities
and the key performance indicators are for the authority.
Of course, given all the upcoming big projects
that we have, Don, if you want to add?
Well, I think there is an onus on the agency to manage.
So when we talk about contractors not performing,
there's a lead up to that, right?
It's not something that just happens overnight.
So it really is the responsibility of us, the staff,
to make sure that we're communicating
and partnering with that contractor
and we're making sure that they're delivering
on what we are paying for, what you are paying for.
I can tell you it is much easier
to try to manage one contractor than five
because just sheer volume and all the different contracts
and all the requirements that we have to try to negotiate
navigate through. So having one contractor is much easier to manage. It is also a benefit
to us as an agency to have operations and maintenance are very closely tied. So when
you can have those two as one, it creates synergies that we don't have today.
I understand that one contract is easier to manage. One contract is going to be more difficult
if they fall out for some reason.
That's where my angst comes in,
is that if they don't perform up to the expectations,
which means you have to be a lot more hard-nosed
and not let things slip by because, as you said,
it's a buildup and if you let the bottom slip
and as we go, you're gonna get to a point
and then it's gonna be extremely difficult to replace that
and this is where my angst comes in
as to what happens in year two and they're not performing.
we would have made a move in year one.
We wouldn't wait till year two to make that move.
And that's what I mean by the onus on us.
We need to be working with them from day one.
We're gonna see in day five, day 20, day 60,
day 365 how they're performing.
Those decisions in that direction
will be discussed amongst all of us
on how we solve that problem.
But we're not going to wait till year two
when everything's falling apart to you know try to figure out how we're gonna
get out of that mess. So just for future contracts because you could heard the
board they're just I know that in the call yesterday Mr. Burksen was really
having a challenge with what was the difference when you reviewed after the
negotiations and why are you feeling comfortable but we can't know that. So
So for future, I think a closed session to bring the board up to have that comfort level
because you're asking us to go on your comfort level and we have no knowledge on what that
means and I know that's what you were trying to say yesterday and I am Mr. Krakorian address
that also is that we don't know what changed and made you feel more comfortable yet we're
We're the ones voting for this, and we're hanging the agency on 1.1 billion dollars.
Thank you.
Understood.
Director, Mr. Herring.
Thank you.
Don, thanks for explaining the scoring process.
It was a little confusing, I think, to many who were looking back at this.
So there was a qualifying round that brought us two, and then there was a playoff round
between those two, and apparently as you dug into it both scores apparently dropped slightly.
So I understand that. So the argument that Alston with their 52.25 that they received
in the final technical score, not meeting the 70% of the available points is not a valid
Objection because that was only for the qualifying round
To move forward yeah, I understand that yeah, you're absolutely right
It's it's it's it's a qualifying round and then it's and then it's trying to find who is
number one and number two okay, so we're a little bit you know I understand the
Concerns that you know we definitely want the best company out there
was there a
protest by Amtrak
When they failed to make the qualifying round
The the results of the evaluation were not published until the notice of intent to award was published
But we have not received any protest from any proposer
It looks like we had a you know a surrogate protest by the
Union the
Locomotive engineers who took objection to this scoring
process as one of their concerns my second question is I
Understand that when we send out the RFP we're
obliged to strictly
Follow the procedures that were put out
how common is
this
Set of procedures that we're using with the qualifying round and then the the getting the final technical score
Or is that something we made up?
Or is this an industry standard?
Because it sounds a little weird, as my director said.
Well, why didn't we just bring Amtrak in as part of the group?
But can you let me know if the RFP, as we approved,
I don't remember approving it.
It was probably a year ago or so.
But how common are those terms in the industry?
So the process that we are following is actually written
in our procurement manual that has been in place
for the last four years, but as a process,
it's pretty common in the public procurement world
to have steps in that process.
Imagine, in this procurement, we only got three,
but in other procurements, we have an example.
We got 34 proposals.
We can't invite everybody to an interview.
We have to narrow it down.
So there is this two-step process
to make sure that we can actually identify those
who have a merit of getting an award
and not everybody who submits a proposal.
Do you think that's the best?
You know, seeing that that's in our procurement manual
and we follow that.
Do you think that the board should take a look
at that process or are you comfortable
that that's still a very valid process that we're?
I think it's a fair process.
It is fair to all proposals.
And it also guarantees that the authority
will only award the contract to a very good proposal,
because only those in the competitive range
can get, have a merit of getting an award.
My last comment is not really a question,
but we're clearly committed to safety in this agency.
At some point, hopefully in the not too distant future,
I'm not sure if today is the time,
but I'd like to hear from,
if our decision is to go with Alstom,
I would like to hear from them and have them discuss
what they see as the challenges,
our safety challenges, and what their thoughts are
as to how they can address them if they,
or whoever gets the comment.
Yeah, absolutely.
We definitely aim to please our board,
so we brought them here today
to give you a presentation right after this.
Specifically addressing everything you just brought up.
Then I'll just wait for the time when that's appropriate.
Director Burkson, then Director Wapner,
and then Director Najarian.
Director Burks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So just to piggyback on Karen Spiegel's comments
a few minutes ago.
You know, I think the biggest frustrating part
that I can express is just simply looking at these scores
and taking them at face value
because that's what we're presented with,
but they've had additional discussions,
but they aren't able to, staff isn't able to say,
all right, well, they're 15.25.
Now, if we had judged it,
the things that they got deductions for,
the four or five items they had deductions for
that brought them to the 15.25,
they address those items this way.
That would, to me, I don't need a new score
to see that they've addressed the concerns.
This doesn't tell me any of the concerns.
It just doesn't say these were the issues
that we had in each category.
Regardless of whether a new score was gonna be proposed
to be done, which we know it wasn't,
but the point was is that if we knew every little step
on each category, why are they two points off from them
on this, 15 versus 17, 17 point, you know,
whatever the chart had, it had all the variety of scores,
but it just doesn't have any information for us
to understand why staff is saying they're so good now.
Now that we had this magical interview with them,
everything's all good in hunky-dory.
Well, on a $1.1 billion contract,
it's not the same thing as a $50 landscape contract.
We need to understand the meat of why staff has changed their,
or why staff is recommending them,
rather than saying, all right, well,
we may recommend you to go and do a new RFP
and maybe with some additional criteria
or something that might even allow for
the third participant Amtrak to have been included.
Because obviously it's been in the manual for four years
but that doesn't mean it's the right method
and maybe we will wanna look at that down the road
and see if we have the best policy in place
or if we can add to it, to ensure that
when it comes for a vote and decision-making,
that the board fully understands why staff feels
that they've overcome whatever deficits were done
based on the original scoring.
That's, I think, in our biggest challenge here.
If I could, Mr. Chair, and I know Mr. Felipe
has just one more slide in his presentation
it relates to his budget.
But in response to Director Burksen's question, I want to just, when the team met, there were,
Don just addressed this a short time ago, there were two key areas.
In their first proposal, they did not have staffing that we thought met the mark, period.
And they brought in three new people once we got to that point where we could talk with
them after we got through Herzog who had a stronger proposal. We raised with
Alstom these are the issues where you were deficient and if this is going to
be something that matters to you we need to see a change. They made they brought
in three new leaders to this contract but they were not in their original
proposal. The second area where there is not as the scoring was not as strong was
in their proposal we weren't as clear that they understood the full scope of
work and we want would never have gotten to this conversation with Alstom if we
had a negotiated price with Herzog. We get to the point where we got past
Herzog and we're able in a position to negotiate with Alstom. We identified
leadership and we had identified understanding a scope of work. It was in
that conversation during scope of work that we were able to get clarity on what
it is that they understood about that scope of work, which then gave the team
the confidence that they are able to deliver on that scope of work. So those
are the two key areas. We can't put points to that because the team that was
involved in the Technical Evaluation Committee, a couple of which were
for Metrolink staff, a couple of which were external,
was not reconvened.
We only had that conversation with that group,
so there's no points that could be applied.
We just were able to identify the areas
where they were deficient
and how they strengthened that position
through the negotiation when we were able to talk with them.
And I know, Mr. Chair,
there are more directors that have other comments.
I will leave it at that.
I just wanted to make sure the scoring question,
the scoring issue has been one that's been,
we've been wrestling with for the last few weeks.
And so just to be direct, those were the two areas,
hard to quantify, but the quality became improved
because of those discussions
and what Alstom then brought to the table.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Director Roper.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, there's some comments
about the bundling policy itself.
I supported it when we first brought it forward.
Initially, as I stood at the last minute,
it was like a macro bundle, it was one line trying bundle.
we found there were no proposers to that
which were broken into many bundles.
I guess the problem I have, and maybe it's on us,
is we never really got any updates during the process
of how the bundling concept was actually working.
I'm assuming it's working,
because otherwise you wouldn't be recommending
to move forward with that policy,
but I'm kind of a bit curious as to that,
as to how it's been working effectively.
As far as the bundling,
while it provides convenience to the staff
to deal with one contractor,
it also shifts the leverage to that contractor,
because if they fail in one part of the bundle,
they held the rest of it as leverage.
And you can have all the covenants in the contract
that you want, but as they say,
once the train's going, it's extremely tough to stop.
So, you can say today that we don't like it changing.
This is gonna take five years before we can change it.
We realize that it takes quite a while
to undo something like this.
But going to this specific thing,
I did send, Darren, some correspondence I received.
I know this is a question to the source,
and frankly, I don't care.
But I wonder, the questions I asked for you
was what reference checks were done on both proposers,
as well as, I'm understanding there might have been
a history with Alstom of underbidding
and then changing budgets later on.
So how were those two items addressed?
Director Wepner, all three proposals that we got
were from proposals that we knew.
So starting with that, which is very important
because there's nobody else that knows better
how these proposals perform under our contracts
than ourselves.
So in this case, our opinion on the actual services provided
by the incumbents is a very good reference.
But furthermore, in the case of the recommendation
that we're making today, we did get from,
we got a very, very strong recommendation from Mark
that was very clear the message.
We also reached out to other agencies
that they were listed as references.
We got some feedback also from Go Transit Metrolinx.
So I think that from the performance standpoint,
I think that we are safe to say that our recommendation
reflects the feedback that we got from other agencies.
And the subject of maybe they're underbidding
and then doing budget increases later on.
And there was a huge spread between them and Herzog.
I understand that it might be seen that way,
but actually they're much closer to our budget than Herzog.
I think that the question that we would raise
is why Herzog was so expensive, not why Alston was cheap.
Well, I guess the question goes to in past history
with other agencies, has there been instances of them
underbidding and then charging more later on?
I mean, when you do your reference checks,
and I don't think that the only reference check
is with ourselves, I really think we need
to check with other agencies as well.
Has there ever been any allegation,
or has anyone ever commented that there might be
underbidding to get the contract?
And we see this often, and again,
none of this is aimed towards all some of these others,
and I hope everyone understands we're having
a policy discussion, sir, it's nothing specific.
And at that level, I can answer to you,
we didn't get the feedback that will be
in the way you are asking the question,
but at the same time, every contract is different.
How every contract is priced allows
or doesn't allow adjustments, or it has language
that explains what the adjustments will be based on.
We have a very strong negotiation team on our end,
and we had actually great support from our legal department
in developing a contract document
that will allow us to hold most of the pricing.
We do have some elements of adjustment
for market adjustments to be reflected,
but we do have a very strong document
that will allow us to hold our position.
Mr. Chair, if I could real quickly,
they always say lawyers, you never ask a question
unless you know the answer.
I'm gonna break that rule since I'm not a lawyer.
Mr. Felipe or Mr. Hackett,
in the years that we've had,
also on board as our current contractor,
how frequently, if at all, have they come to us
with a change order request that increased the cost
of the contract.
So in the six years that I've been here, never.
And in the 26 years that they've been here,
I'm unaware of any time.
You and I concur with that, thank you.
Before we go on, we have,
Alstrom was going to be presenting to us.
I would suggest that after Director Kukorian,
we move ahead with the presentation.
Go ahead.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just following on that point on pricing,
it's a big differential.
And whenever there's a big differential
and very few bidders in any public procurement,
that always gives me a lot of heartburn.
And my heartburn is maybe even a little bit greater
in light of, Mr. Kettle, your suggestion
that they didn't understand the full scope of work.
Because that's usually why there's a big price differential in any public procurement.
Because there's a misunderstanding between the contractor and the agency about what really
the expected scope of work is.
So I just raise that because hopefully when they come up we can start to drill down a
a little bit to ensure that we all are eyes wide open about what we expect to the contractor
and whether or not that is going to impact on what their price proposal is, because especially
in a situation where the contractor is too big to fail, being in a situation where they
have that degree of leverage and are below our independent cost estimate and
way below any other proposer it it just sends up every red flare there should be
that we can expect that there will be you know requests for adjustments in
that in the future so I just I want to raise that as a note of big caution and
hopefully they can address some of that when they speak but I do before we move
one with the presentation I do also want to address a couple of points that were
raised by Director Najarian about protests and I just wanted to clarify
that you know I am 100% confident that our staff did everything exactly right
according to what we told you to do in the RFP process so I wouldn't expect a
protest because I don't think there was anything that was done that was illegal
or contrary to the RFP, but that's a different set of questions than whether this is the
right strategic approach in a procurement of this size for the agency to take.
And, you know, looking back on it, especially now, retrospectively, to think should we have
varied from the procurement manual, should we, as a board, have adopted a different procurement
process for these bundled contracts, you know, that were specific to this that would have
been more inclusive, I think we should have because, again, I hate to keep saying the
same thing, but the bigger the contract, the fewer bidders you're going to get. It's a
truism. It's not just true of this agency. It's true of every single government entity
in the country that does competitive procurement. The bigger the contract, the fewer respondents
you're going to get. And the less competitive the bids are going to be. It's just, it happens
every single time. So it's in our strategic interests to maximize the number of competitive
bidders who qualify and then to sort them out. You know, use your expertise to sort
them out. And I wish, in this case, that we had increased, you know, the number of bidders
by an additional 50% by having three instead of two.
So I just wanted to clarify, it's not a, the lack
of protests is not surprising because I'm sure it was
to the letter and everything was done, the question for us
as a board is in this circumstance was doing things
to the letter of the RFP process what achieved the best,
Most competitive result, I, I'm not yet convinced that it was, but that's a different set of issues. So thank you.
Sorry, just one more. I know you're trying to get the presentation, but it was mentioned, and I just want to bring it up again with the letter that we all received from the Amtrak engineers and train men.
Is that of any concern?
Because they did mention a few good points like the Olympics
and some of the other things that we're going to be dealing with.
So is anything in their letter, are they here, protest?
Because we didn't say protest, but kind of a letter
is like protesting.
Yeah, so absolutely understand your concern.
Alstom will actually address that.
Very good.
Well, let's go on, Don.
I understand you have one more slide,
and then we'll get to Austin.
We can move to the...
Why don't we do that?
Yeah, we can move to Austin.
We do have a quick infomercial,
and then I'll introduce you.
Our expertise is complete and awesome.
We operate trains, provide customer service,
dispatching, heavy and light vehicle maintenance,
track and single maintenance.
Basically, we do it all.
Austin is a well-known maintainer around the world.
We are a global leader with experienced people.
Our local team has more than 4,000 highly skilled
services employees in North America.
We maintain thousands of vehicles around the world.
We are extremely proud to have been working with SCRA
for more than 25 years.
We are committed to continue improving the availability
and reliability of service.
Austin is the number one private operator in North America,
with more than 40 years of experience.
We are committed to being the single contractor
to help our partners grow and to expand service,
increase their ridership,
and support their budget controls in creative ways.
And we are a great partner to work with.
We have a proven history of regulatory compliance,
both with the FRA and the FTA.
At Austin, safety is our top priority.
Here at MARC, we have reached an achievement of 10 years
with no lost time incident.
Every year, we move 100 million passengers safely.
Wherever we operate, we are the partner of choice
to our customer, offering a single point of contact
to optimize daily operations.
Austin stands with his customers
to help them become more efficient
and make the train even more attractive
to tackle social issues such as climate change,
traffic congestion.
Thank you for watching that.
I would like to call up Scott Sheridan
and Jose Ollet from Alstom.
Welcome.
We're glad that you're here
and looking forward to your discussion, thank you.
Good morning and thank you for providing us the time
to address this board this morning.
Very much appreciate that.
I'm Scott Sheridan, I'm the chief commercial officer
for the United States for Alstom,
along with my colleague Jose,
who leads our services business, which includes all operations and maintenance activities
that we have in the U.S. and Canada.
Respectively, I'm the most senior U.S. executive for Alstom, and Jose is the most senior executive
for our services business in the U.S. and Canada.
We both report to Michael Carole, who you see up there.
Michael is responsible for the Americas, where we have 13,000 employees, specifically focused
on passenger rail and providing rolling stock or trains, signaling services, turnkey solutions
exclusively to passenger rail and helping those customers move their passenger safely
every day.
Next slide, please.
So a little bit about Allstom that maybe you don't know.
Globally, we have 85,000 employees.
I acknowledge we have a bit of a brand problem.
Four years ago when we bought BT, we'd have some work to do on that brand.
But among rail operators and in the U.S. and in the global community, we are very well
known.
85,000 employees globally, 4,500 just in the U.S., focused on passenger rail.
Almost 2,400-degree engineers, more than 1,000 in the U.S., specifically focused on passenger
rail.
254 sites globally, 45 of them in the U.S., 50 O&M contracts worldwide, 27 of them in
the U.S., 15 of them are linked with automated people mover systems at the airports where
you take trains from gate to gate, and other dozen of them are related to moving of traditional
passenger transit agencies in the U.S. and Canada.
And globally, we're generating nearly $20 billion in revenue.
Next slide, please.
Just a visual to give you a brief view of the United States and where our contracts
are across the U.S.
This gives you a sense of the agencies that we're with, where we're providing signaling
solutions, where we're providing services, where we're providing turnkey systems, and
where we're providing rolling stock.
Alstom is more generally well known, and it's because of the combination of Alstom and Bombardier
when we came together as a rolling stock supplier.
We have more than 4,000 cars that are currently in active service right now in the U.S., but
we also have very strong operations and maintenance capabilities and services capabilities that
Jose will go into a bit more detail and walk through for you.
Hi.
I'm going to start by thanking you for the opportunity to directly look at you in the
eyes and hopefully provide a lot of answers to the very valid, honestly, questions that
you've been asking.
So I started with a few facts and figures.
There's one in there that is not present and I think is important, is that the business
that I have the pleasure of leading since four years and a half now is in the management
team in North America.
It represents 33%, so a third of the scope of work and the value of sales is services.
operation, it's maintenance, it's overhauling, it's the business. So it
matters around the table in our management team. A few other facts
and figures, I always say that what I lead as services is a people business.
People is how I transfer and I give confidence and I deliver service and
passenger experience, and so those 4,000 men and women that are part of my team,
they matter. They're in US and Canada and they are the foundation of what we
deliver. But it's an extremely interesting bench strength that's split
across those 27 other operating and maintenance sites that we can draw from
when needed, that we can learn from when there's a safety event or whatnot. So
So a tremendous foundation that you are going to have access to.
The other foundation is in, there's dedicated, so Scott spoke about degreed engineers that
we have as a whole.
A lot of them are to, obviously, when you develop a new rolling stock contract or when
you build a signaling, or you need a lot of engineering.
But I, in my organization, we have dedicated,
degreed engineers, all they think and do in life
is maintenance optimization, it's reliability growth,
it's obsolescence management, it's bringing
more sophistication to the way that we maintain
and we operate, dedicated to services.
So, that yields performance.
Right now, in all of the sites where we are
operator-maintainer or when we're counting on our scope just maintainer.
The availability that we deliver under our responsibility, so this is not you
know if there's this removes basically things that are outside of Allison's
control, but the one that we are responsible for delivers an above 99%
availability consistently. We've got, it was mentioned in the video, 40 years of
of safe rail operation experience.
And this is in the US.
This is under FDA, FRA regulations.
We get rail in the US.
We were with you, and I'm gonna talk a bit about that
and the safety credentials a bit later.
So I'll wait till I get to that slide.
And yes, why we say we're,
and maybe that was a surprising mention in the video,
that we are the number one private operator in rail.
It's based on what we think matters,
which is the ridership, it's the people,
it's the constituents that use the rail.
We are, the ridership levels,
when we include Canada and the US,
we are the ones that move by far the most people,
and this means in areas that are privatized.
So on areas that we have access to.
So this doesn't involve protected to Amtrak,
for example, areas.
But in terms of private operator,
we're the ones that move the most people.
Next, please.
I chose three basically benchmarks just to give you,
make it a little bit more vivid
in terms of our credential.
So obviously, you know the first column.
We have been with you as the maintainer only of the fleet.
So a portion of the current scope,
but that's since 1998.
So we have an extraordinarily deep understanding
of the challenges that this fleet,
this complex fleet represents.
We also have a very good understanding,
deep understanding of, you know,
Darren you were talking in the beginning
to the response of one of the passengers
that came to express that this is a complex network.
It's seven routes, it's a lot of miles,
it's a lot, and it's a large fleet.
On our portion, so on the maintenance side of things,
we've been delivering an OTP equivalent
to 99.73 on this one.
I brought in a Canadian example at the other end,
and there's differences operating in Canada and the US,
but it's a regulatory environment still.
That line is also, is the most complex equivalent.
11 lines, 417 miles.
a fleet of over a thousand that's diversified,
that has a DMU line as well.
91 different, 91 locomotives of different types,
like in your case.
And they've been partnering with us for 16 years right now.
Mark is in the US,
so I really wanted to bring another one in the US.
We have others in the US,
but this one has not an equivalent complexity,
but two lines, the Camden and Brunswick line,
that start in Union Station in Washington,
a very visible area in the country.
And that too is a fleet of 42 locomotives, 114 coaches.
That authority matters because it's been 11 years,
they've renewed their partnership with us recently,
and there we have a bundled scope,
a scope where we both operate full,
even including the dispatching.
So we operate and we maintain the full fleet.
and it gives us a lot of advantages
that I'm gonna go into a little later.
In total, there's 1,000 engineers and conductors
that we manage in North America,
250 locals and a lot of coaches, 1,700.
So a lot of credentials.
And I didn't speak about Sunrail
that we also are operating and maintaining in
and the Riverline contract in New Jersey as well.
So I said, people business.
So people means in our world dealing with unions.
And I know that you've received,
I heard through the discussion,
some concerns by some of those unions.
We right now are partnering actively on all of our sites
with 12 different labor unions,
of which smart on several, in several locations.
So here, on the maintenance contract,
MARC, Sunrail, and Riverline, SMART is present.
And BLET is, the Brotherhood is a union
where we have lesser experience,
but during the procurement process,
it was really important for us to reach out to them.
And we did, and we received a willingness to work,
a looking forward should you receive the service.
But the feedback from the union that knows us the best
and that has worked with us the longest is there
and quite strong, second to none,
in their commitment to safety and employee engagement.
And I've personally experienced this over the many years
that I've worked with them in multiple locations.
And this is signed by the Deputy General Officer Chairman.
So, you know, I think quite a strong testimony.
The next slide is probably one of the most important slides
in light of some of the very, I think,
valid questioning that I've heard.
And honestly, I'm glad that I heard that questioning.
Safety, when you're an operator, is probably,
no, it's not probably, it is the most vital element
to ensure that you actually have real credentials
and that you can be recognized.
I really recognize that you are putting in this decision
an extremely important and massive,
probably the biggest, as was mentioned,
biggest decision that will be taken.
And that, you can't take that if you are not convinced
that we have what it takes to operate this rail safely.
Safety is important in the maintenance aspect.
that one I think you saw that we have the credentials for but also in the operations.
In Alstom, first in our culture every meeting like this one today starts with a safety moment,
starts about talking about safety. We've got a very rigorous process under what we call
AZDP, Alstom Zero Deviation Plan, that has mandatory trainings, that has audits in place
and that ensures that safety is a is throughout our culture top-down every
step in everything we do. We've got experience in shared access corridors in
all the areas so with Amtrak with BNSF with UP with CSX in all the various
corridors that I already talked about. We've got PTC experience on the
operation side maintenance side training and compliance signaling so with you you
You know, you talked about proudly with reason
of the fact that you were pioneers
in the PTC rules implementation.
We were there on the maintenance side
and there's onboard signaling equipment
that we were able, and now there's an update to that rule
that we're right now working with our staff,
Brad, who's here, our general manager,
to make sure that our staff is ready
for that rule change in March.
And we've supported the deployment of those same things
in MARC, in Sunrail and in Riverline as well.
So, talk to as well about Olympics.
I saw that it was a point in the next agenda.
You need somebody that has dealt
with special and major events.
All the things you see on that slide,
we have been supporting in one way or another,
not always as an operator and maintainer,
but have supported the agencies
that have lived through these massive events.
five Olympics, 13 Super Bowls, four World Cups.
And I'll dive into on the next slide, please,
two specific more examples.
The London Olympics, that one,
even if it's been a while ago,
we were the active maintaining of the most of the fleet, 6,000.
We've achieved 100% availability on all the lines
for the Olympics and the Paralympics
due to a lot of innovations that we brought.
There was the first integrated diagnostic center
with the operators where, as a maintainer,
we were standing by monitoring
with digital real-time analysis and able to prevent.
We also worked with unions and we ensured
that we worked on our maintenance regimes
so that heavy rail maintenance could be done
in advance safely so that we could release more cars
and put more cars available.
I'll move to the next one.
There was a lot of discussion on bundling,
and here I'm not gonna talk about my experience.
As I have areas where we're only
providing transportation services,
I have some sites where we're only maintaining,
and I have some sites where we're doing both.
And definitely, we saw big advantages
in having those two operation and maintenance contracts
under one roof.
There are financial synergies that we did take into account.
It is a portion of the reason where you saw some
of the benefits and to that, I hope I can come
to that valid question on did they go too low
and do they understand the scope?
It's an important question.
And I can give specific example.
Obviously the management team is one of the synergies,
but the other one we did specifically
on the maintenance contract is that as we knew
that we would be able to have a better planning
and understanding of the way the vehicles came to us
as we were the operator now,
we were able to optimize the maintenance regime
and create savings on their maintenance cost.
The most important for me thing that it gives
is the operational flexibility.
The ability to ensure that there's one team
with one operational objective,
seamless, no finger pointing, no blaming,
that just figure it out, they make it work.
So whether it's special events, weather elements,
reducing dime times for any type of disruption
that might happen, we are so much more agile
when we have in hand the two scopes.
Last slide, please.
So, listen, I'm not gonna read them.
I know the time is getting short.
But strong feedback from some customers,
and I chose the two that are very different.
The Metrolinx one is talking to our 16 years
of partnership with them as a maintainer and an operator.
The Mark one is a spontaneous email
that we received from the director of operations
that talks to the people attitude, the service attitude,
passenger experience attitude that the culture that we bring and that our people have
Because one of our employees which just went over and above trying to support a passenger and finding his things
So it's a it's a small example, but I think it talks a lot to our culture and that was my last slide
Thank you very much for that
any comments questions from
board members
This is minor but it just caught my attention. It's when you put a box, a black box with
white writing and it reads less than half of the reportable injuries in all
our sites compared to the industry. I don't know whether that's a good thing
or a bad thing. Oh and you're thank you for asking that question because I skipped
over it so I couldn't even I didn't talk it to it and it's a quite you know it's
That's quite something in terms of an accomplishment actually.
So reportable injuries are something that is regulated by the FRA.
You have to go report certain type of injuries that you have.
So it's a metric, and I was trying to bring a metric that brings to life factually the
fact that we are good in managing safety.
And we've got publicized reports that we had access to and where we saw the numbers
that some of our competitors got to in terms
of reportable injuries, and we could see
that our metrics are half that level.
So we have much less reportable injuries
than our competition.
And you briefly mentioned the BLET,
which is the letter we received.
Yes.
And it seems to be, you're aware of the letter
and what was said in it.
Yes, we are, we are.
And listen, all I can say, I mean,
we had reached out to them during the procurement process,
we understand, you know, change always brings concern
to any human being.
We are determined in, as I think was mentioned
in the evaluation, to try to rehire
as many of those talented and experienced people
as possible, and we're really looking forward
to working with them actively.
I think right now they don't know us as well,
they don't have that experience,
And I think we gain to be doned
and looking forward to partner with them.
Well, you get an A for enthusiasm.
We took this procurement extraordinary at heart.
This is the reason that both Scott and I are here.
Any others?
Yeah, I guess the one thing that jumps out at me
and I'm certainly not questioning any of your slide ware,
your enthusiasm, but would you like to comment
on why you came in?
so low technically from a standpoint of just barely getting by the threshold, was that
a strategy on your part or?
I'm joking, but I'm not, to be honest with you, they're oftentimes in the bid and proposal
world where you do enough to get to the next round because you know it doesn't matter unless
you win the deal on price anyway.
And there are other strategies in different, I mean there's a hundred strategies for every
way to go about one of these things.
So I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment from your viewpoint what happened
there and obviously you came in and then decided to bring three more people in.
Just help us understand and have a little more comfort with the process part of it because
I think that's what a number of us are struggling with.
Just one small comment before we allow Jose to answer this question to explain that the
Those were not aware of the scoring process before they were invited for negotiations.
They were not aware of the results, so they can only speak on their side of what happens.
They got invited, so they made the minimum threshold.
Even after the interviews, they could not have known what transpired, I mean, everything
that we described in the portrait.
I'm still curious your impression.
So listen, really good question.
So indeed, there was things that, you know,
when you choose and you have so much bandwidth
of people that you can choose from,
we valued some things like presence in California,
like more than maybe others.
When we spoke to the staff and we had the interview,
the last round of negotiations, so not the,
and they told us they had their concerns,
Then having that deep understanding, for example,
more years in passenger rail, and you know,
if they're gonna be living here and breathing here,
we're okay, you can bring people from other areas.
We just need them to make sure they have
their understanding better, exactly what they were after.
We were able to correct this and bring some,
I mean, the best people possible with great, great,
great credentials and years of experience
and the attitude and culture that we're for.
So that one we were able to.
I think on the proposed approach, which is the other area where our approach to work
that we were weak, it's our proposal that clearly didn't give or outline correctly.
So we're going to be doing some lessons learned and introspection on making sure that we convey
the strength of what we have to bring in a much stronger way, because clearly the evaluation
committee had not gotten it well and not received it well.
our proposal clearly was not clear enough. I can give a little bit more
color to that so one I'm a little embarrassed to be quite honest about how
our proposal came across and we've done a lot of I'd say soul-searching to try
and understand that. The truth of the matter is everything Jose said is
accurate. When Alstom acquired Bombardier, the knowledge of the
The O&M business comes from Bombardier in the US.
We certainly have that expertise globally with Alstom, but the US aspect of it came
from Bombardier.
All of the resources that understand that business are spread across these 20 different
sites and currently delivering for agencies and bringing safe operations to them every
day.
The bid team that we had preparing the offer was borrowing expertise from these sites as
as best they could to pull together our offer.
Quite frankly, they didn't do a professional enough job
and a good enough job doing it.
And the constraints of public procurement processes
where you're having to submit an RFP
and you're not able to come in, you're not able to talk,
that never really came out until we got into the position
where we were finally able to sit down,
bring our team, have the in-depth discussions
and go through it.
It's something we need to get better at.
I apologize, we've put this board, we've put this agency through this process where
you have these concerns and we're having this debate and we're here to answer any questions
you might have to give you that better level of comfort.
One other question too, not to jump ahead to the punchline, but if in fact you were
the awardee on this contract, what percentage of your business in North America would we
represent?
So this contract is going to be about, if I have the numbers right, $90 million a year.
We generate $3 billion a year in revenue.
In North America?
In North America.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
A couple things and questions.
You know, the bundling aspect of it and when you speak about the application and I understand
a little bit of your embarrassment, sorry, but that tells me and talks to me a
little bit about like the synergy, typically in this is like the synergy of
communication amongst your different departments and this which is I think
is a strong point in which we're looking for here in that bundling. Can you speak
to us on how you look to improve that here, like for example if we need to talk
to operations or management or something like that, how can you secure our
confidence in your communication amongst your team okay just I'll try to make
sure I so the communication how it's gonna be better because there's not two
separate entities and that now there is one is I just want to make sure I'm
just on the question yeah because what I want to make sure is that like on your
on your everyday operations that we don't you don't come back to us and say
oh you know what we weren't talking to each other very well just like in your
application you kind of just mentioned you didn't really talk to each other
very well at a professional level it was difficult for us to bring the right
people to build the proposal because they're they're actually operating and
maintaining in different in different sites and we didn't want to defer their
attention so but definitely in terms of the bundled approach and you know there's
then one general manager. There is one safety manager with equipped staff. There is one QA
manager with equipped staff. So in very concrete terms, you've got one management team that
is giving a common set of objectives to both sub-entities of both operations and maintenance,
directing them and giving them the priorities to achieve a now common outcome. There is
much less possibilities of misunderstandings or mispriorization of the end goal.
And we can align that end goal to the authorities need.
So the one point of contact of the staff that will be managing us and make sure that whatever
the issue is it in a changing schedule that we have to plan for and make sure that the
availability doesn't suffer or whatever else where the maintenance team is working in that
Direction and the operations team is working in that same direction seamless
Thank you
And I'm not sure if
Metrolink staff would help in this next question
But you mentioned our employees and especially our conductors and they're very important all all employees are very important to us
You said you're gonna do your best to hire as many as possible in
Anybody tell us a little bit about
How that might look what might be offered what might what would some be the clarification what might be some process?
And specifically just because I know Darren you helped me clarify some things
But can we speak to that and then speak to how that will be communicated to them because I definitely would love
I mean, it'd be great to have a hundred percent transition, but that is their all
That is their choice and but I would love for that to get spoken
Okay, thank you
so yes the the
As you know that we that was a commitment that we made into our proposal
the mobilization phase will start as soon as the award is given and that means that we
Immediately start working to making sure we're ready to start in the first day of revenue service
The first thing we do is making sure people business that we we have the right staff on board
So, there's some key individuals that have already been identified, you're going to start
seeing them and working with Brad, but the other big thing that we do is start engaging
with the unions to determine the best possible process to take them on board.
In terms of the benefits, the salaries, the CBA agreements, we had that available to us
and those hypotheses to protect whatever they had already in terms of their current CBA's
been built in to our proposal. So those employees don't need to be worried that
they're going to be cut short for change or that they're going to have an
employer that doesn't care. It is in our absolute best interest to be able to
de-risk the start of revenue service to have as many of them transfer to us as
possible. So we're going to be looking at convincing them that it's a good move.
We do have backup plans though, we do have plans to go higher if some people choose to stay for example with Amtrak and work in other areas.
So there's plans for that, sorry.
So this is just like any other contract change that we've had.
We've had numerous contract changes throughout the 26 for 30 years of Metrolinx history.
And there is regulation that requires these that they meet, you know, certain requirements as in retention.
There's also requirements as it relates to protecting pay.
So there is no contractor that would be left out.
They're going to have the opportunity to either join the awesome team and continue to work here at Metrolink
or continue to work with the company
that they are currently with.
But this does not put contracted employees
in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
Thank you, everyone.
Well, thank you very much for your presentation
and your candid remarks.
We appreciate it very much.
I do have one public speaker who wishes to speak on this item.
Is Juliana still here?
Please come forward.
Hello again, like I said before my name is Juliana, I'm a nursing student and I just
want to talk about because I have taken Metrolink for the past, I'll say 10 years and with this
new operator one thing I have learned from Metrolink is that they don't like to ask questions
for their commuters, with the schedule change,
but more specifically with the conductors.
There was a speaker here before
that had mentioned the Commodity,
and all of that is important for commuters.
There are four conductors I know by name
that know me by name as well.
I might take their trains consistently.
They're great conductors, good rapport.
They have a good report with their passengers.
A lot of them are daily passengers.
But also MCHAC has been,
sorry I'm looking at my notes real fast.
So basically MCHAC has been an operator
for Metrolink for 26 years.
It was 13 years between 1992 and 2005.
10 years between 2010 and 2020.
And then three years between 2021
and 2024 where we are now.
Basically, Metulink keeps coming back to MCCHAC.
Between those, it was Bombardier and Conix.
So that's just something to think about,
personally, with the Commodity that we have as well.
And then also with Austin,
I have taken them in Europe.
They're really good.
But I just feel like Europe is different than the U.S.
I know Austin Transportation USA is a subsidiary of Austin,
which is located in France.
European train systems are operated a lot differently
than they are here.
So while they may have good experience,
I feel like Amtrak personally has a better experience,
being that it's a U.S.-based transportation company.
it's federal and a lot of people have the
relationships with the conductor with the operators.
Thank you very much Juliana.
Our colleagues that we have before us
in our staff report, the staff recommendation,
what is the board's pleasure on this?
Looking for a motion? Yes.
Is that a hint?
I will move item seven, B, with the recommendation
to award Allston Transport USA.
Is there a second?
We have a motion and second.
Is there any objection to the motion?
Yeah, Mr. Chair, I just wanna say that having heard
from Allston and seen the presentation,
it's a very impressive company.
and a lot of maybe my concerns are alleviated,
but I'm given that this has been such a long journey
and this bundled process has been something
that I have been pleased about from the beginning.
I'm gonna be a no on this.
I just wanna mention, I'm sure,
during your really smart guy,
you understand some of the concerns
that we have for the process itself.
Maybe it was a good morning exercise.
I certainly appreciate the policy discussion this morning.
Any objections other than the one for Mr. Corcoran?
Any abstentions?
Seeing none, it passes.
Yes.
Okay, Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?
Certainly.
Director Wapner, Vice Chair Chaffee,
Director Murphy.
Aye.
Second Vice Chair Bergson,
Director Spiegel,
Director Engler.
Yes.
Director Krekorian.
Respectfully, no.
Director Najarian.
Yes.
Director Preciado.
Chair McAllen.
Yes.
The motion carries with Director Krekorian voting no.
Thank you very much.
We have four additional items that we need to get through
before we lose a quorum.
Next is our board and committee meeting dates
calendar year 2025 I know the we had that presentation I've talked to the to
the incoming chair at our committee meetings the e-comm committee e-comm
committee had no objection to moving the e-comm committee to nine and moving the
audit and Finance Committee to 945 is there any concerns with any of the dates
my comment at this point I will make work whatever is presented with
understanding that if there's some changes necessary based on people's
schedules next year so when you have some changes and people at the board we
certainly accommodate all that we can the understanding that if we need to
change it next year, we can do that.
So with that, I would like to make the motion
that we accept the dates and move the executive committee
to 9 o'clock and the audit and finance committee to 9.45
with comms coming at 10.30.
We have a second.
Any objection to the motion?
Any abstentions?
Seeing none, it passes unanimously.
On then to item D, which is a contract,
Olympics planning support services
presented by Brian Jacob, our planning manager too.
I would just like to remind the Metrolink staff
about the timing and quorums.
What, yeah, I was gonna say it's just to be clear.
Thank you, Paul.
Absolutely, thank you.
Paul Hublic, Chief Strategy Officer for Metrolink,
overseeing planning and development,
government relations grants,
and railroad agreements with the freight railroads.
So LA, 2028 will bring LA's third Olympics games,
but it'll be the first Olympic games for Metrolink,
the first Paralympic games,
and the first car-free or transit-first games
for Los Angeles.
The Dodgers World Series parade and celebration
a week ago offered a glimpse
of what Metrolink might expect during the Olympics.
We had record-breaking ridership,
we had some trains that were loaded to capacity,
needed to skip routes inbound to Union Station,
scores of first-time riders who needed assistance
on the platforms and in navigating service.
And staff responded, I think admirably,
and handled the surge in ridership,
but it does offer us a sort of a peak
towards what we might see in 2028.
In addition, in two years, the World Cup
can offer a further opportunity to stress test our system
and operational strategies in preparation for the games.
So in preparation for implementing service
during the games in 2028.
We sought industry experts that needed deep experience
in the Olympics and other large events.
Knowledge of Metrolink servicing capabilities
as well as the broader transportation environment
in Southern California.
Our recommended consultant, Jacobs,
has deep experience in all three of these areas.
It's currently under contract with Metrolink
to help prepare our service growth development plan
for guiding the future of Metrolink service.
We're confident that Jacobs will guide our preparations and ensure successful service
delivery in 2028. We're asking the board to approve the staff recommendation and budget
authority to support the development of a master plan and framework for game service
implementation. We will return to the board with regular updates as well as authorization
for additional budget authority as may be needed. Planner Brian Jacob is here to present the staff
report as desired by the board and our consultants project manager Seth Torma
is also here to answer questions. So Mr. Chair if there is the board's interested
in moving in a more timely fashion we can certainly present the staff report
or if you have enough information in the full written staff report we're happy to
move with a greater alacrity. I think everyone's read the staff reports. I'm
I'm happy to move ahead.
I'll second but I want discussion on that.
Speak ahead or hand up first.
Finally.
You can have it.
Don't you dare do that to me.
You dare.
Okay Stella.
See that's something we forgot.
Really?
I was gonna bring that up for Paul.
Yeah.
Anyway, you had to have been here 20 years
to understand what that's all about.
I have no problem with the scope or anything else.
But my question is this is that
our negotiations and discussions with LA-28
are quite fluid right now.
How is your staff or the consultant in a what direction to go until we've actually set a policy direction for that?
Right now I think what the the main focus over the next six to nine months with the consultant is going to be
for implementation
Admittedly, there's certain data that we don't have right now
We're in the process of refining for instance the demand model working which Jacobs happens to be preparing on behalf of Los Angeles Metro
That's going to be a key input for us. We're going to be working very closely with them on that.
The other aspect is what our rolling stock fleet. The fleet readiness.
Jacobs is prepared to help there. But we also have other consultants who are assisting our capital program delivery department
in assessing the state of readiness. We've had a number of presentations internally to determine that.
So we are moving forward with what is the maximum service
we can offer with our existing fleet,
what we can do if we flex the spare ratio downwards
temporarily to 10%, and then what we can do
if we were to borrow fleet, if only if that's necessary.
And a lot of that is gonna be driven
by the transportation demand model,
which we're in the process of meeting with Jacobs
to determine what the development services.
if I could, Director Wapner, we know we're gonna have to build scenarios. Our team,
we've got great smart people but we don't have a deep bench, so what this
consulting team will be able to do is to help us build scenarios that will then
really I think educate you know inform the policy discussion about what this
board can and can't do with whatever level of resources we ultimately end up
with. I think that just provides more information as we go through the
discussions with the LA-28 so I appreciate that also I want to make sure
that the numbers you're spending are included in the total costs that we're
encumbering for the process and also I'm hoping with the scope look like but I
want to make sure we include the fact we've got to take care of the existing
passengers I don't want anything to be displaced through this process or
whatever Jacobs comes up with find some way that we can accommodate especially
their fears and things like that because I know they're gonna probably go up
according to dynamic pricing whatever we're gonna use but I want to make sure our
passengers are protected. Good point, thank you very much. I wasn't going to make that
point but hey directors are here. Couple things, Alan I've been friends for years
anybody was wondering. Existing fleet I think that we really have to take a
deep dive in that because we don't know for sure and I think I didn't hear you
say you'll bring in our new contract with Austin that they should be in
addition to Jacobs I just want to make sure that they're gonna be part of the
conversation just it's better to be over communitive than less I don't want to
have any loved we had a skag meeting and Mr. Wapner McAllen myself there's
somebody else there Oh Ray Marquez was there so we had quite a bit of
representation on skag and brought up the financial issue obviously because
they had representatives from L.A. 28, you know, where does it come in?
You're going to make a demand on needing to have transportation, but yet there doesn't
seem to be currently funding directed here.
So what you're talking about right now, where is that funding source going to come from?
These, well, the existing planning is coming out of existing revenues.
The cost of the Jacobs Consultant is being, we had existing contracts underway already
in terms of the cleanness.
So those were, because we've got a number of fleet
that were out of service,
they need to be repaired or longer term rehab.
So all of that is under existing contracts
that were underway even without the Olympics.
But we will coordinate, I hear you very clearly
and so has Jacobs and I'm sure Alston has as well
that we need to coordinate very, very closely with them
as they continue on the vehicle equipment maintenance contract
to ensure that our fleet is ready during the Olympics.
We've been told you've got to be prepared to basically operate
almost 24 hours a day.
Right, that's what my concern is.
So number one, it's always been safety.
Number two is going to be our existing customers,
because once the Olympics are gone,
we don't want to have ticked everybody off.
That has been our bread and butter and our whole being,
because we've prioritized Olympics, we can't do that.
I think the message has gotten across.
Is there a motion on this item?
We have a motion and a second.
Is there any objection to the motion?
Any abstention?
Seeing none, it passes, thank you very much.
On to item 70, which is a purchase order
for consumable janitorial supplies.
Is there a motion on this item?
Second.
We have a motion and a second.
Any objection or abstention.
Seeing none, it's unanimously approved.
On to 7-F, contract project management information systems.
Is there a motion on the item?
A motion to second any objection?
Any abstention?
Seeing none, it passes unanimously.
Without objection, all of the receive and file items,
I would suggest that we go ahead and receive and file each one of them in the
interest of time and is there any objection to that? Seeing none, we're on
to our chief executive officer's report. If there's a motion and a second to
avoid the chief executive officer's report, I'm fine with that as well. There
we go. I'll breeze through these. I had the privilege of being in Orange County, a
A couple members of our board, Mr. Dimitru and Vice Chair Chafee,
I joined the Association of California Cities just talking about the latest and greatest at MetroLink.
Did that a couple of weeks ago. Next slide.
We touched on this ridership Grand Slam. Boy, what a day it was to celebrate the Dodgers winning
the World Series. And I was really impressed with our team's nimbleness. We did break a record
42,000 plus riders and and thank goodness we launched that new service model just a couple
weeks earlier because we really would have been in a world of hurt and we did as was mentioned we
we uh the operations team called an audible and ran trains that were going to be part of the
Covina flips all the way to San Bernardino because we had such we well who doesn't love
love the Dodgers but the San Bernardino line really loves the Dodgers. Next slide.
Really you know the the project that just keeps on giving, our Rail Yard
restoration and modernization project, was recognized nationally, a national
award by the Construction Management Association of America. That is a project
as you all know that modernized our technology at LA Union Station and has
been great success and is working operationally better than we could have
ever hoped. Aaron Acevedo is in the middle. His team was the project lead on that project.
Next slide. A couple months ago we talked about our fair restructuring effort that Henning
Eichler and the customer experience team brought. Given all the movement we've had going on
with the new schedule, a few other factors, we were hoping to get that launched at the
beginning of the year. I'm just here to inform the board that we're going to be given all
of these moving parts that we have going on right now, we look towards implementing that
in the spring or July 1, just to give us time for this new schedule to sort of settle in
so that our customers aren't getting inundated with just change. And we've had, as you've
heard from our customers, we've had, they have had and we have had change. And I think
the new fair restructuring timeline will give us all time to allow that to settle and come
in with a better a better message for our our riders and I think it will be
another it'll continue to drive the success of the of the new schedule next
slide and yesterday the Skag Regional Council took action on a budget item for
what is called contactless payment we're going to be launching on our
the San Bernardino line, a new type of fair collections called contactless payments where
you just use your credit card as an option that you would tap a credit card at a reader
and then you tap it when you get off and that's how you get your fare charged.
You would not be using the app.
You would not have a special ticket and this is being used in London right now.
It's being used in Northern California.
It will provide opportunities for people that are not as familiar with our system, not
knowing they need to get a ticket to simply tap their credit card to board
and then tap when they get off and then their fare is charged. So we will be
looking at launching that in 2025 but the SCAG Regional Council Act of it, it is
fully funded by SCAG. I should have led with that come to think of it. Fully
funded by SCAG and we're gonna get the opportunity to to test this out
on the on the San Bernardino line. If it goes smoothly it will be a technology
that we would look at introducing and having in place on all of our lines, ideally before
LA 20. Next slide. And many of you should have gotten the notice about the holiday express
train. Once again, it is, there's not a hotter ticket in town. And so keep an eye on it.
There's the information, again, I believe the board secretary has, board clerk, excuse
me has sent that out to you so again I want to make sure that you're all aware
of that and hold on one second I've got a little birdie that was in the thank
you so one of the items that we went through we just one of the the report
items the information items was something that was actually was going to
to be a special gift to outgoing Director Krekorian.
Director Krekorian had asked for better metrics
that help us address from some policy perspectives
how we provide information so that the board
has better information on that.
And we were going to start that with our item
on our finance item, our normal finance forecasting
and budget item, and we added some information to that
that started us down that path.
So Director Krekorian, you should feel free
come back at the next meeting if you would like. If you would like to see how
at least how our initial response is to that and then we are going to be doing
this on a quarterly basis we're putting together a match a report of about 12
key metrics from safety to ridership vehicle miles traveled reduction all of
the different things that help us better make make better decisions so thank you
chief of staff Rodriguez for bringing that to my attention and yes the
director Korean you're invited back well thank you use that information well
for today I will take time efficiency as an even nicer gift I think that's my
last slide the holiday Express train thank you mr. chair thank you very much
any comments questions from this executive officer seeing none or any
Any board member comments?
Yes, we will, absolutely.
Chair's comments, I think we need to keep in mind also
all of those that have been affected by the mountain fire
in Camarillo, especially our executive officer,
and all those that have lost their material things,
but fortunately no lives have been lost so far.
the fire's ongoing and we can always replace
the material things, but we can't replace our lives,
or our loved ones, or our pets,
so just keep those in mind as we go forward.
And I would like to adjourn also in memory
of all of our veterans and also for the Marine Corps
birthday coming up for all of the Marines in the house.
So with that, we're adjourned, thank you so much.