Monthly Monitoring Report: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) San Francisco, CA

MONTHLY MONITORING REPORT
May 2019
Central Subway Project

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
San Francisco, CA
FINAL
Draft Report Delivered to FTA June 27, 2019

Final Report Delivered to FTA July 03, 2019
PMOC Contract No.: DTFT6014D00010

Task Order No. 5
Project No.: FTA-13-0294
Work Order Number: 002

OPs Referenced: 01 and 25
CLIN 0002B
David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Eric Chang, Task Order Manager
Voice – (212) 742-4321; email – ehch@deainc.com
Time on project: 7 months
PMOC Monthly Monitoring Report May 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Description
The Central Subway Project (CSP) involves construction of a 1.7-mile extension of Muni’s T Third
Line along 4th Street and beneath Stockton Street in downtown San Francisco. The CSP is Phase
2 of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) T Third Light Rail Transit
(LRT) Project. The CSP will extend the T Third Line from the 4th Street Caltrain Station to
Chinatown, providing a direct rapid transit link from the Bayshore and Mission Bay areas to South
of Market, Union Square, and downtown.
Four new stations are being constructed as part of the project—an at-grade station at 4th and
Brannan streets and three underground stations at Yerba Buena/Moscone Center (YBM), Union
Square/Market Street (UMS), and Chinatown (CTS). Four light rail vehicles (LRVs) are included
in the budget for the CSP as part of a larger procurement that will expand the LRV fleet and
includes options for replacement of the entire fleet. Average weekday riders are projected to be
43,521 in 2030.
Project Status
The project has been under construction since February 2010. At the end of April 2019, the project
was 85.03% complete based on expenditures. The one active construction contract: 1300 Stations
and Systems/Trackwork being executed by Tutor Perini Corporation (TPC), was 82.52% complete
based on incurred cost. Substantial completion of this contract was originally scheduled for
February 10, 2018, but the latest master program schedule update forecasts substantial completion
on October 14, 2019, which is 91 days later than the substantial completion forecast in the
December 2018 report. SFMTA’s most recent update of the program schedule forecasts the
Revenue Service Date (RSD) to occur on February 27, 2020, which remains the same from the
prior month’s reporting. This is 428 days later than the required RSD of December 26, 2018 in the
Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA).
Separation of design and fabrication of the Automated Train Control System (ATCS) from TPC
(Contract Modification (CMod) #93) has been executed based on Board approval on February 19,
2019. SFMTA is finalizing contract terms and conditions with the ATCS contractor. Meanwhile,
SFMTA received the design from the Radio contractor in April 2019. The responsibility for
installation of both systems remains with TPC.
Table 1 - Core Accountability Items
Project Status: (as reported in SFMTA’s April Original at
Current Estimate:
2019 Monthly Progress Report) FFGA:
Cost Cost Estimate $1,578,300,000 $1,578,300,000
Contingency Unallocated Contingency $74,722,000 $11,724,619
Total Contingency
Contingency (Including Approved $185,500,000 $47,624,266
Contract Changes)
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-i

Project Status: (as reported in SFMTA’s April Original at

Current Estimate:
2019 Monthly Progress Report) FFGA:
Revenue Service Date 2/27/2020 (SFMTA
Schedule 12/26/2018
(RSD) forecast)
Total Project Based on Expenditures 85.03%
Percent Complete Based on Earned Value 84.81%
Major Issues Status Comments/Planned Action
Schedule All schedule contingency
SFMTA’s substantial completion date
Contingency has been consumed. remains unchanged in the current reporting
cycle.
Cost Contingency Total contingency is The contingency appears adequate for the
$47.62 million – 13.3% of current level of project completion,
the value of remaining although increasing contractor claims
work. continue to be a concern.
Technical Capacity Program Director and In January 2019, the full-time Systems
and Capability Start-up and Testing Integration and Testing manager personnel
Manager positions-filled. commenced in their roles.
Date of Next Quarterly Meeting: August 7, 2019
Earned Value (EV): $1,338,546,750 an increase of $9.29 million from March 2019.
Planned Value (PV): $1,553,043,166, a planned decrease of $0.42 million from March 2019.
Actual Cost (AC): $1,341,730,994 an increase of $11.46 million from March 2019.
Cost Performance Index (CPI): 1.00, indicating that the value of completed work is consistent
with the incurred cost.
Contingency
Cost Contingency
The total available contingency (approved contingency less approved contract changes) as of April
2019 was $47,624,266, which is above the minimum required contingency of $25 million.
Additional unallocated contingency of $1.4 million should be available as a result of the final close
out price for the Tunnel Contract. Updated trend summary information was not submitted at the
time of this report. The latest available trend summary report estimated a maximum potential
additional cost increase from claims, denied change order requests, and pending changes of more
than $102 million, which is substantially higher than estimated in prior reporting cycles. The
available contingency is insufficient to cover the current estimate of maximum cost exposure from
claims. SFMTA does not include claims in its forecast of Estimate at Completion.
Schedule Contingency
All contingency in the schedule has been consumed, and there are over 12 months of negative float
from the baseline schedule. The schedule dated April 2019 submitted by SFMTA forecasts RSD of
February 27, 2020, which remains unchanged. SFMTA submitted an FFGA Schedule Extension
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-ii

letter to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on December 6, 2018 with a request to extend
the FFGA RSD to May 26, 2020.
PMOC Observations, Opinions, Recommendations and Concerns
In May 2019, a conference call was held between SFMTA and the Project Management Oversight
Contractor’s (PMOC) System Integration Manager to discuss SFMTA’s responses to the PMOC’s
review of the Rail Activation Plan (RAP). The PMOC will review SFMTA’s draft Rail
Activation/Pre-Revenue Service schedule. A monthly recurring call to discuss the required
documentation for the OP#54 (Readiness for Revenue Operation) was set up to take place while
the PMOC conducts the on-site monthly oversight. The PMOC recommends commencement of the
OP#54 review in the third quarter of 2019, which is approximately 6 to 9 months prior to the
forecasted Revenue Service Date.
The potential increase in claims in recent months continues to be a concern for the PMOC. Claims
and pending/potential contract changes now have a maximum potential impact that is approaching
the value of the remaining contingency in the project budget. While SFMTA continues their focus
on the resolution of outstanding claims, the timing and the amount of a global claim settlement
with the contractor is critical for the completion of the project within project budget and for the
achievement of the Revenue Service on or before the projected date. It is the PMOC’s opinion that
the likelihood of project contingency not being adequate has increased.
SFMTA’s current schedule indicates RSD in February 27, 2020, which is 63 days later than the
RSD forecast, a 2-month slippage mainly due to the delay on the critical path work in CTS for
slurry wall shotcrete at the Headhouse. SFMTA submitted an FFGA Schedule Extension letter to
the FTA on December 6, 2018 with a request to extend the FFGA RSD to May 26, 2020. FTA
issued an approval letter on February 27, 2019. SFMTA is in the process of outlining the detailed
schedule framework of Systems Integration/Testing and Pre-Revenue Services. The Revenue
Service Date may be further revised and go beyond the February 2020 date based on the
development of the Systems schedule fragnet.
The PMOC continued to express concern regarding the on-going unproductive working
relationship between SFMTA and the contractor TPC. SFMTA concurred that the monthly invoice
from TPC continues to be significantly lower than the previous monthly average. This indicates
that TPC is not progressing the work as scheduled, which could be part of TPC’s position on future
claims. Based on the PMOC’s observation of the detailed schedule framework for the Systems
Integration, and the steps required for the Revenue Service outlined in the RAP, as well as the
continuing unproductive relationship between SFMTA and TPC, the likelihood that the RSD may
go beyond the current approved FFGA extension date of May 2020 increases.
SFMTA stated that TPC submitted an offer for a global claim settlement on February 8, 2019 with
an expiration date of February 28, 2019. After a series of meetings and negotiations, SFMTA and
TPC did not reach agreement on a global settlement.
The PMOC continues to be concerned that the time required for SFMTA to make decisions
regarding project issues and to execute contract changes needs improvement. Resolution of issues,
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-iii

such as approval of traffic control plans (TCPs) for construction at CTS and along 4th Street, are
taking far too long. Also, the execution of planned contract changes for ATCS has taken far too
long. Separation of ATCS from TPC (CMod #93) has been executed based on the Board meeting
on February 19, 2019. SFMTA is finalizing the contract terms and conditions with the ATCS
contractor. Meanwhile, SFMTA received the design from the Radio contractor in April 2019. The
responsibility of installation of both systems are currently with TPC. SFMTA is seeking advice
from the industry and the FTA for review of contract change management and documentation to
develop ways to streamline SFMTA’s process.
An Acting SFMTA Transit Director was appointed in November 2018, who was then appointed
as the new Transit Director in May 2019. The Director of Transportation resigned on April 29,
2019. He will serve out his contract, which will expire on August 14, 2019. The recruitment process
for a new Director of Transportation is continuing. It is the PMOC’s recommendation that SFMTA
present a Succession Plan to the FTA regarding the process of transitioning from the current
Director to the new Director of Transportation. It is critical to ensure the institution knowledge of
the CSP retained in the program, especially for the upcoming global settlement with TPC. SFMTA
indicated the Director of Transportation is prioritizing backfilling the position of the CSP
Director.
SFMTA appointed a full-time Systems Integration and Testing manager in December 2018.,
SFMTA submitted the updated Project Management Plan (PMP) in April 2019, which includes
an updated Rail Activation Plan. The PMOC has reviewed the RAP and is in the process of
discussing the comments with SFMTA.
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. PROJECT STATUS ......................................................................................................................................... 1
B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUB-PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.......................................... 5
C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY ................................................................. 5
D. PROJECT COST STATUS ............................................................................................................................. 6
E. PROJECT SCHEDULE STATUS ................................................................................................................ 12
F. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................ 16
G. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE ....................................................... 17
H. SAFETY AND SECURITY ........................................................................................................................... 17
I. PROJECT RISK, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND RISK MITIGATION................................................... 18
J. ACTION ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 19
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - CORE ACCOUNTABILITY ITEMS .............................................................................................. ES-I
TABLE 2 - FORECAST CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATES FOR CSP WORK PACKAGES........... 2
TABLE 3 - BUDGET AND CONTINGENCY STATUS FOR CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT1 .................... 9
TABLE 4 - PROJECT FUNDING, AS OF JANUARY 2019................................................................................. 12
TABLE 5 - SCHEDULE MILESTONES ................................................................................................................ 14
TABLE 6 - CONSTRUCTION SAFETY DATA .................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 7 - SFMTA ACTION ITEMS FOR CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT ................................................. 20
TABLE 8 - ACTIVE PMOC RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B. SAFETY AND SECURITY CHECKLIST ............................................................................. B-1
APPENDIX C. PROJECT MAP AND OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D. TOP PROJECT RISKS ............................................................................................................ D-1
APPENDIX E. ROADMAP TO REVENUE OPERATIONS ......................................................................... E-1
APPENDIX F. LESSONS LEARNED .............................................................................................................. F-1
APPENDIX G. CONTRACT STATUS ............................................................................................................ G-1
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page TOC-i

A. PROJECT STATUS
Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

The FFGA for the Central Subway Project (CSP) was signed on October 11, 2012.
Design
Design is complete.
Construction
Contract 1250 (UR #1). This completed contract relocated utilities within the footprint of the
proposed Yerba Buena/Moscone Center (YBM) Station.
Contract 1251 (UR #2). This completed contract included the relocation of utility lines within the
footprint of the proposed Union Square/Market Street (UMS) Station and temporarily rerouted
existing trolley coach lines around the construction zone.
Contract 1252 Tunnel. This completed contract included the construction of 1.5 miles of twin
tunnels excavated by tunnel boring machines (TBM) and construction of the tunnel portal, retrieval
shaft, and five cross-passages. Final completion has been achieved, and final contract close out is
now underway. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) presented the final cost
data for the contract at the August 2018 Quarterly Progress Review Meeting (QPRM). Not
including costs of extra work paid from non-project sources, the final cost of the Central Subway
tunneling work is $233,511,253, compared to the most current estimate at completion of
$234,967,069. When SFMTA reconciles the final contract cost with the program budget, about
$1.4 million in additional unallocated contingency should be available as a result of the final cost
of the tunneling work being well below the current allocated budget for the work. The final cost
of the tunnel work was not reflected in SFMTA’s April monthly progress report and is not reflected
in cost tables presented in this report. Final close out of the contract is awaiting receipt of
information from the contractor on how the payments received have been distributed to
subcontractors.
Contract 1300 (Combination of UMS, CTS, YBM, and STS). This contract includes the
construction of three underground stations, one surface station, all surface works required for the
installation of Light Rail Transit (LRT) between 4th and King streets and the tunnel portal, and all
LRT track and systems components. As of the end of April 2019, the construction of the Stations
and Surface, Track, and Systems (STS) Contract was 82.52% complete based on cost and 84.1%
complete based on the value of completed construction.
The forecast date for completion of construction for each work package is shown for the April
2019 and March 2019 schedule updates in Table 2.
SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 1

Table 2 - Forecast Construction Completion Dates for CSP Work Packages

Work Package March 2019 Forecast April 2019 Forecast
Construction Completion Construction Completion
Date Date
1253 – Union Square/Market Street Station 12/01/2019 1/01/2020
1254 – Chinatown Station 10/15/2019 10/15/2019
1255 – Yerba Buena/Moscone Station 10/15/2019 10/15/2019
1256 – Surface, Track, and Systems 1/7/2020 10/15/2019
Source: SFMTA Monthly Progress Reports for March 2019 and April 2019
Union Square/Market Street Station (UMS): Concrete pours for interior wall and slabs continued
throughout the station. The contractor continued installing corridor ductwork, fire dampers, and
mechanical dampers at the intermediate Strut level. The installation of escalators No. 4, 5, and 6
is underway. The installation of Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (M/E/P) and fire protection
components continued throughout the station. The contractor made progress installing the unistrut
for ceiling panels, overhead conduits, and LED artwork. The contractor restored water and power
to the florist booths on Stockton Street near Geary Street.
Chinatown Station (CTS): The structural concrete work continued at the concourse level inside
the cross-cut cavern. The installation of M/E/P and fire protection components continued
throughout the station. The shotcrete for slurry walls, the drain mat, and waterproofing of the
platform level at the Headhouse continued. The work continued on the platform level. The street
work and monitoring and surveying activities are ongoing. The installation of the lattice girders
and the rebar continued for the north egress tunnel.
Yerba Buena/Moscone Station (YBM): The contractor began installing glass handrails at the
Station Concourse level. The installation of M/E/P components, interior walls, stairs, escalators,
and elevators are underway throughout the station. Installation of escalators No. 3 and 4
continued. The concrete work at the main entrance of the station is underway. Water leaks continue
to be an issue, with repair work ongoing. A report related to mitigation of water leaks is under
review. SFMTA continues managing the ongoing water intrusion into the YBM structure to avoid
further delays to construction of the station.
Surface, Track, and Systems (STS): The traction power conduit and other electrical conduit
installation inside the tunnel continued. The tunnel lighting installation has begun. Installation of
walkways, track, and plinth construction inside the tunnel continued. Very little work is ongoing
on the surface section of the alignment on 4th Street due to continuing issues with unresolved
requirements for traffic control for street restoration. SFMTA is still awaiting an Encroachment
Permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for work at the Interstate 80
off-ramp at Bryant Street. However, Caltrans agreed to provide a permit for the rail work separate
from the minor striping work that is awaiting environmental clearance.
Systems and Track
Separation of Automated Train Control System (ATCS) from Tutor Perini Corporation (TPC)
(Contract Modification (CMod) #93) has been executed based on the Board meeting on February
19, 2019. Separation of Radio from TPC (Proposed Contract Change (PCC) #300) was processed

in the March 19, 2019 Board meeting. The responsibility of installation of both systems are
currently with TPC.
Work on track had been suspended pending delivery of new track to replace the non-conforming
track supplied by the contractor. The track was delivered at the end of October and is stored on 4th
Street. Installation of the replacement track continues. SFMTA retained ownership of the non-
conforming rail and is working with project representatives for the Sacramento Streetcar project
to potentially transfer ownership of the rail for use on that project.
Tunnel Work
The electrical subcontractor continues to progress the installation of conduits and Overhead
Contact System (OCS) support equipment in the tunnels.
Third Party Agreements Including Utilities, Railroads, Other Agencies, Etc.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

No updates to report.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

SFMTA needs an Encroachment Permit to install electrical and traffic signal equipment at the I-80
off-ramp, which terminates at the intersection of 4th and Bryant streets. SFMTA Sustainable
Streets Division (SSD) is planning other improvements to the intersection that would be
implemented after completion of the Central Subway Project. Caltrans is insisting that the
Encroachment Permit include all planned improvements, while SFMTA is requesting that the later
work by SSD be covered by a separate permit. SFMTA and Caltrans have been unable to resolve
the issue and it has been escalated to the SFMTA Director of Transportation. However, Caltrans
agreed to provide a permit for the rail work separate from the minor striping work that is awaiting
environmental clearance.
CPUC
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is participating in the various safety meetings,
including the Safety and Security Certification Review Committee (SSCRC) and Fire and Life
Safety Committee (FLSC) meetings. Representatives of the CPUC also regularly attend the
SFMTA/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) QPRMs, and were in attendance at the May 16,
2019 QPRM. The FLSC is working to approve items on the certifiable items list for the Stations
Contract. SFMTA has expressed concern that CPUC may have insufficient staff to witness the
required safety tests for CSP, which could further delay the Revenue Service Date (RSD). This
potential risk is being monitored in the risk register, and mitigation strategies have been identified.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)

San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW)

SFDPW inspects completed street and sidewalk facilities that the contractor has proposed to
release to the City. SFDPW develops punch lists of required repairs that must be completed by the
contractor prior to acceptance of the streets and sidewalks.
San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department

Private Property Owners

All real estate acquisitions are complete. There will be a need to extend the duration of some of
the licenses for compensation grouting. A number of private property owners and businesses have
issued claims for damage associated with the project construction. The builder’s insurance policies
maintained by the contractor cover the costs associated with these claims, and the contractor has
demonstrated improved responsiveness to damage claims that are associated with ongoing
construction work.
Status of Vehicle Design, Procurement, Testing, and Integration

The four Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs) for the Central Subway have been delivered and accepted by
SFMTA. An additional 24 LRVs for near-term fleet expansion (four for service to the new
Warriors Arena) and 151 LRVs for fleet replacement are in various stages of production and
delivery. SFMTA has identified which of the new cars are considered to be funded by the CSP and
will provide information on the date they are placed into revenue services for ongoing tracking of
these assets in which the federal government has a financial interest.
Real Estate
SFMTA has acquired all project right-of-way, and all commercial and residential relocations are
complete.
Labor Relations and Policies

Appendix E of the Project Monthly Report details the Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goals and
actual participation on each contract as of September 2018. SFMTA contract goals range from 6%
to 30% on each of the contracts. The majority of the contracts have met these goals to date.
Compliance with Applicable Statutes, Regulations, Guidance, and FTA Agreements


B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUB-PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Project Management Plan (PMP)

SFMTA delivered an update of the PMP in April 2019. A comprehensive review of the PMP by the
Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) was not requested by FTA.
Environmental Assessment/Mitigation Plan/Archaeological Plans

The PMOC received the First Quarter 2018 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP)
update from SFMTA on July 10, 2018. The PMOC’s review of the report indicates that SFMTA
continues to meet its commitments for monitoring and mitigation of project impacts.
Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP)

SFMTA submitted RAMP Revision 5, dated September 26, 2013, to FTA on November 19, 2013.
SFMTA has acquired all required real estate for the project in accordance with the RAMP.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program Plan

See section F.
Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP)

See section H.
Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP)

See section I.
C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY
Agency Staff
The CSP Program Director, John Funghi, left the project effective February 1, 2018. Albert Hoe,
the Deputy Program Director was appointed as the Acting Program Director. Recruiting for this
key project staff position is continuing. SFMTA reports that this position will also be in charge of
ongoing planning efforts regarding possible extension of the T-line to the north and/or west. The
PMOC will continue to monitor agency efforts to fill the Program Director position.
The director of SFMTA Operations has retired and an acting Director has been assigned. The CSP
management staff is working with the Acting Transit Director to identify staff resources to work
on the start-up and testing process. SFMTA also intends to secure support services from a
consultant to supplement the assigned Operations Division staff. In December 2018, SFMTA
appointed a full-time Systems Integration and Testing manager, which is critical to complete the
plan for testing, commissioning, training, and start-up activities for the project.
Contractor Staff
There were no changes in the contractor’s management staff.

D. PROJECT COST STATUS
Project Cost Control Systems

Updated information was not available at the time of this report. SFMTA continued to maintain
the Trend Log and logs of Change Order Requests (CORs), PCCs, Notice of Potential Claims
(NOPC), and Certified Claims for Contract 1300 using CM13. The Trend Log includes all
potential changes in contract value, including items that, in the opinion of the CSP staff, are not
merited and new items for which merit has not been determined. The contract change management
log includes CORs that have been determined to have merit as well as agency-initiated PCCs that
are progressing through negotiations toward a CMod. The NOPC Log and the Claim Log include
CORs rejected by SFMTA for which the contractor expects to submit or has submitted a claim.
The latest versions of the Trend Log (dated April 17, 2019) and Trend Summary indicates that 111
contract modifications had been executed for the 1300 Contract. The total value of executed
CMods was 5,444,723, which is a $3.4 million increase from the March 20, 2019 report. The Claim
Log, through the same period, indicates that there are now 127 certified claims total value at $44.4
million.
Project Cost (as of April 2019)

Cost estimate: $1.5783 billion.
Total contingency: $47.62 million (minimum contingency is $25 million), $0.24 million decrease
since March 2019.
Actual Cost (AC): $1,341,730,994 an increase of $11.46 million from March 2019 (85.01% of
the total project budget).
Current funding level: $1,517,025,000 (96.1% of the total project budget).
Earned Value (EV): $1,338,546,750 an increase of $9.29 million from March 2019 (84.81% of
project value earned).
Cost Performance Index (CPI): 1.00.
CPI is a measure of cost efficiency on a project. It is the ratio of EV to AC. A CPI equal to or
greater than 1.0 indicates a cost underrun, and a value of less than 1.0 indicates a trend towards a
cost overrun. A value of 0.9 or greater is considered acceptable, considering the margin of error in
estimating the value of completed work.
Project Cost Trends

SFMTA tracks potential changes in project cost, calling these potential changes “trends.” Trends
include all potential changes in a contract’s value. As the status of an identified trend changes, it
may become a contract modification, it may become an item that is paid on a force account basis,
or it may be denied/closed with no impact to the project cost. Extra cost items identified by the
1300 contractor that CSP management concludes have no merit are carried in the total trend
amount at a lower value than the contractor’s estimate of extra costs, with the value reflecting
SFMTA’s assessment of the likelihood that the change would ultimately be approved through the
contract dispute resolution process.

In the April 2019 Monthly Progress Report (MPR), SFMTA estimates the total cost impact of
potential changes to the 1300 Contract at $19.9 million, compared with $18.7 million in March
2019, an increase of about $1.2 million. The resulting contingency of just under 2% of
potential remaining cost on the 1300 Contract after potential changes are accounted for is
likely insufficient, and additional contingency will probably need to be allocated to this
contract prior to completion. The available unallocated contingency and excess contingency
for other elements of the program will be sufficient to allow on-budget completion of the CSP
if SFMTA’s estimate of pending changes is accurate. However, numerous claims from TPC
may consume the available contingency if not settled for less than the claimed amounts.
Table 3 shows the overall budget, trends, and contingency status for the entire Central Subway
program. The Budget Forecast Variance, which reflects the total remaining contingency after the
cost of trends is accounted for, is 13.3% of the potential remaining spending. In the opinion of
the PMOC, this contingency would be sufficient to provide a reasonable confidence in an on-
budget completion of the project if contractor claims were in the typical range of costs for
projects of this size. Note that the values in Table 3 reflect the project status as of the end of April
2019 as reported in SFMTA’s latest MPR. Claims and denied CORs are not included in the cost
forecast in Table 3. As of June 12, 2019, SFMTA estimated the cost exposure from claims at $47.4
million.
Change Order Control

SFMTA is maintaining its management tools for tracking potential contract changes for the 1300
Contract. The latest available CN1300 Trend Summary was dated June 12, 2019. This report
shows that 115 contract modifications had been approved for a net increase in the contract value
of $6,009,547. CORs (generated by the contractor) that have been determined to have merit and
PCCs (generated by SFMTA) had a combined potential net cost impact of $9.13 million in
increased contract value, which is $0.99 million less than in April 2019. This estimate includes
expected reimbursements by third parties for work completed for their benefit. SFMTA expects to
settle the outstanding CORs for less than the overall cost currently claimed by the contractor.
An additional 1038 items were being tracked in the Trend Log. Of these, SFMTA judged 486 items
to be without merit and denied them. Many of these denied trend items are included in contractor
claims. A further 410 items have been voided and are carried at no cost. There were 140 items
covered by certified claims and NOPCs by the contractor ($41.57 million in estimated maximum
total exposure), and two items were “open” or new and awaiting a determination of merit.
The potential exposure of the project to additional costs from the NOPCs, claims, and open items
was $41.57 million that, when added to the $11.89 million in increased project costs from merited
contract changes, yielded a possible exposure of the project to additional costs for the 1300
Contract of $53.46 million. This is compared to the remaining contingency for the project of $47.26
million, after accounting for the latest contract modifications. An additional $1.4 million in
contingency should be available from the 1252 Contract based on the final contract value. In the
opinion of the PMOC, the rapid increase in claims by TPC calls into question the adequacy of the

program contingency. Unless the claims are settled for less than the claimed amount, there is a risk
that the program budget could be exceeded.

Table 3 - Budget and Contingency Status for Central Subway Project1

1
Data reported in the April 2019 Central Subway Project Monthly Progress Report – SFMTA (reformatted by the PMOC).
Budget
SFMTA Central Subway Project, Budget, Costs and EAC by SCC Budget Current Budget Remaining Cost to Estimate at Forecast
April 30, 2019 FFGA Budget Transfers = Committed Change Base Budget Contingency Expenditures to Date Budget Complete Completion Variance
$ $ $ % $ $ $ % $ $ $ $
10 Guideway and Track Elements 315,926,081 (31,664,633) 284,261,448 -10% 274,466,839 97% 9,794,609
10.02 Guideway: At Grade, Semi-exclusive 2,395,143 464,857 2,860,000 19% 2,156,500 75% 703,500
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut and cover 74,407,195 (4,590,788) 69,816,407 -6% 65,131,380 93% 4,685,027
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel 224,933,257 (24,558,942) 200,374,315 -11% 196,716,526 98% 3,657,789
10.09 Track: Direct fixation 7,293,157 (532,068) 6,761,089 -7% 6,012,796 89% 748,293
10.10 Track: Embedded 1,601,763 (1,601,763) -100% - 0% -
10.12 Track: Special 5,295,566 (845,929) 4,449,637 -16% 4,449,637 100% -
20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal 432,698,735 147,823,910 580,522,645 34% 467,063,138 80% 113,459,507
20.01 At-grade station 774,913 6,827,944 7,602,857 881% 3,647,341 48% 3,955,516
20.02 Aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform 1,861,735 1,861,735 NA - 0% 1,861,735
20.03 Underground station 412,084,888 136,871,328 548,956,216 33% 450,447,644 82% 98,508,572
20.07 Elevators, escalators 19,838,934 2,262,903 22,101,837 11% 12,968,153 59% 9,133,684
40 Sitework and Special Conditions 232,551,627 (6,441,681) 226,109,946 -3% 227,116,192 100% (1,006,246)
40.01 Demolition, clearing, earthwork 8,887,028 3,867,587 12,754,615 44% 12,495,015 98% 259,600
40.02 Site utilities, utility relocation 29,562,587 35,280,827 64,843,414 119% 74,917,892 116% (10,074,478)
40.03 Haz. Material, contam'd soli removal, ground water treatment 2,957,442 4,622,743 7,580,185 156% 8,868,228 117% (1,288,043)
40.04 Environmental mitigation 3,146,216 (2,023,317) 1,122,899 -64% 962,619 86% 160,280
40.05 Site structures, including retaining walls, sound walls 2,894,074 (187,643) 2,706,431 -6% 2,706,431 100% -
40.06 Pedestrian and bike access and accommodation, landscaping 14,393,910 (4,602,915) 9,790,995 -32% 3,940,462 40% 5,850,533
40.07 Automobile, van, bus accessways, including roads and parking lots 11,919,550 (5,340,451) 6,579,099 -45% 5,966,033 91% 613,066
40.08 Temporary facilities and other construction indirect costs 158,790,820 (38,058,512) 120,732,308 -24% 117,259,512 97% 3,472,796
50 Systems 108,429,774 (12,797,372) 95,632,402 -12% 40,371,823 42% 55,260,579
50.01 Train control and signals 37,447,116 (9,319,177) 28,127,939 -25% 7,619,133 27% 20,508,806
50.02 Traffic signals and crossing protection 3,013,232 9,791,724 12,804,956 325% 11,876,744 93% 928,212
50.03 Traction power supply 20,379,634 1,085,439 21,465,073 5% 15,064,187 70% 6,400,886
50.04 Traction power distribution 16,239,951 (3,798,838) 12,441,113 -23% 2,242,082 18% 10,199,031
50.05 Communications 28,545,305 (16,466,570) 12,078,735 -58% 2,602,268 22% 9,476,467
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment 2,804,536 3,295,464 6,100,000 118% 627,988 10% 5,472,012
50.07 Central Control 2,614,586 2,614,586 NA 339,421 13% 2,275,165
Subtotal (10 - 50) 1,089,606,217 96,920,224 1,186,526,441 9% 1,168,847,873 17,678,568 1,009,017,992 85% 177,508,449 179,729,051 1,188,747,043 (2,220,602)
60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 37,398,029 (5,151,708) 32,246,321 -14% 32,246,321 - 30,648,969 95% 1,597,352 1,597,352 32,246,321 -
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate 33,798,029 (3,732,219) 30,065,810 -11% 30,065,810 28,239,539 94% 1,826,271 1,597,352 29,836,891 228,919
60.02 Relocation of existing households and businesses 3,600,000 (1,419,489) 2,180,511 -39% 2,180,511 - 2,409,430 110% (228,919) - 2,409,430 (228,919)
70 Vehicles 26,385,653 (9,585,653) 16,800,000 -36% 16,800,000 - 11,929,247 71% 4,870,753 4,870,753 16,800,000 -
70.01 Light Rail Vehicles 26,385,653 (9,585,653) 16,800,000 -36% 16,800,000 - 11,929,247 71% 4,870,753 4,870,753 16,800,000 -
80 Professional Services 361,568,360 (30,565,741) 331,002,619 -8% 312,781,540 18,221,079 290,134,788 88% 40,867,831 22,646,750 312,781,538 18,221,081
80.01 Preliminary Engineering 46,317,094 (114,420) 46,202,674 0% 46,202,674 - 46,202,675 100% (1) - 46,202,675 (1)
80.02 Final Design 86,053,240 (24,734,909) 61,318,331 -29% 61,318,331 - 61,199,308 100% 119,023 61,318,339 (8)
80.03 Project Management for Design and Construction 191,025,800 (88,107,410) 102,918,390 -46% 89,012,545 13,905,845 75,616,754 73% 27,301,636 18,590,950 94,207,704 8,710,686
80.04 Construction Administration and Management 15,495,521 80,821,670 96,317,191 522% 93,360,379 2,956,812 94,551,114 98% 1,766,077 (6,385,905) 88,165,209 8,151,982
80.05 Professional Liability and Other Non-Construction Insurance 6,800,000 - 6,800,000 0% 6,800,000 - 6,340,196 93% 459,804 78,823 6,419,019 380,981
80.06 Legal, Permits, Review Fees by Other Agencies 7,242,340 970,264 8,212,604 13% 8,212,604 - 5,344,391 65% 2,868,213 2,408,089 7,752,480 460,124
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, Inspection 234,036 699,064 933,100 299% 933,100 - 880,350 94% 52,750 472 880,822 52,278
80.08 Start up 8,400,329 (100,000) 8,300,329 -1% 6,941,907 1,358,422 - 0% 8,300,329 7,835,290 7,835,290 465,039
Subtotal (10 - 80) 1,514,958,258 51,617,123 1,566,575,381 3% 1,530,675,734 35,899,647 1,341,730,996 86% 224,844,385 208,843,906 1,550,574,902 16,000,479
90 Unallocated Contingency 63,341,742 (51,617,323) 11,724,419 -81% 11,724,419 0% 11,724,419 11,724,419
Total Project Costs (10 - 100) 1,578,300,000 1 1,578,300,001 0% 47,624,267 1,341,730,996 85% 236,569,005 208,843,906 1,550,574,902 27,725,099

The Trend Log showed the following trend items with potential cost increases in excess of
$250,000.
1. # 24 - Change to grade 50 steel from specified grade 70 steel (due to availability issues) -
$572,884
2. # 36 - Extra trucking costs for contaminated soil at CTS - $2,274,225
3. # 39 - Harder rock than anticipated for CTS slurry wall excavation - $2,290,471
4. # 61 - Delays to installation of tangent piles at UMS - $627,081
5. # 176 - UMS Garage underpinning requirements - $732,157
6. # 192 - 12-inch waterline at UMS, added scope - $336,236
7. # 193 - Sewer line conflict at UMS - $495,001
8. # 246 - UMS art glass installation requirements - $270,001
9. # 272 - Obstructions to jet grout placement at UMS - $3,1,35,764
10. # 341 - Change in track switch machine manufacturer at STS - $347,670
11. # 399 - Additional monitoring instruments at CTS - $429,777
12. # 466 - Extra work to prepare existing tunnel - $399,000
13. # 528 - Additional traffic control requirements for STS work package - $1,032,302
14. # 537 - Cost of changes to the design of CTS to accommodate the plaza requested by the
community - $2,759,569 (paid from non-project funds)
15. # 543 - Change in construction sequence at CTS - $250,001
16. # 546 - Additional 12-inch water line work at YBM - $254,106
17. # 580 - Missing conduit between manholes at UMS - $250,001
18. # 592 - Extra excavation costs for rock at CTS - $450,001
19. # 636 - Changes in emergency vent design (all stations) - $500,001
20. # 644 - Contractor-claimed change in contract requirements for pre-loading permanent
struts at UMS - $1,853,352
21. # 695 - Change in scope for slip-lining of 78-inch sewer on 4th Street - $800,016
22. # 840 - Change in drain piping details at UMS - $313,854
23. # 892 - Temporary drainage to re-direct water off new ramps at UMS - $261,851
24. # 1052 - Change in design for BART elevator at UMS - $400,000
25. # 1099 - Extra costs for Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) excavation at CTS due to
tunnel segments being 5 feet long - $1,480,001
26. # 1117 - Extra costs due to concrete obstruction at CTS south platform cavern - $451,688

27. # 1152 - Extra costs for tying wall reinforcing into invert slab at UMS - $359,905
28. # 1175 - Time impacts due to power pole conflict during demolition at CTS - $520,000
29. # 1268 - Revised reinforcing steel for headhouse invert at CTS - $1,147,356
30. # 1378 - General claimed extra costs for SEM work at CTS - $3,520,001
31. # 1424 - Extra work due to changes in form-savers and couplers at roof to wall
connection at YBM - $250,001
32. # 1479 - Large volume of water inflow at end of probe - $300,000
33. # 1485 - Conflict between YBM headhouse column reinforcing steel and temporary struts
- $298,912
34. # 1509 - unidentified duct bank removal at YBM - $264,013
35. # 1571 - Increase in allowance for Dispute Review Board (DRB) costs - $1,296,364
36. # 1606 - Claim of defective specifications at YBM - $2,500,001
37. # 1669 - Extra quantity of compensation grouting material all stations - $775,000
38. # 1670 - Differing site conditions at CTS - $2,280,001
39. # 1766 - Changes in finishes at UMS Ellis Street entrance - $300,001
40. # 1785 - Extra costs for design changes at UMS - $2,668,575
41. # 1885 - Change in structural reinforcement requirements in CTS headhouse - $1,000,001
42. # 1886 - Addition of horn and strobe lights for fire alarm at UMS - $288,976
43. # 1914 - Extra costs to transport excavated soil to Ox Mountain - $1,621,173
44. # 1936 - CTS COR 1568 Elevators 1 and 2 Rotunda - $258,279
45. # 1971 - STS CCC 107 UCMOD 093 ATCS - $14,600,000
46. # 1993 - CTS COR 1717 All Stations – Exterior - $3,638,400
47. # 2028 - CTS CMod 092 – Delay PCC 233 - $1,000,001
48. # 2055 - CTS COR 1743 Stair 1 & Escalators 1 - $542,484
49. # 2061 - UMS CMod 116 COR 1788 - $899,852
The estimated cost impacts of several large trends have been revised downwards by SFMTA since
2018.
In addition to these large potential cost increases, the Trend Log includes the following major cost
savings:
1. Deletion of compensation grouting bid items at YBM - ($1,833,869)
2. Deletion of the Air Replenishment System (ARS) - ($4,689,000)

3. Replace specified Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) equipment with alternate for all
stations - ($1,600,000)
Funding
Federal, state, and local project funding and expenditures are shown in Table 4. The awarded
funding now represents 96.1% of the project budget.
Table 4 - Project Funding, as of April 2019
Committed Awarded
Source
($1,000) ($1,000)
Federal
New Starts 942,200 942,200
Congestion Mitigation 41,025 41,025
Federal Subtotal 983,225 983,225
State
TCRP 14,000 14,000
State RIP 88,000 12,498
Prop. 1B / PTMISEA 307,792 307,792
Prop. 1A / HSR 61,308 61,308
State Subtotal 471,100 395,598
Local
MTA 0 475
Prop. K Sales Tax 123,975 137,727
Local Subtotal 123,975 138,202
Project Total: 1,578,300 1,517,025
E. PROJECT SCHEDULE STATUS

SFMTA prepared an update of the master program schedule in October representing progress on
the project through November 30, 2018. SFMTA continues to reject schedule updates from the
contractor. SFMTA has directed the contractor to make corrections to the schedule logic, but the
contractor has not complied with this direction. As a result, the schedule forecasts for the project
are based on SFMTA’s version of the schedule. SFMTA also developed an ATCS schedule,
including testing activities in June. This schedule has not been integrated into the overall program
schedule.
As of the end of April 2019, the project was 428 days late, based on the projected RSD of February
27, 2020. The substantial completion date for the 1300 Contract is now forecast on October 14,
2019, which is 612 days later than the original date (February 9, 2018).
TPC has issued claims and NOPCs for various issues leading to delays to construction. SFMTA
has issued CMods that allow 18 additional days of construction. SFMTA has also issued CMod
87 that allows an additional 82 days of construction, with 67 of those days including extended
contractor overhead. The 100 days of additional construction duration included in the executed
CMods yields a revised substantial completion date for the 1300 Contract of May 20, 2018. The

additional time from May 20, 2018 to the forecast substantial completion date of October 14, 2019
is the subject of disputes and claims, which are being addressed through a DRB.
Thus far, resolution on the claims has not been reached. The contractor is pushing for a “global
settlement” that awards it significant additional time and associated extended overhead costs.
SFMTA is considering the contractor’s latest offer of a global settlement, which includes a firm
commitment to complete the project on an agreed date.
The schedule for installation and testing of the ATCS is the subject of major delay claims, and it
is uncertain how delays to the ATCS work could impact the project critical path. SFMTA received
an updated schedule from the train control supplier and added other activities to produce a
preliminary ATCS schedule. This schedule indicates that the ATCS work can be completed in
October 2019, leaving about four months for ATCS testing and over four months for SFMTA
commissioning work prior to the February 27, 2020 forecast for RSD.
The critical path for the construction work still flows through the CTS headhouse concrete work,
electrical activities, STS start-up and testing, commissioning, and pre-revenue activities. Work at
UMS is close to the critical path so that any delays at UMS or time-savings at CTS may cause a
change in the critical path.
SFMTA and TPC have been establishing Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) as a way to focus
the project team’s attention on advancing project work and to encourage teamwork among SFMTA
and TPC staff to removing barriers to completion of the work. In the opinion of the PMOC, the
BHAGs continue to be missed and are of questionable value in mitigating delays.
Project Schedule Data (as of April 2019)

Earned Value (EV): $1,338,546,750 an increase of $9.29 million from March 2019.
Planned Value (PV): $1,553,043,166, a planned decrease of $0.42 million from March 2019.
Going forward, the planned earned value for each month should continue to trend lower because
the baseline schedule projected Substantial Completion in February 2018. Actual earned value
each month should generally exceed the planned earned value for the month for the remainder of
the project.
Schedule Performance Index (SPI): 0.86. SPI is a measure of schedule efficiency on a project. It
is the ratio of earned value to planned value. An SPI equal to or greater than 1.0 indicates more
work was completed than planned and a value of less than 1.0 indicates less work was completed
than planned. A value of equal to or greater than 0.9 reflects satisfactory performance, considering
the margin of error in estimating both earned value and planned value. The current value of 0.86
indicates that the project is significantly behind schedule.
Table 5 shows the status of the schedule milestones established for the project.

Table 5 - Schedule Milestones

(P = Planned Date, A = Actual Date, F = Forecast Date)
Preliminary Engineering (PE): Authorized in July 2002 (A)
Record of Decision: Issued November 26, 2008 (A)
Final Design (FD): Authorized in January 2010 (A)
FFGA Request: Submitted September 2011 (A)
FFGA Executed: October 11, 2012 (A)
Ground Breaking: February 9, 2010 (A)
(Utility Relocation Contract)
Tunnel Excavation Complete (hole through): June 2, 2014 (SB); June 11, 2014 (NB) (A)
Cross Passages Complete: December 20, 2014 (P); April 15, 2015 (A)
Tunneling Substantial Completion: April 15, 2015 (A)
Station Construction Notice to Proceed (NTP): June 17, 2013 (A)
Station Construction Substantial Completion: February 24, 2018 (P); October 14, 2019 (F)
RSD: December 26, 2018 (P); February 27, 2020 (F)
Schedule Contingency Management criteria were developed from the FTA Risk Assessment prior
to entry into Final Design (FD). Minimum schedule contingency levels at various project
milestones or “Hold Points” were agreed to with SFMTA at Risk Workshop #4, held in 2009. The
FTA recommended schedule contingency for the current stage of the project is 4.0 months. The
current schedule reflects about 13 months of negative buffer float. Applying the recommended
schedule float to SFMTA’s current RSD forecast yields a RSD estimate of May 2020. SFMTA has
requested to extend the FFGA RSD to May 26, 2020.
Critical Path Summary (Baseline Schedule)

CTS Install Guidewalls, Slurry Walls, and Install Surface Deck (complete)
CTS Excavate Headhouse and Bracing (complete)
CTS SEM and Install Supports (complete)
CTS Headhouse Structural Concrete/Remove Bracing (underway)
CTS Install M/E/P Equipment
CTS Start-up and Testing
CTS P-1254R Commissioning of Station
Safety and Security Certification/Pre-Revenue Activities
RSD on December 26, 2018 (currently forecast for February 27, 2020)
Three Month Look-ahead

The following activities are planned over the next three months:
1300 Contract
UMS
• Complete installation of sidewalks and pedestrian ramps north of Market Street
• Complete installation of permanent historical street lights

• Complete installation of electrical equipment and ventilation fans at the north concourse
• Construct finished walls and floors in the station box
• Complete the structural interface between the tunnels and the station box
• Install M/E/P throughout the station
• Install stairs throughout the station
• Install the escalators and stairs in the south concourse
• Complete terrazzo flooring at the north concourse and the platform station
CTS
• Complete rail installation at the platform cavern
• Completion of concourse-level, intermediate, and mezzanine level slabs in the headhouse
• Complete placement of final linings in the crossover and platform caverns
• Complete concourse slab at crosscut cavern interior walls and floors
• Continue construction of crosscut cavern headwall and slab
• Install M/E/P at headhouse and platform levels
• Complete collar and upper lid for north egress shaft
• Complete electrical vault and ductbanks
• Begin street utility work on Washington Street
• Complete sewer tie-ins on Stockton Street
• Abandon dewatering wells on Stockton Street
YBM
• Continue installation of mechanical and electrical equipment throughout station
• Continue construction of stairs and concrete work within the station box and emergency
egress stairs
• Continue interior finishes work throughout the station
• Complete installation of artwork in headhouse concourse
• Install sculpture at surface level
• Complete escalators 3 and 4
• Install cabs for elevators 1and 2

STS
• Complete OCS pole installation
• Complete street reconstruction, installation of trolley coach OCS, and traction power
equipment at the 4th and Bryant intersection
• Complete pavement renovation work at the intersections of 4th Street at the Brannan
Street and 4th Street and King Street
• Continue track work installation
• Construct tunnel walkways
• Continue construction of surface level station at Brannan Street
• De-assign ATCS subcontract work from the 1300 Contract and finalize detailed schedule
for ATCS completion
• De-assign Radio System subcontract work from the 1300 Contract
• Continue installation of electrical conduits in tunnels
• Continue pulling traction power cables along 4th Street
The PMOC expects to attend the following meetings:
• Weekly Management (June 10, 2019, July 8, 2019, and August 5, 2019)
• Weekly Contract 1300 Construction Progress Meetings (June 11/12, July 9/10, and
August 6/7, 2019)
• CSP PMOC Status Meetings (June 12, July 9, and August 6, 2019)
• CSP Risk Management Meeting (June 12, July 9, August 6, 2019)
• FTA/QPRM (August 7, and November 9, 2019)
F. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL
QA/QC Plan Implementation

The 1300 contractor’s staff includes a Contractor’s Quality Manager (CQM), who reports to the
Contractor’s Management at an organization level superior to the contractor’s Project Manager.
The CQM is provided by a subcontractor. The reporting structure is to provide the CQM with
direct access to the contractor’s Principal Officers. A Contractor Non-conformance Report
(CNCR) Log for identifying, correcting, documenting, and controlling non-conformances is
maintained by the contractor and reviewed at weekly status meetings for each work package.
Subsequent work may not progress for work that is the subject of a Corrective Action Request
(CAR) until conditions averse to quality are corrected. In the event that the contractor does not
issue a CNCR, SFMTA may issue a Non-conformance Notice (NCN) where non-conforming work
is identified by SFMTA’s quality assurance staff.

The quality concerns for the 1300 Stations Contract identified in the SFMTA June 2018 monthly
report included issues identified in the previous month. A key activity for SFMTA is to determine
the causes for acceptance of non-conforming rail during the submittal review process and at
delivery of the rail to the project site.
The PMOC continues to recommend that SFMTA complete its review of its QA procedures
and process to determine how the non-conforming rail was accepted and installed for a
significant portion of the alignment before the issue was identified. The PMOC also
recommends that SFMTA assess its design control procedures to identify how to avoid
conflicting requirements for specified materials in different portions of the specification.
The previous Quality Assurance Manager (QAM) was conducting a surveillance of quality control
related to the water leaks that have appeared in the YBM station. The status of that surveillance
has not been reported. The PMOC recommends that the new QAM follow up on the status of
this audit.
As of April 30, 2019, TPC’s Quality Manager had filed 455 CNCRs (eight new since March). Five
new items were under review (three less than March), 18 other items had responses identified but
not yet approved (two less than March), the proposed responses to 27 items were disapproved
(nine more than March), and 34 items had approved responses that were not yet implemented (one
more than March). In addition, 323 items were closed (no change from March) and 47 items had
been voided (two more than March).
G. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE

There are no ADA issues for the project at this time.
H. SAFETY AND SECURITY
Safety and Security Management Plan

An updated SSMP Revision 2, dated February 2, 2014, was submitted to FTA on May 2, 2014.
The SSMP outlines the plans needed prior to revenue operations. These plans include the Rail
Activation Plan (RAP), the System Integration Test Plan, the Safety and Security Certification
Plan (SSCP), and the Pre-Revenue Operations and Start-up Plan. SFMTA has completed the
SSCP, which is being used to guide safety certification activities. The initial draft of the RAP was
completed with the latest update of the PMP. The System Integration Test Plan and the Pre-
Revenue Operations and Start-up Plan are expected to be provided now that SFMTA has hired a
Start-up and Testing manager for the program.
Fire and Life Safety/Safety and Security Issues

The Construction Specification Conformance Checklists have been completed and approved for
all construction packages. In September 2013, the CPUC staff began attending monthly as-built
meetings to review the completed items. All items related to the tunnel construction have been
certified and accepted by SFMTA’s safety staff. The certification work was started to address the
station construction items in 2016. As of August 6, 2018, 264 of the 1660 items on the Safety and
Security Conformance Checklist were approved and 31 items required follow-up responses from
the SFMTA construction team. Twelve items were under review by the committee. The San
Francisco Fire Department (SFFD) regularly attends the now combined FLSC and SSCRC
meetings.
Construction Safety
There were no recordable incidents on the project in the month of April. The performance metrics
relating to accidents per working hour remain well below the OSHA goals for similar construction.
The current incident statistics for the project are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 - Construction Safety Data
Through April 2019 No. of Incidents Incident Rate2 Goal
1300 Contract
OSHA Recordable Accidents 20 1.11 <3.4
Job Transfer/Restricted Duty Incidents 0 0.00 NA
Lost Time Incidents 5 0.28 <1.6
Total Incidents 25 1.39 NA
Hours Worked 3,588,789
2
OSHA incident rate = incidents x 200,000/hours worked.
I. PROJECT RISK, RISK MANAGEMENT, AND RISK MITIGATION

SFMTA conducts monthly meetings to review the status of identified risks, monitor the
implementation of mitigation measures, identify new risks, and evaluate the probability and
potential impacts of existing and newly identified risks. The current major risks to the project
address the potential for further delays to the construction of the stations, which cannot be
mitigated or recovered, resulting in further delays to the RSD. At the Risk Mitigation meeting on
April 16, 2019, these and other major remaining project risks were evaluated. The outcome of the
risk meeting is documented in Appendix D.
The PMOC noted the following significant items of discussion at the April meeting:
• Risk 99 – Breakdown in relationships between SFMTA and contractors during
construction results in increased claims and delays to the overall construction schedule –
rating has been increased, resulting in this being the top ranked risk. Along with risk 240
– Unresolved Assignment of Schedule Delay Responsibility leading to higher costs for
the program – the effects of this risk are occurring now. SFMTA has started to conduct
its detailed review of the causes of and responsibilities for delays in an effort to establish
a negotiating position for a global resolution of the outstanding delay claims. Risk 99 and
240 remain the top threats to the program. SFMTA stated the mitigation for this risk is to
identify additional funding sources to address potential cost overrun due to the increased
claims.
• Risk 205 – Prolonged time to execute CMods creates additional cost and causes conflict
between Resident Engineers (REs) and the contractor. TPC is now refusing to progress
work that includes changes to the contract documents without an executed CMod, which
may delay future work. SFMTA noted that its standard procedures for contract
modifications lead to delays in execution of all changes.
• The meeting proceeded with routine updates to previously identified risks. Risks
associated with underground mining at CTS are nearing retirement, pending completion
of the final lining of the platform and cross-cut caverns.
• CSP’s new quality manager noted that there has been an increase in NCNs, which are
issued when the contractor fails to issue a CNCR.
• Initial ratings were developed for a new risk that had been identified at previous risk
mitigation meetings:
o Systems elements not working properly – rated high for probability and cost
impact and medium for schedule impact, resulting in a rating of 8.
The PMOC encourages SFMTA to continue to identify new risks associated with the
coordination of design and installation of upcoming building finishes and M/E/P and systems
work, as the major risks associated with civil work and related differing site conditions are
being retired.
SFMTA has been applying updated schedule risks to a Monte Carlo analysis of the program
schedule in order to establish a range of likely construction completion dates and revenue service
dates. SFMTA provided an updated report on the schedule risk assessment to the PMOC as part
of the schedule workshop conducted in November. SFMTA finalized its risk assessment and
submitted a letter to the FTA requesting an extension to the RSD to May 26, 2020.
J. ACTION ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 7 on the following page shows the current action items for SFMTA. Table 8 provides a
summary of the currently active PMOC recommendations. Closed recommendations are removed
from the table one month after closure.

Table 7 - SFMTA Action Items for Central Subway Project

Category NO. ACTION DATE DUE DATE COMMENTS
OPENED DATE CLOSED
C 178 Recognize impact of schedule 11/14/2017 2/1/2018 To Be SFMTA has started the
delays to project management costs Determined process to update its forecast
(TBD) for project management costs.
CH 180 FTA to provide support for review 11/28/2018 TBD
of contract change management
and documentation to seek ways to
streamline SFMTA’s process.
(Note: All closed items are removed a month after being closed. Changes to open items since last update are indicated in italics.)
Category Key:
C – Cost PMP – Project Management Plan S - Schedule
CH – Change Management QA – Quality Assurance SC - Scope
FMP – Fleet Management Plan RA – Risk SS - Safety
IRP – Independent Review Panel RE – Real Estate T – Tech. Cap. & Cap.

Table 8 - Active PMOC Recommendations

Number Date Recommendation
Identified
1 12/27/2017 SFMTA and the contractor should continue to use the
DRB process as a tool to resolve contract disputes. DRB
reviews are continuing. CLOSED
2 12/27/2017 Required cost and schedule contingencies should be
reevaluated when CTS excavation and placement of the
invert slab of the headhouse is complete. Headhouse
invert slab was completed in June 2018. SFMTA is
reevaluating its schedule risk assessment given the
delayed completion of this critical path work. CLOSED
3 12/27/2017 The CSP Management Team should assess the impacts
that schedule acceleration may be having on the quality
program for the project and make any necessary
adjustments needed to assure that quality is not
compromised.
4 12/27/2017 The status of BHAGs should be discussed at each work
package status meeting in order to improve the
effectiveness of the goals in advancing critical project
work. The PMOC noted that BHAGs were discussed at
each of the four work package status meetings.
CLOSED
5 12/27/2017 The trend log tracking should include the amount of time
that has passed from the initial identification of the trend.
6 01/10/2018 SFMTA should immediately prepare and implement a
plan for filling key positions, including the Program
Director and Resident Engineer openings. The PMOC
will monitor the agency’s progress in recruitment and
hiring of needed staff. RE positions were filled, but the
STS RE recently resigned. In December 2018, the
Program Manager and Start-up and Testing Manager
position has been filled. CLOSED
7 01/10/2018 SFMTA should evaluate the current and future staffing
levels and expertise required to address outstanding
contract issues while effectively managing ongoing
construction and preparing for systems testing and start-
up activities. The PMOC supports the concept of
assigning a dedicated claims management team, which
has been partially implemented. SFMTA has added
several contract and claims management staff. CLOSED
8 01/10/2018 SFMTA should now focus on updating the risks and
mitigation strategies to reflect the transition of the work
from excavation and major structural supports to M/E/P
and systems installation and testing. A specific risk of
delays due to contractual issues with the ATCS system
would appear to be a concern.


Identified
9 02/23/2018 The PMOC recommends that SFMTA quickly resolve
the ongoing contractual issues regarding the schedule for
and management of the ATCS to avoid schedule delays.
Execution of amendments is still pending.
10 02/23/2018 The PMOC recommends SFMTA immediately resolve
differences of opinion regarding skills required for the
Start-up and Testing Manager and fill this position.
SFMTA plans to obtain consulting support for the testing
and start-up work while assigning two operations staff to
the project. The assignments have yet to be implemented.
CLOSED
11 03/11/2018 SFMTA management should work with SSD and CSP
management to assure that traffic control requirements
appropriately balance the needs of the project and the
traveling public. A partnering approach may be effective
in addressing Traffic Control Plan (TCP) issues. The
requirements for traffic control for street restoration at
the remaining intersections along 4th Street were to be
agreed at a meeting on July 13. However the plan is still
not in place and the target date of September 1, 2018 was
missed.
12 04/12/2018 The PMOC recommends that the risk assessment and
schedule forecast be updated once the contract
amendment to separate ATCS work from the 1300
Contract is executed. Significant schedule risk is
associated with the unknown schedule for ATCS work
and this risk can be better evaluated once the Thales
contract has been modified. Schedule risk update
completed. RSD extension letter transmitted 12/06/2018.
CLOSED
13 05/17/2018 The PMOC recommends that SFMTA quickly determine
what course of action to take in response to the
installation of standard, rather than hardened, rail for the
project’s trackwork. Replacement rail should be procured
as soon as possible to minimize delays to the project.
Rail was delivered in October 2018. CLOSED
14 07/18/2018 SFMTA is encouraged to work with the designer to
expedite solutions to design issues identified by the
contractor to avoid delays to the program critical path.
15 07/18/2018 The PMOC recommends that the new QAM follow up on
the status of the quality audit for waterproofing
installation at YBM.
16 08/06/2018 The PMOC recommends that SFMTA take immediate
action to prevent further occurrences of contractor or
subcontractor crews preforming work without proper QC
oversight.


Identified
17 12/16/2018 Claims and pending/potential contract changes now have
a maximum potential impact that is substantially greater
than the remaining contingency in the project budget. In
the opinion of the PMOC, SFMTA should continue their
focus on the resolution of outstanding claims in order to
improve confidence in the adequacy of the available
contingency.
18 12/16/2018 The PMOC recommends that FTA conduct a review of
the outstanding claims to develop a realistic estimate of
the potential cost exposure from claims.
19 12/16/2018 The PMOC recommends that SFMTA complete its
review of its QA procedures and process to determine
how non-conforming rail was accepted and installed for a
significant portion of the alignment before the issue was
identified. The PMOC also recommends that SFMTA
assess its design control procedures to identify how to
avoid inconsistent requirements for specified materials in
different portions of the specification.

APPENDIX A. LIST OF ACRONYMS

AC Actual Cost
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ARS Air Replenishment System
ATCS Automated Train Control System
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCE Baseline Cost Estimate
BHAG Big Hairy Audacious Goal
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAR Corrective Action Request
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLIN Contract Line Item Number
CM/GC Construction Manager/General Contractor
CMod Contract Modification
CNCR Contractor Non-Conformance Report
COR Change Order Request
CPI Cost Performance Index
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CQM Contractor’s Quality Manager
CSP Central Subway Project
CTS Chinatown Station
DF Designated Function
DRB Dispute Review Board
EV Earned Value
FD Final Design
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FFGA Full Funding Grant Agreement
FLSC Fire and Life Safety Committee
FMP Fleet Management Plan
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
IRP Independent Review Panel
LONP Letter of No Prejudice
LRT Light Rail Transit
LRV Light Rail Vehicle
M/E/P Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
SFMTA Central Subway Project A-1
MPR Monthly Progress Report

MPS Master Project Schedule
Muni Common Public Reference to SFMTA
NCN Non-conformance Notice
NCR Non-conformance Report
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOPC Notice of Potential Claim
NTP Notice to Proceed
O&M Operations & Maintenance
OCS Overhead Contact System
OHA Operational Hazard Analysis
OP Oversight Procedure
PCC Proposed Contract Change
PE Preliminary Engineering
PHA Preliminary Hazard Analysis
PMOC Project Management Oversight Contractor
PMP Project Management Plan
PTMISEA Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement
Account
PV Planned Value
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAM Quality Assurance Manager
QPRM Quarterly Progress Review Meeting
QTR Quarter
RAMP Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan
RAP Rail Activation Plan
RCMP Risk and Contingency Management Plan
RE Resident Engineer
ROD Record of Decision
RSD Revenue Service Date
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SCIL Safety Certifiable Item List
SCP Safety Certification Plan
SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
SEM Sequential Excavation Method
SEPP Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan
SFDPW San Francisco Department of Public Works
SFFD San Francisco Fire Department
SFMTA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SIT Systems Integration Test
SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPI Schedule Performance Index

SSCP Safety and Security Certification Plan
SSCRC Safety and Security Certification Review Committee
SSCVR Safety and Security Certification Verification Report
SSD Sustainable Streets Division
SSMP Safety and Security Management Plan
SSO State Safety Oversight
SSP System Security Plan
SSPP System Safety Program Plan
STS Surface, Track, and Systems
TBD To Be Determined
TBM Tunnel Boring Machine
TCP Traffic Control Plan
TPC Tutor Perini Corporation
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TVA Threat and Vulnerability Analysis
U.S.C. United States Code
UMS Union Square/Market Street Station
YBM Yerba Buena/Moscone Center Station
YOE Year of Expenditure

APPENDIX B. SAFETY AND SECURITY CHECKLIST

Central Subway Project Overview
Project mode (Rail, Bus, BRT, Light Rail Transit
Multimode)
Project phase (Preliminary Construction
Engineering, Design,
Construction, or Start-up)
Project Delivery Method Design-Bid-Build
(Design/Build, Design/Build/
Operate/Maintain, CM/GC, etc.)
Project Plans Version Review by Status
FTA/FRA
Safety and Security Management 2014 2011 Revision 1 Update submitted to FTA
Plan 02/25/2011. Not submitted to FRA.
Revision 2 submitted to FTA on May 2,
2014.
Safety and Security Certification 2011 SSCP was revised 10/2011. Revision 1
Plan (SSCP) was developed in November 2011. Not
submitted to FRA.
System Safety Program Plan 2009 2009 SSPP dated 03/13/2009 submitted to
(SSPP) FTA 07/31/2009.
Not submitted to FRA.
System Security Plan (SSP) or 2009 Not submitted to FTA.
Security and Emergency Not submitted to FRA.
Preparedness Plan (SEPP)
Construction Safety and Security 2012 Health and Safety.
Plan Construction Safety Standards
Revision 3, June 27, 2012.
Safety and Security Authority Y/N Notes/Status
Is the grantee subject to 49 CFR Y
Part 659 state safety oversight
requirements?
Has the state designated an Y California Public Utilities Commission
oversight agency as per Part (CPUC)
659.9?
Consumer Protection & Safety Division
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 703-1017 phone
(415) 703-1758 fax
Point of contact: Arun Mehta
Has the oversight agency Y SFMTA currently operates its LRT
reviewed and approved the system in compliance with an SSPP
grantee’s SSPP as per Part approved by the CPUC. These plans will
659.17? be revised, as required, to incorporate the
addition of the CSP during the late
construction and early testing phase and
submitted to the CPUC for approval prior
to the planned start of revenue operations.
SFMTA Central Subway Project B-1


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
Has the oversight agency Y See above.
reviewed and approved the
grantee’s Security Plan or
SEPP as per Part 659.21?
Did the oversight agency N
participate in the last
Quarterly Program Review
Meeting?
Has the grantee submitted Y SFMTA submitted the SSCP to CPUC
its safety certification plan staff for review and Commission
(SCP) to the oversight approval during the preliminary
agency? engineering phase. The plan was
approved in March 2009. The SSCP
revised in November 2011 was submitted
to the CPUC and was approved. CPUC
attends monthly certification review
meetings conducted by SFMTA.
Has the grantee N/A Currently, there are no TSA directives or
implemented security programs applicable to the project. If any
directives issues by the arise during the course of the project, the
Department Homeland activities to comply will be developed
Security, Transportation and shown on a revision of the project
Security Administration? safety and security activities schedule.


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
SSMP Monitoring
Is the SSMP project-specific, Y The PMOC reviewed the CSP SSMP
clearly demonstrating the scope and provided a spot report to FTA in
of safety and security activities May 2011. FTA approved the CSP
for this project? SSMP on May 16, 2011. A follow-up
Adherence Audit was conducted
September 14-16, 2011. The audit found
that CSP is conducting its activities in
accordance with the SSMP.
Grantee reviews the SSMP and Y SSMP Revision 2 was submitted to FTA
related project plans to determine on May 2, 2014.
if updates are necessary?
Does the grantee implement a Y Safety and security are under the direction
process through which the of the SFMTA Safety and Security
Designated Function (DF) for Manager and supplemented by Project
Safety and DF for Security are Management/Construction Management
integrated into the overall project consultant staff, including a Safety and
management team? Please Security Certification professional who
specify. has been dedicated to supervise project
Safety and Security Certification.
Does the grantee maintain a Y Safety and security certification status
regularly scheduled report on the and activities are reported in the weekly
status of safety and security construction progress meetings and the
activities? CSP Monthly Progress Report.
Has the grantee established Y

staffing requirements,
procedures, and authority for
safety and security activities
throughout all project phases?
Does the grantee update the Y The PMOC found the revised matrix in
safety and security responsibility the SSMP, Rev. 1, 02/08/11, to be
matrix/organizational chart as compliant.
necessary?
Has the grantee allocated Y
sufficient resources to oversee or
carry out safety and security
activities?


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
Has the grantee developed Y CSP has prepared a Preliminary Hazard
hazard and vulnerability analysis Analysis Report, Rev. 0, April 23,
techniques, including specific 2009. Corrective actions and analysis
types of analysis to be performed for different project phases have been
during different project phases? identified in the report.
Does the grantee implement Y
regularly scheduled meetings to
track to resolution any identified
hazards and/or vulnerabilities?
Does the grantee monitor the Y Safety and Security is an ongoing
progress of safety and security agenda item for the current construction
activities throughout all project contract (1300) work package status
phases? Please describe briefly. meetings. The status of safety and
security certifications is reviewed at
weekly project management meetings.
Does the grantee ensure the Y

conduct of preliminary hazard
and vulnerability analyses?
Please specify analyses
conducted.
Has the grantee ensured the Y Design is complete and construction is
development of safety design underway.
criteria?
Has the grantee ensured the Y Design is complete and construction is
development of security design underway.
criteria?
Has the grantee ensured Y Certification checklists have been
conformance with safety and developed. Certification is achieved
security requirements in design? through monthly meetings. Design is
complete and construction is underway.
Has the grantee verified Y Safety and Security Conformance
conformance with safety and checklists have been prepared for each
security requirements in of the construction contracts. All
equipment and materials certifiable elements of the Tunnel work
procurement? have been certified and accepted by
SFMTA Safety. Certification reviews
are underway for the stations contract.


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
Has the grantee verified Y This is on-going as construction
construction specification progresses and verified through the
conformance? Safety and Security Certification
process
Has the grantee identified safety N Currently being developed.
and security critical tests to be
performed prior to passenger
operations?
Has the grantee verified N Project is in construction, with RSD
conformance with safety and about 12 months in the future.
security requirements during
testing, inspection, and start-up
phases?
Does the grantee evaluate change Y
orders, design waivers, or test
variances for potential hazards
and/or vulnerabilities?
Has the grantee ensured the N/A Currently no work-arounds have been
performance of safety and identified.
security analyses for proposed
work-arounds?
Has the grantee demonstrated In Process Second draft of Rail Activation Plan
through meetings or other has been completed. An Integration
methods, the integration of Matrix has been implemented for all
safety and security in the disciplines including safety and security
following:? concerns. Grantee intends to hire a
 Activation Plan Start-up and Testing Manager who will
and Procedures develop the plans and procedures. This
 Integrated Test Plan and hire is becoming a critical activity.
Procedures
 Operations and
Maintenance Plan
 Emergency Operations Plan
Has the grantee issued final N Project is in the construction phase.
safety and security certification?
Has the grantee issued the final N Project is in the construction phase.
safety and security verification
report?


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
Construction Safety
Does the grantee have a Y Health and Safety
documented/implemented Construction Safety Standards
Contractor Safety Program with Revision 3, June 27, 2012.
which it expects contractors to
comply?
Does the grantee’s contractor(s) Y
have a documented
companywide safety and security
program plan?
Does the grantee’s contractor(s) Y The remaining active contractor has a

have a site-specific safety and plan. Contract documents require that
security program plan? the contractor follows an
Environmental Health and Safety
Program, specific to the contract work.
Provide the grantee’s OSHA Y Provided in the Central Subway
statistics compared to the Monthly Progress Report. Statistics
national average for the same remain favorable compared to national
type of work? averages and project safety goals.
If the comparison is not N/A Statistics are favorable. No action
favorable, what actions are being needed.
taken by the grantee to improve
its safety record?
Does the grantee conduct site Y Safety walks are routinely
audits of the contractor’s conducted at each construction site.
performance versus required
safety/security procedures?
Federal Railroad Administration
If shared track: has grantee N/A No shared track.
submitted its waiver request No waivers are anticipated.
application to FRA? (Please
identify specific regulations for
which waivers are being
requested.)
If shared corridor: has grantee N/A
specified specific measures to
address shared corridor safety
concerns?


Multimode)
FTA/FRA
Is the CHA underway? N/A
Other FRA required Hazard N/A
Analysis – Fencing, etc.?
Does the project have Quiet N
Zones?
Does FRA attend the Quarterly N
Review Meetings?
N/A = Not applicable.

APPENDIX C. PROJECT MAP AND OVERVIEW

CENTRAL SUBWAY PROJECT: Project Overview and Map
Date: May 31, 2019
Project Name: Central Subway Project (CSP) New Starts Light
Rail Transit
Grantee: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA)
FTA Regional contact: Mr. Bernardo Bustamante
FTA Headquarters contact: Mr. Andre Anderson
Scope
Description: The CSP will extend the Third Street Light Rail line from the Caltrain
station at Fourth and King streets to Chinatown. It was incorporated in
the FEIS/FEIR on the Third Street Light Rail project published in
December 1998, but FTA did not include the CSP in the Record of
Decision (ROD) issued in March 1999. A ROD for the CSP, however,
was issued by FTA on November 26, 2008, and the U.S. Department
of Transportation and FTA determined that the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 were satisfied for
the CSP. The environmental record for the CSP is included in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), Volume
II, dated July 11, 2008 and the Final SEIS, Volume I, dated September
23, 2008. These documents present the detailed statement required by
NEPA and U.S.C. 5324 (b). SFMTA requested authority to enter
Preliminary Engineering (PE) in March 2002 and submitted a Project
Management Plan (PMP) in June 2002. FTA approved entry into PE
in July 2002. Approval to enter Final Design (FD) was granted by
FTA on January 7, 2010. The Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)
was signed on October 11, 2012.
Guideway: The length of the CSP will be 1.7 miles of double-tracked line.
Stations: The CSP includes three subway stations and one surface station.
Additional Facilities: The CSP does not include any ancillary facilities.
Vehicles: The CSP Service Plan dated October 2009 clarified that four vehicles will
be required. Vehicle manufacturing is underway and SFMTA has
identified the four vehicles that will be considered to have been partially
funded with CSP grant funds.
Ridership: 43,521 Average Weekday Riders are projected in 2030.
SFMTA Central Subway Project C-1

Schedule
07/02 Approval Entry to PE 2016 Estimated Rev Ops at Entry to PE
01/10 Approval Entry to FD 2018 Estimated Rev Ops at Entry to FD
10/11/12 FFGA 2018 Estimated Rev Ops at FFGA
02/27/2020 Revenue Operations Date at date of this report
84.2% Percent Complete Based on Progress (April 30, 2019 data)
Cost
$764 million Total Project Cost ($YOE) at Approval Entry to PE
$1,578 million Total Project Cost ($YOE) at Approval Entry to FD
$1,578 million Total Project Cost ($YOE) at FFGA signed
$TBD million Total Project Cost ($YOE) at Revenue Operations
$1,578 million Total Project Cost ($YOE) at date of this report including $0.00 in Finance
Charges
$1,330.3 million Amount of Expenditures at date of this report from Total Project Budget of
$1,578 million
84.3% Percent Complete based on Expenditures at date of this report
$11.74 million Unallocated Contingency remaining
$47.86 million Total Project Contingency (allocated and unallocated contingency as
reported by CSP)
$25 million Minimum Total Project Contingency revised on September 5, 2012 PMOC
review of Contingency Management Plan

Minimum
Revised
AT HOLD POINTS QTR Contingency
Levels
Levels
Hold Point 1a – Tunnels 100%

1A 1Q11 280 280
designed February 2011 (Actual)
Hold Point 1b – CTS 100% designed
1B 4Q11 250 240
June 2012 (Actual)
Hold Point 1c – 40% Bid (Tunnel and
1C 2Q12 225 200
CTS)
Hold Point 1d – FFGA Award
1D 3Q12 - 180
October 2012 (Actual)
Hold Point 2 – Commence CTS /
2 UMS construction (Actual June 17, 2Q13 160 160
2013)
Hold Point 3 – Demobilize Tunnels
3 2Q15 140 140
(Actual April 15, 2015)
Hold Point 4 – Stations to platform
4 2Q18 60 60
levels (CTS / YBM) November 2016
Hold Point 5 – Complete CTS /
5 2Q19 25 25
Tunnels systems inst. April 2018
RSD PMOC / FTA RSD 1Q20
CURRENT TOTAL CONTINGENCY $47.62 million


APPENDIX D. TOP PROJECT RISKS

Top risks were discussed at the April 2019 risk meeting as noted below:
Top Risks Discussed at Most Recent Meeting:
Risk 99 – Breakdown in relationships between SFMTA and contractors during construction results
in increased claims and delays to the overall construction schedule. This risk is being realized,
with TPC issuing more than 100 claims to date. This risk is now rated as the highest threat to the
project. SFMTA and the contractor are using the DRB process to address disputes, but thus far,
the DRB recommendations have not resulted in agreement between SFMTA and the contractor.
SFMTA is initiating an analysis of the responsibilities for delays to support negotiation of a global
settlement for delays. SFMTA stated the mitigation for this risk is to identify additional funding
sources to address potential cost overrun due to the increased claims.
Risk 240 – Unresolved assignment of responsibility for schedule delays may lead to increased
costs for the program. This risk continues to be a concern. TPC continues to push for a global
settlement of the outstanding claims. If accepted, the proposed settlement would have significant
cost impacts.
Risk 255 – Water leaks at YBM. Water leaks continue at YBM despite ongoing repair activities.
Most of the leaks are at the interface between the station box and the headhouse. Thus far, the
schedule impacts of the leaks have been minor, but SFMTA expects to be liable for the costs of
the repairs. SFMTA has spent $500,000 to $800,000 on leak mitigation work. SFMTA has
received one finding of a third party evaluation of the reasons for the leaks and is starting work to
mitigate the impacts of the leaks. The findings of the leak evaluation indicate that the design did
not provide a complete “bathtub” that would keep groundwater out of the structure.
Risk 251 – Activities required to complete the project scope are not identified in the schedule,
resulting in the time required to complete the project being longer than currently forecast. The
ATCS contractor provided a detailed schedule for its work, which did not result in additional time
beyond what was included in the simplified schedule. This risk will continue to be monitored.
SFMTA noted that TPC’s schedule updates include new activities not included in the baseline
schedule that cause the completion date to be pushed later. The contract does not allow such
addition of activities to the schedule without agreement of SFMTA. SFMTA’s schedule updates
are capturing differences between the activities in the baseline schedule and the work actually
being completed.
Risk 234 and 52 – Unacceptable settlement occurs due to SEM mining at CTS, causing damage
to buildings or utilities. All SEM mining work is complete, and placement of the final linings for
the CTS platform and crossover caverns is underway. These risks can be retired when sufficient
time has passed to allow the surrounding ground to respond to the excavation. Thus far,
compensation grouting has been effective in returning the adjacent buildings to elevations that are
within the established tolerances. SFMTA will monitor the behavior of the ground over and near
the excavation and will retire this risk when the final linings of the cavern structures are complete.
SFMTA Central Subway Project D-1

Risk 253 – Insufficient resources are available to complete the work as planned. Thus far, crew
shortages have not been experienced. However, there are concerns about the adequacy of the
electrical subcontractor’s resources. As M/E/P work ramps up at UMS and CTS, resources for the
work may become a concern.
Risk 238 – Quality program is ineffective in processing non-conformance items causing schedule
impacts. The SFMTA QAM conducted a review of potential causes of water leaks at YBM and
concluded that there is no evidence of a failure in the QA/QC process. There is a concern that TPC
is refusing to issue CNCRs when non-conforming work is identified. This or a similar risk was
realized when it was discovered that non-conforming rail for the project had been approved
through the submittal process, delivered to the project, and installed over portions of the alignment.
SFMTA’s new QAM has started an effort to reduce the time for CNCRs to be issued, dispositioned,
approved, and closed. The QAM also noted that there has been an increase in issuance of NCNs,
which raises a concern about the effectiveness of the contractor’s quality program.
Risk 205 – Prolonged time to execute contract modifications may lead to poor relations between
the REs and the contractor. This risk continues to be a concern. A few additional CMods, including
some large cost increases, have been issued over the past two months. SFMTA continues to focus
on speeding up the process of evaluating the justification for CMods and completing the
negotiation process on price and time impacts with TPC. Additional staff has been assigned to
processing CMods, and the agency is reviewing its procedures for modifying all contracts to
identify opportunities to streamline the process. However, internal SFMTA procedures continue
to extend the time required to execute CMods.
Risk 229 and 230 – Risk that contractor and SFMTA systems testing and commissioning will take
longer than currently planned. SFMTA has delivered to the PMOC a more detailed schedule for
ATCS, which includes the contractor’s system tests. SFMTA still needs to complete a more
detailed commissioning schedule that includes identification of required testing and the
responsibilities for witnessing and approving the tests. SFMTA is working to bring on a Testing
and Commissioning Manager to lead this effort and is coordinating with Muni’s Operations
department on the job description and hiring process, which has taken much longer than planned.
SFMTA also plans to obtain consultant support for the testing and commissioning process in
addition to the services of staff assigned from SFMTA Operations. The Start-up and Testing staff
members have not started work on the project.
Risk 254 – CPUC has insufficient staff to witness required testing. This risk of delays due to
insufficient CPUC staffing continues to be a concern. SFMTA has identified having CPUC audit
tests conducted by others as a possible mitigation measure. SFMTA is working with CPUC to
advance the certification process that must be completed in advance of testing.
The PMOC recommends that SFMTA focus on updating the risks and mitigation strategies
to reflect the transition of the work from excavation and major structural supports to M/E/P
and systems installation and testing. A specific risk of delays due to contractual issues with the
ATCS system would also appear to be a concern.
SFMTA Central Subway Project D-2

APPENDIX E. ROADMAP TO REVENUE OPERATIONS

Roadmap to Revenue Operations - Central Subway Project, San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency – DRAFT
Actual
Estimated Start Estimated
Description Completion Notes
Date Completion Date
Date
Testing
Finalize/update TBD 05/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Systems Integration the future. This item is critical.
Test (SIT) Plan
Prepare Schedule for 06/01/2018 10/01/2018 11/07/2018 Initial testing, commissioning, and start-up schedule
Testing (update) has been completed. An updated Rail Activation Plan
with more detailed testing plans and schedules is
being prepared by the Rail Activation Manager in
conjunction with the newly appointed Start-up and
Testing Manager. This item is becoming critical.
Finalize Test TBD 05/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Procedures the future.
Conduct System 08/13/2019 12/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Integrated Testing the future.
with trains, including
procedures and reports
Complete Testing 12/01/2019 12/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Reports the future.
Operating Plan, Rules, and Training
Finalize Operating 03/15/2019 03/29/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Plan the future. SFMTA’s latest two-year operating budget
includes start-up of CSP.
Finalize/revise SOPs, 03/27/2019 06/09/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
manuals, and rulebook the future.
as applicable
Operations Manuals 05/11/2019 06/09/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
the future.
Staffing and 3/ TBD TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Operations Plan the future.
SFMTA Central Subway Project E-1

Agency – DRAFT
Actual
Date
Training of O&M 10/23/2019 10/29/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
personnel the future.
Emergency response 10/23/2019 10/29/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
plan, training, and the future.
drills
Facility and Right-of-way Maintenance Plan, Equipment, Facilities, and Training
Maintenance 06/10/2019 06/29/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Schedules and the future.
Procedures
Spare Parts 05/01/2019 07/30/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Requirements the future.
Maintenance Manuals 10/22/2019 11/05/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
the future.
Maintenance Training 11/06/2019 11/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
the future.
Pre-Revenue Operations
Finalize and/or update 04/02/2015 03/01/2019 TBD The second draft with additional detail and a schedule
RAP and/or Pre- for testing and pre-revenue activities was submitted
Revenue Operations with the 2017 update of the PMP. An updated plan is
Plan being prepared by the Rail Activation Manager in
conjunction with the newly appointed Start-up and
Testing Manager.
Implement Rail 01/01/2019 12/25/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Activation Committee the future.
Develop/revise SSPP Ongoing 10/31/2015 10/31/2015 CPUC triennial review conducted in October 2015
& Security Plan concluded that SFMTA “has a comprehensive System
(approved by State Safety Program Plan (SSPP) and has made significant
Safety Oversight progress in executing that plan.”
(SSO))

Agency – DRAFT
Actual
Date
FTA Office of Safety TBD TBD TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
& Security Readiness the future.
Review
PMOC OP-54 TBD TBD TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Readiness for Revenue the future.
Operations Review
Report, Phase I
Conduct Operational TBD TBD TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Hazard Analysis the future.
(OHA) and resolve
other hazards/
vulnerabilities
Pre-Revenue 11/16/2019 12/26/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1 year in
Operations the future.
Public Outreach
Develop Safety 01/07/2019 02/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Outreach Plan the future.
Provide Community 03/22/2019 12/10/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
Outreach the future.
Grand Opening Plan 11/08/2018 09/15/2019 TBD Project is in construction, with RSD about 1.5 years in
the future.
Construction Close Out
Close Out of Non- Ongoing 12/25/2019 TBD NCRs are tracked and closed prior to follow-on work.
Conformance Reports Final closure of NCRs expected as of final completion
date of 1300 Contract.
Punch List Complete 07/26/2019 12/25/2019 TBD Punch list completion expected at final completion of
1300 Contract.
Certificates of 06/01/2019 07/28/2019 TBD
Occupancy/Substantial
Completion

Agency – DRAFT
Actual
Date
Safety, Security, and Fire-Life Safety Certifications

Update/Finalize SSMP 02/18/2014 Revision 2 completed.
Finalize and/or update 10/10/2008 Revision 0.
Safety Certifiable Item
List (SCIL) and SSCP
Implement Safety and 08/01/2010 Committee meets monthly to review certifiable items.
Security Certification
Committee
Implement Fire Life 08/01/2010
Safety Committee
Preliminary Hazard Need dates.
Analysis (PHA)
Threat and Need dates.
Vulnerability Analysis
(TVA)
Design Criteria NA NA NA Design is complete and construction is underway.
Reflecting Safety and
Security Requirements
Review status of Ongoing 12/26/2019 TBD
quality non-
conformances
Close Out of non‐ Ongoing Ongoing TBD
safety critical items
Close Out of safety Ongoing Ongoing TBD
critical items
Complete Safety & TBD 10/26/2019 60 days before RSD - Check against latest regulations.
Security Certification
Verification Report
(SSCVR)

Agency – DRAFT
Actual
Date
Document 07/29/2019 12/25/2019 TBD
Workarounds/Open
Items List
Verify emergency 11/25/2019 12/25/2019 TBD
drills, tabletops,
training, etc. are
completed
SSO final 11/13/2019 12/24/2019 21 days before RSD - Check against latest regulations.
certification/signature
Revenue Service
Target Revenue - 2/27/2020 Current forecast RSD.
Service Date
FFGA Revenue - 12/26/2018
Service Date

APPENDIX F. LESSONS LEARNED

LL# Date Phase Category Subject Lesson Learned
1 09-30-10 FD Management Consultant The project must have a full
Contracts understanding of the agency and other
approving governmental authorities to
avoid delay of contract approval and
consequential delay of the Master
Project Schedule (MPS).
2 09-30-10 FD Cost Staffing Plan The project staffing plan needs to be
formulated during PE and updated at
least quarterly during FD to manage
Standard Cost Category 80 costs and
monitor design production.
3 09-30-10 FD Scope Letter of No A defined scope of grantee and PMOC
Prejudice responsibilities needs to be provided for
(LONP) content and acceptability of LONP
requests.
4 09-30-10 FD Management SSMP FD consultants should be trained,
shortly after mobilization, in the format
and their responsibility regarding the
System Safety Consultant.
5 10-30-10 FD Cost Baseline Cost The BCE should be updated with
Estimate (BCE) current costs as soon as they are known
Update by the project to allow mitigation of
cost contingency usage.
6 02-21-12 FD Management Program Program Controls system/software
Controls selected for use for the duration of the
project should be in place and
functional prior to approval to enter FD.
Doing so will avoid a transition during
FD that could create a lag in timely
reporting of cost and schedule status.
7 02-21-12 FD Management Risk Mitigation Oversight Procedure (OP) 40 needs to
be revised to establish minimum
requirements for secondary mitigation
at different phases of the project,
similar to those for cost and schedule
contingency. The PMOC recommends
5% of project cost at Entry into FD and
3% at execution of an FFGA.
8 02-21-12 FD Scope Third Party All third party agreements need to be
Agreements identified as soon as possible, but no
later than 65% design completion. This
includes leases, both temporary and
permanent; MOUs; and licenses,
specifically for preconstruction property
surveys and settlement monitoring
instruments (especially important for
underground construction). These third
party agreements need to be secured no
later than the advertisement date of the
construction that they affect. Third
SFMTA Central Subway Project F-1


party agreements need to be tracked by
the project continuously, reported
monthly, and updated in a third party
agreement matrix submitted quarterly to
FTA.
9 02-21-12 FD Cost Cost Estimating During the preliminary design phase,
Procedures the project should establish the cost
estimating procedures, format, and
software to be used by all estimating
entities for the entire duration of the
project.
10 02-21-12 FD Cost Allocated Cost In the BCE submitted to FTA for Entry
Contingency into FD, the project should identify
percentages of allocated cost
contingency contained in the BCE that
are apportioned for design risk, market
risk, and construction risk.
11 02-28-12 FD QA Design Design Management should develop a
Management matrix as a tracking tool to document,
Action Log track, and close out known elements
that are missing from design submission
packages.
12 08-15-12 FD Environmental MMRP Numerous mitigations identified in the
Mitigations MMRP are to be handled by
incorporating specific design details
and/or statements in the contract
drawings and technical specifications.
The grantee should note on the MMRP
the relevant drawings and/or technical
specifications.
13 08-31-12 FD Management Risk It became apparent, during the
Contingency monitoring of the cost contingency
Levels and drawdown curve for the project that the
Hold Points contingency levels and hold points no
longer represented the current stage of
project development and risk
reduction/contingency usage related to
project development. The project
advanced through 100% project design;
however, the project did not receive
credit for the cost contingency usage
established by the risk model. The
PMOC recognized this deficiency and
participated with the grantee in
developing a cost contingency
drawdown that reflects current project
development and reduced risk.
14 06-30-13 Const. Management Change Order Perform an audit of the project’s
Process procedures related to Change Orders
and processing. The project should train
staff and inform contractor of their
obligations in the process.


15 01-30-14 Const. Management Independent At the request of SFMTA, the
Review Panel American Public Transportation
(IRP) Decision- Association (APTA) formed a panel of
makers geotechnical and tunnel experts to
perform a peer review of the BART
Undercrossing. Prior to crossing under
the BART tunnels, the Independent
Review Panel (IRP), contractor,
SFMTA, and BART representatives
convened at predetermined tunnel
boring machine (TBM) locations to
discuss the TBM progress and
determine whether the tunneling should
proceed. It is critical that decision
makers from each organization attend
these meetings. It was noted that BART
Senior Management did not attend and
instead deferred decisions to lower level
staff.
16 06-30-14 Const. Bid documents Pre- Soils and groundwater generated from
Classification construction activities should be pre-
for Soil and classified with appropriate sampling
Groundwater and testing required by potential
Disposal disposal facilities. Coordinate with the
disposal facilities to get materials
accepted.
17 04-10-15 Const. Quality Monitoring of There was a breach of the excavation of
Control/Safety Soil Conditions frozen ground during construction of a
during cross passage between the twin bored
Underground tunnels followed by water and soil
Construction flowing into the tunnels, resulting in
subsidence of the ground above and
damage to underground utilities.
Apparently the flow of materials into
the tunnels went on for quite some time
before the problem was detected and
actions could be taken to arrest the
flow. The construction site was not
staffed when the breach started and
there was no external warning system in
place to notify the contractor or the
agency of the condition. Lesson: When
the safety and structural integrity of a
construction site depends on
maintaining soil conditions with the use
of mechanical systems, the site should
be continuously staffed or monitoring
devices at the site should be
continuously monitored from a remote
location to assure that the expected soil
conditions are maintained.


18 04-10-15 Const. Environmental Archeological Sensitive archeological materials were
Data Recovery uncovered during the excavation of the
Protocols roof area at YBM. The Program
Manager took immediate action to
notify the appropriate state officials and
implemented protocols for protection of
the materials. The most likely
descendent of the remains was quickly
identified and a representative was
engaged and brought to the site to
supervise the ongoing excavation.
Lesson: Pre-planning and quick action
to involve the appropriate parties
resulted in satisfactory handling of the
artifacts with minimal delays to the
construction schedule.
19 05-11-15 Const. Quality Control Use of Latest After two roof pours were completed, it
Design was discovered that required reinforcing
Information for steel was missing. Changes to the
Field arrangement of the reinforcing steels
Inspection were made as part of the submittal
review and response process. Notes
from the designer were included on the
approved shop drawings but not in the
contract design drawings. Field
inspectors were using only the design
drawings to confirm the proper
installation of reinforcing steel prior to
concrete placement. Lesson: A process
should be established to assure that the
latest design information, including
submittals and related designer notes, is
available in the field and used to inspect
reinforcing steel prior to concrete
placement.
20 09-28-15 Const. Schedule Maintenance of SFMTA was unable to obtain an
Updated acceptable baseline schedule from the
Construction station construction contractor for over
Schedule and a year. Then, SFMTA could not obtain
Master acceptable updated status schedules
Program from the contractor for another 8
Schedule months. As a result, the construction
status and completion date could not be
accurately determined for the first 20
months of the contract. This made
schedule control impossible. SFMTA
finally created its own schedule updates
for the first 12 months of the
construction contract using the pay
applications and 4-week look-ahead
schedules from the contractor. Lesson:
Owners should aggressively assert the
need for accurate schedule updates from
contractors and should withhold
payment if such updates are included in


the contract terms or specifications and
are not forthcoming. If schedule updates
are not received within the first few
months of the project, the owner should
create its own updates for the purpose
of progress monitoring and schedule
control.
21 11-30-15 Const. Construction Installation of SFMTA needed to install special
Planning Special trackwork to provide the connection to
Trackwork in the new alignment for the Central
Operating Subway portion the T Third LRT line.
Systems The original plan was to install the
special trackwork at the intersection in
eight extended weekend shutdowns.
Working with the contractor, the plan
was revised to accomplish the necessary
trackwork installations in two
shutdowns. After considering the
outcome of the first shutdown, where a
portion of the special trackwork did not
fit properly and needed adjustment
during the shutdown, SFMTA decided
to pre-assemble the second, more
complex, special trackwork assembly at
an off-site facility. The assembly was
completed and the resulting track was
surveyed to confirm the geometry and
to assure that the assembly would fit
into the existing field conditions. While
conducting the assembly and
disassembly of the track components,
the contractor identified an approach
that would reduce the time required to
reassemble the trackwork in the field.
Lesson: Effective pre-planning and
mock-up assembly of complex
trackwork, may allow the final
assembly to be completed without the
need for field adjustments and in less
time than planned. This approach can
mitigate the risks associated with the
installation of complex custom track
components in an operating transit line.
22 03-01-17 Const. Legal/Claims Preparation for A contractor for advance utility
Mediation relocation issued a multi-million-dollar
claim for extra costs due to delays and
unforeseen conditions. SFMTA
believed the claim had no justification.
After several years, the claim was
referred for mediation prior to going to
trial. The contractor made a very
compelling presentation regarding the
extra costs. However, due to careful
preparation by SFMTA management,
the agency was able to provide specific
and detailed rebuttals to the contractor’s

major arguments. The mediation
resulted in a settlement for less than
15% of the original claim amount.
SFMTA chose to accept the settlement
amount, recognizing that the costs to
pursue the claim in court would likely
exceed the settlement value. Lesson:
Careful record keeping and preparation
for dispute resolution can limit agency
exposure to costs related to claims.
23 01-10-18 Design and Claims Quality Control The Central Subway had three major
Procurement of As-built construction phases: Utility Relocation,
Data for Tunneling, and Stations/Track/Systems.
Procurement Inaccurate as-built information from
earlier construction phases has led to
claims for differing site conditions
during the construction of
Stations/Track/Systems phase. For
example, during the final design phase
for the tunnel work, SFMTA agreed to a
proposed change to tunnel segments
defined in the preliminary engineering
phase. The length of tunnel segments
was changed from 4 feet to 5 feet
except in areas with tight curves. The
approved change in segment length was
not captured in the final design
documents for the stations contract,
even though the change in tunnel design
was made prior to completion of the
station contract documents. When the
stations contractor encountered 5-foot-
long segments while mining for the
platform and crossover caverns at the
Chinatown Station, he issued a change
order request to account for extra costs
due to the need to change the
excavation approach to handle the
longer tunnel segments. The current
claimed extra cost is $4.4 million.
Lesson: Procedures should be
established to ensure that approved
design changes during construction of
early phases of complex projects are
accurately reflected in contract
documents for follow-on construction
phases. PMOC oversight should
confirm that procedures are in place to
capture changes in design during
construction and to assure that changes
are reflected in follow-on construction
contract procurement documents.


24 06-18-18 Design, Quality QC of Contract The Rail Procurement section of the
Construction Management Specifications specification called for hardened rail
and Material throughout the project. The Trackwork
Acceptance section of the specification allowed
standard rail under all but special
conditions. The contractor procured
standard rail despite SFMTA’s intent to
use hardened rail. The standard rail was
accepted on delivery and was installed
over a significant portion of the
alignment before the issue was
identified. A dispute has arisen, with
SFMTA referring to the Rail spec and
directing replacement of all rail, and the
contractor referring to the Trackwork
spec and asserting that the rail meets
contract requirements. Lesson: Design
control and quality management
procedures are needed to eliminate
duplication in the contract
specifications and assure that any
duplicative requirements are consistent
across sections of the specification.
Quality control and assurance
procedures need to be improved to
assure that non-conforming materials
are not accepted on delivery.

APPENDIX G. CONTRACT STATUS

The following sections provide the status of ongoing contracts associated with the CSP. Note that the DBE participation percentages
are updated by SFMTA on a quarterly basis. The current values are through January 31, 2019.
Contract No. 1250
Contract Description: UR #1 (YBM)
Status: Completed June 2011.
Cost: Original Contract Value $9,273,939
Approved Change Orders $2,694,211
Final Contract Value $11,968,150
Expended to Date $11,968,150
% Expended 100%
SBE Participation 97%
Schedule: NTP issued January 2010. Substantial completion in June 2011.
Issues or Concerns:
Contract No. 1251

Contract Description: UR #2 (UMS)
Status: Work is complete.
Final Contract Value $20,669,081
% Expended 100%
SBE Participation 87.4%
Schedule: NTP issued January 2011. Substantial completion in August 2012.
Issues or Concerns: Final total cost claim by contractor has been settled.
Contract No. 1252

Contract Description: Tunnels
Status: Final completion achieved. Financial close out underway. Final contract cost to be lower than reported here.
Cost: Original Contract Value $233.58 million
Approved Change Orders $7.83 million
Current Contract Value $241.41 million
Expended to Date $233.59 million; $6.2 million is paid from non-project funds
% Expended 96.8%
Schedule: Final completion achieved May 15, 2015.
Issues or Concerns: None.
SFMTA Central Subway Project G-1

Contract No. 1277

Contract Description: Pagoda Palace Demolition
Status: Construction is complete; contract is in close out.
Cost: Original Contract Value $498,995
Approved Change Orders $149,981
Current Contract Value $648,976
Expended to Date $648,976
% Expended 100%
SBE Participation 100%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns: None.
Contract No. 1300

Contract Description: Three subway stations (YBM, UMS, and CTS) and STS
Status: Mass excavation complete at one station and well underway at two other stations.
Cost: Original Contract Value $839.68 million
Approved Change Orders $21.96 million
Current Contract Value $861.64 million
Expended to Date $694.82 million
% Expended 80.64%
Schedule: NTP issued June 17, 2013. Substantial Completion planned February 2018 and forecast October 2019.
Issues or Concerns: The work on this contract is behind schedule.
Contract No. CS-155-1

Contract Description: Design Package 1 for Contracts 1250, 1251, and 1252. PB/Telemon
Status: Design is complete. Construction support is nearly complete for Contract 1252.
Cost: Original Contract Value $5,795,000 (includes exercised options)
Current Contract Value $7,940,159
% Expended 99.6%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns:


Contract Description: Design Package 2 for UMS, CTS, and YBM. CSDG prime
Status: Designs are complete for all of the station contracts. Construction support of Contract 1300 is underway.
% Expended 88.1%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns:

Contract Description: Design Package 3 for STS. HNTB-B&C Prime
Status: Design is complete. Construction support of Contract 1300 is underway.
% Expended 82.6%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns:
Contract No. CS-149

Contract Description: Central Subway Partnership (Project Manager/Construction Manager)
Status: On-going.
Approved Change Orders $0
% Expended 85.4%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns:

Contract No. CS 156

Contract Description: Project Controls Consultant
Status: On-going.
Cost: Base Contract Value $17,112,873
Approved Change Orders $0
% Expended 58.9%
Schedule:
Issues or Concerns:

Monthly Monitoring Report: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) San Francisco, CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monthly Monitoring Report: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) San Francisco, CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monthly Monitoring Report: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) San Francisco, CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONTHLY MONITORING REPORT

Central Subway Project

Draft Report Delivered to FTA June 27, 2019

PMOC Contract No.: DTFT6014D00010

Work Order Number: 002

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-i

Project Status: (as reported in SFMTA’s April Original at

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-ii

PMOC Observations, Opinions, Recommendations and Concerns

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-iii

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page ES-iv

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page TOC-i

Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA)

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 1

Table 2 - Forecast Construction Completion Dates for CSP Work Packages

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 2

Third Party Agreements Including Utilities, Railroads, Other Agencies, Etc.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 3

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)

San Francisco Department of Public Works (SFDPW)

San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department

Private Property Owners

Status of Vehicle Design, Procurement, Testing, and Integration

Labor Relations and Policies

Compliance with Applicable Statutes, Regulations, Guidance, and FTA Agreements

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 4

B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUB-PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Project Management Plan (PMP)

Environmental Assessment/Mitigation Plan/Archaeological Plans

Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program Plan

Safety and Security Management Plan (SSMP)

Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP)

C. PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 5

D. PROJECT COST STATUS

Project Cost Control Systems

Project Cost (as of April 2019)

Project Cost Trends

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 6

Change Order Control

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 7

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 8

Table 3 - Budget and Contingency Status for Central Subway Project1

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 9

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 10

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 11

E. PROJECT SCHEDULE STATUS

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 12

Project Schedule Data (as of April 2019)

SFMTA Central Subway Project Page 13

Table 5 - Schedule Milestones

Critical Path Summary (Baseline Schedule)

Three Month Look-ahead

• Complete installation of permanent historical street lights