Federal Analysis of The BART's San Jose Extension

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

FTA Region IX
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, CA
Status as of May 14, 2021

SCOPE, COST, SCHEDULE, RISK AND CONTINGENCY REVIEW REPORT
OP 32C Project Scope Review
OP 33 Capital Cost Estimate Review
OP 34 Project Schedule Review
OP 40 Risk and Contingency Review
Draft – June 18, 2021
Final – July 20, 2021
PMOC Contract Number: 69319519D00021

Task Order: 69319520F300035
Project Number: 1
Project Type: Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program
Project Phase: EPD Pilot Program 120-Day Detailed Review
OPs Referenced: OP 1, 25, 32C, 33, 34 and 40
Atkins North America, Inc.

7604 Technology Way, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80237
PMOC Lead: Jena Montgomery, 720.475.7107, Jena.Montgomery@atkinsglobal.com

PMOC Assigned to Project Since August 2020
PMOC Lead Assigned to Project Since August 2020
Third Party Disclaimer
This Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC) report and all supporting reports and
back up materials contain the findings, conclusions, professional opinions and recommendations
stemming from a risk-informed evaluation and assessment, prepared solely for the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). This report shall not be relied upon by any party, except FTA or the project
Sponsor, in accordance with the purposes of the evaluation and assessment as described below.
For projects funded through FTA’s Major Capital Investment (New Starts) program, FTA and its
PMOCs use a risk-informed process to review and reflect upon a Sponsor’s scope, schedule, and
cost, and to analyze the Sponsor’s project development and management. This process is iterative
in nature. The results represent a “snapshot in time” for a particular project under the conditions
known at that point. The evaluation or assessment and related results may subsequently change
due to new information, changes in circumstances, additional project development, specific
measures a Sponsor may take to mitigate risks, Sponsor’s selection of strategies for project
execution, etc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The purpose of this Scope, Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Contingency Review Report is to provide
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with the Project Management Oversight Contractor’s
(PMOC’s) assessment of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase II Extension
(BSVII) project. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Project Sponsor
and the PMOC has reviewed their Risk and Contingency Management, including risk assessment,
project scope, capital cost estimate, and schedule reviews. These assessments will inform PMOC’s
upcoming Readiness for Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program (EPD) Project Selection, which
will be one input to FTA’s determination regarding VTA’s EPD application.
Project Description
The BSVII project is a six-mile extension of BART commuter rail beyond the current end of line
at Berryessa/North San Jose station through downtown San Jose to Santa Clara. Approximately
five miles will be tunnel and one mile at grade, with the at grade section including one station and
the future Newhall Yard Maintenance Facility. The underground section includes three stations
and two additional, mid-tunnel, ventilation, and emergency egress facilities. Forty-eight vehicles
will be paid for with project funds but are included in the procurement for BART FTA Core
Capacity grant program fleet upgrades.
VTA submitted an EPD application on April 7, 2021 according to the instructions identified in the
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) published in the Federal Register July 28, 2020. The
proposed budget of $6,941 million (Year of Expenditure [YOE]) has been approved by the VTA
board and was included in the application. VTA’s proposed revenue service date (RSD) in the
application materials is May 2030.
Baseline
The PMOC followed guidance outlined in FTA OP 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32c, 33 and 34 with regards
to the completeness and reliability of the Sponsor’s project scope, cost and schedule; to assess its
usefulness as a management tool; to assess the extent to which the project scope, cost and schedule
reflects the project objectives, management practices and method of project delivery through a
review of the documents provided by VTA. PMOC’s review has been based upon the documents
included in the April 7, 2021 EPD (as augmented through April 23, 2021 in the online portal) as
well as supporting documents provided for the risk assessment. This PMOC report has a status
date of May 14, 2021, meaning documents received after that date have not been reviewed. Key
documents made available to the PMOC and which the PMOC has reviewed in part or whole in
developing this EPD review are listed in Appendix B.
VTA presented an updated project schedule in March 2021 with progress updated through March
1, 2021 with a target (early) RSD of May 7, 2030 and a proposed FFGA (late) RSD, after
contingency, of September 15, 2032.
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project i

Scope, Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Contingency Review Report
July 2021 (Final)
VTA presented a cost estimate in support of their EPD Pilot Program application based upon an
estimate at completion of $6,941 million (YOE) including finance charges of $389.7 million
(YOE).
Synthesis of Findings
The Sponsor, VTA, through their general engineering and program management consultants,
collectively known as Silicon Valley Transit Consultants, have developed design documents to
approximately 10-20% level of maturity, consistent with pre-RFP designs for design build (DB)
and progressive design build (PDB) procurements. VTA has demonstrated further design and
procurement progress since the EPD Configuration Drawings. However, the cost estimate
evaluated by PMOC was based on that approximately 10% design. VTA has commenced a bottom
up cost estimate revision that is anticipated to be completed in late summer or fall 2021.
Listed below are highlights with reference to scope, cost and schedule uncertainty, potential
ambiguity, and risk:
1. Highly aggressive estimate and schedule ‘stripping’ of latent contingency and allowances
pushing realistic estimate assumptions into ‘risk’ resulting in a disproportionate
contingency to base cost and schedule.
2. No documented commitment by any of the third-part utility owners to the project schedule
or cost to undertake the relocations. Master agreements address general cost sharing terms
but do not attribute costs to specific relocations. Estimates were instead based on Phase I
costs.
3. Highly ambitious design period for coordinating the four major contract packages and
settlement of lines of design responsibility at the many interface points.
4. Highly ambitious tunnel boring production rates in very challenging ground conditions
with large settlement property impacted projections requiring significant ground
improvements and monitoring.
5. Heavy reliance on integration and collaboration with BART and the design builders in
station fit out and systems installations including ventilation and smoke extraction.
6. An underlying strategy of design, design coordination and construction risk transfer to the
Design Builders, similar to Warm Springs and Silicon Valley Berryessa Extension (SVBX)
Phase 1, rather than risk sharing, collaboration, partnering and risk retention emphasized
by respondents in the latest Request for Industry Feedback (RFIF) submittals.
Table 1 below provides a summary of the results of the cost and schedule risk analysis:
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ii

July 2021 (Final)
Table 1 Executive Summary Risk Results
Executive Summary Cost Risk Results OP 40 Contingency

Sponsor Cost Estimate $6,941 M
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project P-Value of Grantee Cost < P10 (10%)
P65 Cost $9,148 M Recommended
Risk Workshop Date : 05/10/2021 to 05/12/2021 Schedule Risk Results
Project Phase : EPD Application 120 Day review Sponsor RSD Date 09/15/2032
Project Type : Metro Regional Rail P-value of Grantee Date < P10 (10%)
Project Delivery Method : Design Build P65 Date 02/02/2034
125% of remaining duration
06/21/2034 Recommended
of critical path
All costs quoted above include a sum of $389.72 Million in Finance Costs [YOE]. No risk is applied to Finance Charges.
The PMOC provided a One Page Summary (OPS) to FTA ahead of this formal report which
supports and provides details of the findings in the OPS; please refer to Appendix C.
Completing the project scope to the time and cost proposed by the Sponsor (VTA) is highly
dependent upon the assumption of the private utility companies performing all work to the project
timelines, the successful coordination and indeed collaboration between VTA, BART, and the four
large DB contracts and the success of the tunnel mining operations. VTA has identified 65 risks in
their current risk register dated March 30, 2021. The FTA PMOC has recommended the addition
of a further 23 risks. Table 2 below provides a summary of the Top Risks identified by both PMOC
and the Sponsor.
Table 2 Top Risks Identified
Table 3 below shows a summary of the results of the cost and schedule risk analysis:
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iii

July 2021 (Final)
Table 3 Summary Risk Analysis Results
PMOC Conclusions
The PMOC is of the opinion the proposed scope of work is overly optimistic in the time frame and
at the cost proposed given the numerous and complex contract interfaces, design coordination and
construction coordination interfaces and the very challenging known ground conditions to be
encountered on this large diameter single tunnel approach.
The PMOC is concerned with respect to the optimistic schedule and derived cost impacts. The
PMOC notes the very considerable contract interfaces and coordination required both physically
and contractually and the high involvement of management and coordination that will be required
of VTA and their internal project team and consultants.
PMOC Recommendations
In light of the conclusions as summarized above:
1. The PMOC has reviewed schedule activity durations and concurrency of design and
construction contracts together with the procurement timelines necessary to implement the
proposed strategy. PMOC recommends an adjustment to the VTA RSD of 18 months
resulting in a revised RSD, before contingency, of November 7, 2031 and that the base cost
before contingency is increased by $1,037 million (YOE) to account for over stripping,
overly optimistic tunnel production rates, low standard cost category (SCC) 80 staff
estimates, overly optimistic inflation rates and additional consequential increases in costs
associated with the adjusted schedule duration.
2. PMOC recommends the Project Readiness to be conditional upon VTA obtaining
additional contingency capacity to support the significant and understated risk apparent at
this stage of the project’s development.
3. PMOC recommends the P65 cost is adopted at $9,148 million, an increase over the VTA
EPD application of $2,206 million. PMOC recommends the RSD including contingency
adopts the Stripped and Adjusted Base Schedule (SABS) plus 25% equating to a revised
RSD of June 21, 2034, a 21-month addition over the EPD Application.
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iv

July 2021 (Final)
Final Report Status
The June 18, 2021 draft version of this report was provided to VTA for review after a briefing
regarding the results to executive and project management on June 24, 2021. An initial informal
response was provided June 30, 2021, followed by a letter and written response from VTA on July
12, 2021. A FTA meeting with VTA was conducted on July 16, 2021 to discuss the risk assessment
results and VTA’s response to the draft report. The differences in professional opinion remain;
however, it was deemed by FTA that the PMOC assessment and results were sound and unchanged
by the VTA’s rebuttal. The assessment followed FTA’s process and was based upon the best
information available and the risk status of this complex project at this point in time. As the
procurements progress and VTA reaches agreement with a Tunnel and Trackwork Progressive
Design Builder and Design Builders for the other three contract packages regarding risk sharing,
cost, and schedule, additional certainty will be achieved for the project cost estimate and schedule.
At such time, PMOC will undertake additional technical reviews and reassess the findings as
appropriate at FTA’s request.
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project v

July 2021 (Final)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... i
Project Description ....................................................................................................................... i
Baseline ........................................................................................................................................ i
Synthesis of Findings .................................................................................................................. ii
PMOC Conclusions .................................................................................................................... iv
PMOC Recommendations .......................................................................................................... iv
Final Report Status ...................................................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Project Status ................................................................................................................. 1-3
1.5 Project Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 1-4
1.6 PMOC Review Activities .............................................................................................. 1-4
1.6.1 Purpose and Objective ........................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 OP 40: Risk and Contingency Review.............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Summary of Status from other OPs............................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Details of Proposed Project Scope and Design Document Status ......................... 2-1
2.1.2 Environmental Clearance ....................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.3 Project Delivery Method, Contract Packaging and Procurement Status ............... 2-2
2.2 Project Cost Summary ................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Project Schedule Summary ........................................................................................... 2-7
3.0 Baseline for Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Sponsor Cost Contingency ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Stripped and Adjusted Base Cost Estimate (SABCE) .................................................. 3-2
3.3 Escalation and Inflation Review ................................................................................... 3-1
3.4 Sponsor Schedule Contingency..................................................................................... 3-2
3.5 Stripped and Adjusted Base Schedule (SABS) ............................................................. 3-3
4.0 Risk Identification ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4-1
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project i

July 2021 (Final)
4.2 Overview of Process...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 FTA Risk Workshop ..................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3.1 My Top Risk .......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2 Scoring of Risks ..................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.3 Distribution of Risks .............................................................................................. 4-4
4.3.4 Top Project Risks ................................................................................................... 4-6
4.3.5 Top Risks by FTA SCC ......................................................................................... 4-8
4.3.6 Remaining Risks .................................................................................................. 4-12
5.0 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Assumptions/Qualifications/Exclusions........................................................................ 5-1
5.2.1 General ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 Assumptions........................................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Schedule Risk Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-3
5.3.1 Overview of Modeling Technique and Software ................................................... 5-3
5.3.2 Schedule Risk Analysis Model .............................................................................. 5-4
5.3.3 Schedule Risk Analysis Results ............................................................................. 5-5
5.4 Cost Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5-8
5.4.1 Top-Down Cost Model Version and Project Specific Adaptations ....................... 5-8
5.4.2 Profiles Assigned to the FTA Top-Down Cost Risk Model .................................. 5-9
5.4.3 FTA Top-Down Cost Risk Model ....................................................................... 5-10
5.4.4 Cost Risk Analysis Results .................................................................................. 5-14
6.0 Risk Mitigation ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Primary Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Secondary Mitigation .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Contingency .................................................................................................................. 6-2
7.0 Risk and Contingency Management Plan ......................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 PMOC Observations ..................................................................................................... 7-1
8.0 OP 32C: Project Scope Review ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 PMOC Review .............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Project Delivery Method, Contract Packaging ...................................................... 8-1
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ii

July 2021 (Final)
8.1.2 Design Relative to Site and Geotechnical Conditions ........................................... 8-5
8.1.3 Third Party Agreements ......................................................................................... 8-6
8.1.4 SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements............................................................... 8-12
8.1.5 SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals, and SCC 30 Support Facilities:
Yards, Shops, and Admin Buildings .................................................................................. 8-13
8.1.6 SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions ........................................................... 8-13
8.1.7 SCC 50 Systems................................................................................................... 8-14
8.1.8 SCC 60 ROW, Land, and Existing Improvements .............................................. 8-16
8.1.9 SCC 70 Vehicles .................................................................................................. 8-17
8.1.10 SCC 80 Professional Services .............................................................................. 8-17
9.0 OP 33: Capital Cost Estimate Review ............................................................................ 9-18
9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 9-18
9.2 Estimate Status ............................................................................................................ 9-18
9.3 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 9-19
9.4 PMOC Observations ................................................................................................... 9-20
9.4.1 Characterization of Significant Uncertainties ...................................................... 9-21
9.4.2 Reliability of Cost Estimate ................................................................................. 9-22
9.4.3 Statement of Potential Range of Cost .................................................................. 9-23
9.5 PMOC Review ............................................................................................................ 9-24
9.5.1 Estimate structure and composition ..................................................................... 9-24
9.5.2 Cost Data Reviewed ............................................................................................. 9-25
9.5.3 Level of design completion .................................................................................. 9-25
9.5.4 Project Controls Organizational Structure Specific to Estimating ...................... 9-26
9.5.5 Cost Estimate Structure / Quality / Level of detail .............................................. 9-26
9.5.6 Characterization or Stratification of Cost Items .................................................. 9-29
9.5.7 Mechanical Check of the Estimate ...................................................................... 9-30
9.5.8 Comparison with Industry and Engineering Standards ....................................... 9-31
9.5.9 Correspondence with Scope Review ................................................................... 9-32
9.6 Review of estimate by FTA SCC code ....................................................................... 9-32
9.6.1 SCC 10 – Guideway and Trackwork ................................................................... 9-32
9.6.2 SCC 20 – Stations, Stops, Terminals ................................................................... 9-33
9.6.3 SCC 30 – Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings .............. 9-33
9.6.4 SCC 40 – Siteworks and Special Conditions ....................................................... 9-34
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iii
July 2021 (Final)
9.6.5 SCC 50 – Systems................................................................................................ 9-34
9.6.6 SCC 60 – Right of Way ....................................................................................... 9-35
9.6.7 SCC 70 – Vehicles ............................................................................................... 9-35
9.6.8 SCC 80 – Professional Services ........................................................................... 9-35
9.7 General/Program Wide Items ...................................................................................... 9-42
9.8 Escalation and Inflation Review ................................................................................. 9-44
10.0 OP 34: Project Schedule Review .................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Technical Schedule Review ........................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Soundness Check......................................................................................................... 10-4
10.3 Schedule Management Review ................................................................................... 10-5
10.4 Technical Schedule Review ........................................................................................ 10-6
11.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 Risk.............................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Cost.............................................................................................................................. 11-3
11.4 Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 11-4
12.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 12-1
12.1 Risk.............................................................................................................................. 12-1
12.2 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 12-1
12.3 Cost.............................................................................................................................. 12-2
12.4 Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 12-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Executive Summary Risk Results................................................................................ iii
Table 2 Top Risks Identified .................................................................................................... iii
Table 3 Summary Risk Analysis Results ................................................................................. iv
Table 4 Contract Packages...................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 5 Summary VTA Base Cost Estimate .......................................................................... 2-4
Table 6 Summary BCE (Base Year $ w/o Contingency) by Profile ...................................... 2-5
Table 7 Summary PMOC Adjustments .................................................................................. 2-5
Table 8 Summary PMOC Adjustments by Profile ................................................................. 2-6
Table 9 PMOC SABCE (YOE) by Profile w/o Finance Charges .......................................... 2-7
Table 10 Key VTA Schedule Milestones ................................................................................. 2-8
Table 11 Summary of Sponsor Contingency by SCC (L2) ...................................................... 3-2
Table 12 PMOC Summary Time-Related Cost Adjustments ................................................... 3-3
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iv
July 2021 (Final)
Table 13 PMOC Summary Latent Contingency Adjustment ................................................... 3-4
Table 14 Summary PMOC Inflated Adjusted SABCE ............................................................ 3-2
Table 15 Large TBM References (from 2020 Constructability Report) .................................. 3-5
Table 16 Large TBM References (from May 2021 Risk Spot Memo)..................................... 3-6
Table 17 Large TBM Research by PMOC ............................................................................... 3-7
Table 18 CP2 Mining Duration Responses from VTA RFIF Process ...................................... 3-8
Table 19 Mining Productivity Analysis and Adjustment Summary......................................... 3-9
Table 20 My TOP Risk ............................................................................................................. 4-3
Table 21 VTA Risk Matrix ....................................................................................................... 4-4
Table 22 VTA Risk Matrix Legend: Impact & Probability Levels .......................................... 4-4
Table 23 Project Risks Rated as “High” ................................................................................... 4-7
Table 24 SCC 10 “High” Risks ................................................................................................ 4-8
Table 25 SCC 40 “High” Risks ................................................................................................ 4-9
Table 26 SCC 50 “High” Risks .............................................................................................. 4-10
Table 29 Total Number of Risks by VTA Impact Classification ........................................... 4-12
Table 30 P65 Schedule Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 5-5
Table 31 Risk Scenario Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................ 5-8
Table 32 P65 Cost Risk Assessment ...................................................................................... 5-14
Table 33 Sponsor Relative Contingency Against SABCE ..................................................... 5-15
Table 34 Profile Cost Risk Exposures .................................................................................... 5-15
Table 35 Probability Distribution Tabular Data (with finance costs)..................................... 5-17
Table 36 Third-Party Agreements .......................................................................................... 8-10
Table 37 Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Relocations ........................................................... 8-16
Table 38 AACE Cost Estimating Classification System ........................................................ 9-19
Table 39 Cost Characterization of Uncertainties .................................................................... 9-22
Table 40 Potential Range of Costs.......................................................................................... 9-24
Table 41 Estimate Breakdown Structure ................................................................................ 9-29
Table 42 Sponsor Estimate Stratification ............................................................................... 9-30
Table 43 Base Year Ground Improvement Costs ................................................................... 9-32
Table 44 Table 8 from Basis of Cost ...................................................................................... 9-37
Table 45 Figure 1 from Basis of Cost..................................................................................... 9-37
Table 46 Table 1 from Cost Memo #2: SCC 80 Costs ........................................................... 9-38
Table 47 FTE Staffing Summary using the 2.4 Multiplier from Spot Memo 2 ..................... 9-40
Table 48 FTE Staffing Summary using the 2.6 Multiplier from Basis of Cost Report .......... 9-41
Table 49 Allocated Contingency by SCC Category ............................................................... 9-43
Table 50 PMOC Mid-Point Cash Flow Model ....................................................................... 9-45
Table 51 Comparative Analysis of Different Inflation Rates Adopting a Mid-Point Calculation
................................................................................................................................. 9-45
Table 52 Baseline Case Cost Escalation Rate ........................................................................ 9-46
Table 53 Producer Price Index, April 2021 ............................................................................ 9-47
Table 54 Breakdown of Activities .......................................................................................... 10-8
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project v

July 2021 (Final)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Area ............................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 2 Risk Distribution by FTA Category (No.) ................................................................. 4-5
Figure 3 Risk Distribution per FTA Risk Category (%) .......................................................... 4-5
Figure 4 Risk Distribution per FTA SCC ................................................................................ 4-6
Figure 5 Schedule Risk Input Data Key................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 6 Schedule Risk Results Summary Graphic ................................................................. 5-6
Figure 7 Schedule Duration Sensitivity Chart ......................................................................... 5-6
Figure 8 Schedule Risk Sensitivity Chart ................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 9 Probability Distribution ........................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 10 Probability Distribution (with finance costs) ....................................................... 5-16
Figure 11 Cost Impact Ranges ............................................................................................. 9-25
Figure 12 Percentage of Total Cost by SCC Code L1 ......................................................... 9-36
Figure 13 BART Staffing Costs as Shown in Cost Memo #2 .............................................. 9-42
Figure 14 Producer Price Index Percent Change.................................................................. 9-47
Figure 15 Work Breakdown Structure ................................................................................. 10-2
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of Acronyms
Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed
Appendix C: One Page Summary of Risk Assessment
Appendix D: Risk Workshop Attendees
Appendix E: Risk Workshop Agenda
Appendix F: PMOC Adjusted Risk Register from the FTA Risk Workshop
Appendix G: Sponsor Risk Workshop Presentations
Appendix H: PMOC Risk Workshop Presentations
Appendix I: PMOC SABCE
Appendix J: PMOC BETA Assignment Cost Model Profiles 1 – 4
Appendix K: PMOC Summary SABS
Appendix L: PMOC Summary SABS Critical Path
Appendix M: PMOC Schedule Risk Input Data
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project vi

July 2021 (Final)
Appendix N: PMOC Unit Cost Comparison
Appendix O: Sponsor and PMOC Cost Adjustments
Appendix P: PMOC Team
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project vii

July 2021 (Final)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Scope, Cost, Schedule, Risk, and Contingency Review Report is to provide
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with the Project Management Oversight Contractor’s
(PMOC’s) assessment of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase II Extension
(BSVII) project. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Project Sponsor
and the PMOC has reviewed their Risk and Contingency Management, including risk assessment,
project scope, capital cost estimate, and schedule reviews. These assessments will inform PMOC’s
upcoming Readiness for Expedited Project Delivery Pilot Program (EPD) Project Selection, which
will be one input to FTA’s determination regarding VTA’s EPD application. PMOC’s review has
been based upon the documents included in the April 7, 2021 EPD, as augmented through April
23, 2021, as well as supporting documents provided for the risk assessment. This report has a status
date of May 14, 2021, meaning documents received after that date have not been reviewed. Items
provided after that cutoff date may be considered after the completion of the EPD Pilot Program
120-day detailed review for next steps in PMOC oversight of the project as appropriate.
1.2 Project Background
This project dates back to the 2001 Comprehensive Agreement between VTA and BART and the
Major Investment Study that recommended the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project
(SVRTCP). The extension to Silicon Valley was originally envisioned as one project. Over the
years it was broken to multiple phases due to funding availability. The extension to Warm Springs
Station, considered a precursor project to the SVRTCP was completed in March 2017. The Phase
I extension to Berryessa/North San Jose Station was completed and opened for revenue service in
June 2020.
SVRTCP progressed through a combined Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, released for public
comment in April 2004. VTA continued the SVRTCP environmental review under CEQA only
and a Final EIR was certified by the VTA Board of Directors in December 2004. A Final
Supplemental EIR to address project design refinements was certified by VTA Board of Directors
in June 2007, at which time VTA requested and received FTA concurrence to resume the NEPA
process. In June 2010, FTA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for Phase I. BSVII entered New
Starts Project Development in March 2016. FTA signed the ROD for BSVII in June 2018 as the
culmination of the NEPA process which included the 2004 Draft EIS (including Phase I and Phase
II), a 2010 Final EIS (including Phase I and Phase II), and a 2018 Final Supplemental EIS for
BSVII.
BSVII was advanced to approximately 65% design as a twin-bore design configuration, then
suspended to focus necessary resources on Phase I. In 2014 VTA identified a large single-bore
tunnel as a potential option to reduce disruption to existing infrastructure and businesses through
downtown San Jose. This was adopted as the preferred project configuration in April 2018 by both
the VTA and BART boards of directors.
BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-1
July 2021 (Final)
In November 2018 VTA responded to FTA’s September 12, 2018 Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO), providing their expression of interest for FTA’s EPD Pilot Program. On April 7, 2021
VTA submitted their funding request application in response to FTA’s July 28, 2020 NOFO with
the required documentation for FTA’s evaluation and determination. BSVII has pre-award
authority consistent with their acceptance into New Starts Project Development in March 2016
and having completed their environmental clearance. FTA allocated $125 million to the project in
August 2019 and another $100 million in January 11, 2021.
1.3 Project Description
BSVII is an approximately 6.0-mile extension of the BART system from the existing terminus at
the Berryessa/North San Jose BART Station to the proposed Santa Clara Station in the City of
Santa Clara. BSVII includes a total of four stations: three below-grade (28th Street/Little Portugal
Station, Downtown San Jose Station, and Diridon/Arena Station) and one at grade (Santa Clara
Station). BSVII also includes two mid-tunnel ventilation/emergency egress facilities and the
Newhall Yard maintenance facility. Forty-eight vehicles will be paid for with project funds but
will be included in the procurement for BART FTA Core Capacity grant program fleet upgrades.

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 1 Project Area
1.4 Project Status

BSVII is in a project development phase while progressing their design and procurement
documents for multiple DB packages. VTA submitted an application for the EPD Pilot Program
on January 8, 2021. VTA was subsequently notified that the application documentation submitted
did not adequately present the required 30-percent level of design and engineering as a complete
package. After coordinating with FTA regarding information to supplement the application, VTA
submitted a new application on April 7, 2021. FTA notified VTA on May 14, 2021 that a complete
application had been received and would be moved into the 120-day statutory application detailed
review period. The project is currently in the EPD Pilot Program 120-day Detailed Review Phase.
VTA previously issued Requests for Industry Feedback (RFIF) for the Tunnel and Trackwork,
Systems, and Stations packages. The RFIF for Newhall Yard & Maintenance Facility and Santa
Clara Station is active and responses are due on May 7, 2021. VTA previously issued the RFQ for

July 2021 (Final)
Tunnel and Trackwork (December 2020) and issued the RFQ for Systems on February 26, 2021.
The RFQs for the Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station and Stations are under development.
VTA continues to develop the RFP packages for issuance for the four major construction contract
packages. The Tunnel & Trackwork (CP2) RFP is targeted for release in July 2021.
1.5 Project Stakeholders
VTA is the BSVII Program Sponsor and proposed FTA grant recipient. Other entities involved in
the planning, design, construction, and commissioning of BSVII include:
 BART, Program partner and BSVII operating agency
 VTA’s consolidated consultant team, Silicon Valley Transit Consultants (SVTC)
 PDB/DB Contractors
 City of San Jose
 City of Santa Clara
 Google, private sector transit-oriented development (TOD) partner and financial
contributor
1.6 PMOC Review Activities
The PMOC is performing in parallel a PMP Review (OP 20), Capacity and Capability Review (OP
21), Safety and Security Management Review (OP 22), Right of Way Review (OP 23), Quality
Assurance and Quality Management Review (OP 24), Scope Review (OP 32c), a Cost Review
(OP 33) and a Schedule Review (OP 34) which together form the key inputs into the Risk and
Contingency Review that will provide guidance to the FTA and VTA regarding project risk and
adequacy of cost and schedule contingency. The PMOC is tasked to conduct a Risk and
Contingency Review in compliance with OP 40c..
EPD reviews were conducted based upon 30% engineering and design being complete as defined
in the EPD NOFO. PMOC focused the review on major areas of potential scope, cost, and schedule
risk As a result of the EPD process, no findings had been shared with the Sponsor nor was there
any opportunity for reconciliation with the Sponsor regarding PMOC’s recommended adjustments
to their baseline schedule or capital cost estimate prior to the risk assessment.
Documents received after May 14, 2021 have not been reviewed or accounted for in the PMOC’s
evaluation. Items provided after that cutoff date may be considered after the completion of the
EPD Pilot Program 120-day detailed review for next steps in PMOC oversight of the program as
appropriate. A complete list of documents received and reviewed may be found in Appendix B.
Final Report Status
The June 18, 2021 draft version of this report was provided to VTA for review after a briefing
regarding the results to executive and project management on June 24, 2021. An initial informal
response was provided June 30, 2021, followed by a letter and written response from VTA on July
12, 2021. A FTA meeting with VTA was conducted on July 16, 2021 to discuss the risk assessment
results and VTA’s response to the draft report. The differences in professional opinion remain;

July 2021 (Final)
however, it was deemed by FTA that the PMOC assessment and results were sound and unchanged
by the VTA’s rebuttal. The assessment followed FTA’s process and was based upon the best
information available and the risk status of this complex project at this point in time. As the
procurements progress and VTA reaches agreement with a Tunnel and Trackwork Progressive
Design Builder and Design Builders for the other three contract packages regarding risk sharing,
cost, and schedule, additional certainty will be achieved for the project cost estimate and schedule.
At such time, PMOC will undertake additional technical reviews and reassess the findings as
appropriate at FTA’s request.
1.6.1 Purpose and Objective
OP 40: Risk and Contingency Review
The goal of the Risk and Contingency Review is to evaluate a Sponsor’s risk identification and
assessment process and to evaluate the Sponsor’s Contingency Management Plan. Based on the
evaluation, the PMOC recommends any necessary changes to the Sponsor for risk identification,
assessment, and mitigation. The PMOC may also recommend changes to the Sponsor’s Risk and
Contingency Management Plan. The PMOC shall independently develop a risk analysis to provide
a thorough analysis of the Sponsor’s project.
OP 32C: Project Scope Review
The purpose of the OP 32C review is to verify that the scope of the project represented by the
totality of all documentation, including environmental documents, basis of design and design
criteria, third-party agreements, Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan, and contract plans
and specifications is internally consistent, defined to a level appropriate for the project
development phase and applicable project delivery method, consistent with the estimated cost and
schedule.
The objective of the OP 32C review is to assess the Sponsor’s definition of the project scope for
adequacy and completeness given the phase; for internal consistency; for compliance with
applicable laws regulations, policies, etc.; bid-ability and constructability.
PMOC assessment considers the following requirements. The Civil, Structural, Architectural,
Electrical, Mechanical, Power, Signal and Communications, Trackwork, Sitework and other plan
documents must possess a comparable level of definition, clarity, presentation, and cross-
referencing. Design, construction, system, and vehicle interfaces must be well known and defined.
Design Reports, Concept of Operations Report, and configuration studies must be adequate and
complete. Work descriptions and definitions used in designs and specifications must be consistent
and uniformly applied. The project phasing must be adequate, and the project must be
constructible. Adequate construction access and staging areas must be defined.
OP 33: Capital Cost Estimate Review
Congress and FTA’s good stewardship require that a Sponsor’s cost estimates be reliable before
entry into FFGA. PMOC is conducting this review at the request of FTA, providing an evaluation
of the scope, schedule, and cost to confirm the estimate’s reliability.

July 2021 (Final)
FTA’s objective is to assess the consistency of cost estimating information, understand its
characteristics, evaluate the methodologies, and confirm that the estimate adequately reflects the
overall project scope, the estimated quantities shown on the design documents, the anticipated
market conditions, the risk elements associated with the project, and the project schedule. This
procedure is applicable to Design-Bid-Build, DB and other delivery methods. The review results
should help the Sponsor with decisions regarding the level of cost control measures,
appropriateness and reasonableness of contingency provisions, and mitigations required; in
addition, the results will assist FTA with decisions regarding project advancement and funding.
OP 34: Project Schedule Review
Competent schedule management is necessary for sound project planning and control of time, costs
and risks. Congress and FTA’s good stewardship require that a Sponsor’s schedule be reliable
prior to FFGA. PMOC is conducting this review at the request of FTA, providing an evaluation of
the scope, schedule, and cost to confirm schedule reliability.
FTA’s objective is to determine whether the Sponsor’s schedule management and project schedule
are sufficient to plan and control the project time at the programmatic and contract level and
complement the management of scope, cost, and risk.

July 2021 (Final)
2.0 OP 40: RISK AND CONTINGENCY REVIEW
2.1 Summary of Status from other OPs
2.1.1 Details of Proposed Project Scope and Design Document Status
Based on review of the Sponsor’s provided documentation as well as input received during
workshops and meetings, PMOC is of the opinion that BSVII design had the following levels of
maturity as associated with the cost estimate submitted with the EPD application.
Profile 1 (CP1 – Systems)
 SCC 10 - Civils works – 30% average design
 SCC 50 - Systems works – 30% average design
Profile 2 (CP2 – Tunnels and Trackwork)
 SCC 10 Civils works – 15% average design
 SCC 10 Track installation works – 30% average design
 SCC 20 Civil works – 15% average design
 SCC 50 Systems related works – 30% average design
Profile 3 (CP3 – Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station)
 SCC 20 Santa Clara Station – less than 10% average design
 SCC 20 Balance – 15% average design
 SCC 30 Facility components – 30% average design
Profile 3 (Program-wide Right of Way (ROW), Vehicles, and Professional Services)
 SCC 60 ROW – 15% average design
 SCC 70 Vehicles – 60% average design
 SCC 80 Professional services – 15% average design
Profile 4 (CP4 – Underground Stations)
 SCC 20 All works – 15% average design
 SCC 40 Civil works - 15% average design
VTA has demonstrated through supplemental memoranda and sharing images of the project
design, including models and plans and reports, numerous virtual workshops that they are
aggressively progressing the design. However, the above list constitutes the determinations as
relevant to the cost risk model. PMOC’s conclusion regarding design maturity varies from VTA’s
because the project and site-specific elements are what constitute or dominate design maturity.
The use of standard drawings this early in the design development to quantify design maturity
skews the picture in PMOC’s opinion. Although design has advanced, there are still substantial
July 2021 (Final)
requirements and design decisions that will not be closed until there is concurrence from the PDB
and DB providing validation of the proof of concepts which VTA has progressed.
2.1.2 Environmental Clearance
FTA signed the ROD for BSVII in June 2018 as the culmination of the NEPA process which
included the 2004 Draft EIS (including Phase I and Phase II), a 2010 Final EIS (including Phase I
and Phase II), and a 2018 Final Supplemental EIS for BSVII. VTA has been coordinating with
FTA’s environmental specialist regarding any environmental re-evaluation requirements. PMOC
has been told that mitigation requirements are not expected to change substantially with the EPD
configuration.
VTA is incorporating the environmental mitigation commitments and requirements into the
appropriate contract documents to be included in the requests for proposals.
2.1.3 Project Delivery Method, Contract Packaging and Procurement Status
BSVII design and construction have been broken into four major construction contract packages.
Below Table 4 are detailed descriptions of the scope included in each package.
Table 4 Contract Packages
Package Construction Contract
Number Package Name Delivery Method RFQ Status RFP Solicitation Date
CP1 Systems Design Build Live October 2021
CP2 Tunnel and Trackwork Progressive Design Build Selected July 2021
Newhall Yard, Santa Clara
CP3 Station and Parking Garage Design Build August 2021 March 2022
CP4 Stations and Support Facilities Design Build June 2021 February 2022
*These dates are as reported in the February 2021 Project Schedule
CP1 – Systems Installations Design Build

CP1 is a DB Contract for the provision of all Systems for 4.7 miles of underground track alignment;
1.3 miles of at-grade track alignment including Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station; one at-
grade station (Santa Clara Station); three underground stations (28th Street Station, Downtown
San José Station, Diridon Station); outfitting of two mid-tunnel ventilation facilities; testing and
start-up; two systems interface coordination managers seconded to VTA to oversee interface,
integration and coordination efforts between Project contract packages to minimize VTA’s
exposure to claims; support for BART’s Rail Acceptance Officer (testing, start-up, California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) certification, etc.) starting 10-12 months prior to revenue
service availability.
CP2 – Tunnels and Trackwork
CP2 is a PDB Contract for the design and construction of approximately 4.7 miles of minimum
43’ interior diameter tunnel; procurement of a minimum 48’ diameter tunnel-boring machine
(TBM); station structural concrete within tunnel for two underground stations and two mid-tunnel
ventilation facilities (e.g. station and emergency egress platforms); internal concrete work
including emergency walkways, track slabs, invert, partition walls, etc.; east and west portals;
July 2021 (Final)
support of excavation (SOE) for the 28th Street/Little Portugal station, Downtown San José Station
and Diridon Station; tunnel liner knockout panels for adit connections and entrances; adits to the
tunnel and platforms; trackwork from the BSV Phase I tie-in to the east portal per BART standard
criteria; and associated utility relocations, as required.
CP3 – Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station
CP3 is a DB Contract for final design and construction of Newhall Yard & Maintenance Facility
(excluding train control systems); vehicle maintenance shops, car wash/cleaner buildings,
maintenance and engineering shops, yard control tower, wheel truing and blowdown facilities;
complete build-out of the end-of-the-line Santa Clara Station (excluding train control systems),
including two at-grade platforms with an underground concourse and pedestrian undercrossing
connection to the Santa Clara Caltrain Station; Newhall Yard trackwork, including turnouts,
crossovers and mainline trackwork to west portal; a 500-stall parking garage for Santa Clara
Station; associated utility relocations, as required; and final site flatwork, landscaping, etc.
CP4 – Underground Stations
CP4 is a DB Contract for the complete build-out of three underground stations, ancillary facilities
and two mid-tunnel ventilation facilities (excluding train control systems). This work includes rail
operations facilities within the stations; the 28th Street/Little Portugal Station (excluding
demolition and SOE which is included in Contract 2); Downtown San José Station (excluding SOE
which is included in Contract 2); Diridon Station (excluding SOE which is included in Contract
2); the 13th Street mid-tunnel ventilation facility; the Stockton Avenue mid-tunnel ventilation
facility; a 1,200-stall parking garage for 28th Street/Little Portugal Station; final site flatwork,
landscaping, etc.; and associated utility relocations, as required.
2.2 Project Cost Summary
The capital cost estimate (as submitted with the April 7, 2021 EPD application) is $6,941 million
YOE (inclusive of $389.72 million finance costs). Table 5 below provides PMOC’s summary of
VTA’s submitted estimate showing contingency and inflation values and percentages for
reference.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 5 Summary VTA Base Cost Estimate
Below in Table 6 is provided an overall summary of the base cost estimate (BCE) as submitted by
VTA without contingency, the VTA Stripped and Adjusted Base Cost Estimate (SABCE). PMOC
has segregated this estimate by VTA’s proposed main contract packages derived from their
estimate backup which has been used as a starting point for analysis by profile in the FTA Top-
Down cost model assessment. Some interpolation has been necessary where figures did not match
the SCC Build Main summary due to ‘in progress’ adjustments and latent contingency stripping
by VTA. To facilitate the most accurate assignment of BETA factors and profile specific global
adjustments the PMOC has utilized four profiles corresponding to the contract package scopes as
described above:
 Profile 1 – CP1 Systems Installations DB
 Profile 2 – CP2 Tunnels and Trackwork
 Profile 3 – CP3 Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station and Program Wide SCC 60, 70 &
80
 In addition to CP3, this profile includes the Project Wide elements of SCC 60 through 80.
This is to avoid adding a 'linked' workbook and these project wide elements do not overlap
the specifics of CP3 which are contained within SCC 10-50
 Profile 4 – CP4 Underground Stations

July 2021 (Final)
Table 6 Summary BCE (Base Year $ w/o Contingency) by Profile
The PMOC recommends several adjustments to the VTA BCE as above Table 6 prior to risk
application to form the SABCE. These adjustments are categorized into:
1. Direct Cost adjustments
2. Time related (schedule) adjustments
3. Latent contingency adjustments
Total adjustments amount to $728.17 million (Base Year $) as detailed in Table 7 below:
Table 7 Summary PMOC Adjustments
Adjustments have been calculated by and allocated to one of the four Profiles. Table 8 below
shows the allocation of PMOC recommended adjustments to the Profiles.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 8 Summary PMOC Adjustments by Profile
The final adjustment recommended by PMOC is for the general rate of inflation used by VTA.
VTA have used an inflation rate of 2.72% per annum. In the PMOC’s opinion this is overly
optimistic and, supported by market research into current trends and future forecasts at the date of
the FTA risk workshop, the PMOC recommends the inflation rate is increased to 3.50% per annum
and remain as specified in the SCC workbook issued by FTA. This results in an adjustment to the
Sponsors estimate (before the application of risk) of an additional $185.06 million. The application
of the inflation increase on the PMOC adjustments adds an additional $29.4 million inflation.
Table 9 below summarizes the PMOC’s adjustments and inflation uplift by Profile to provide a
revised estimate YOE, before the application of risk, at $6,105 million.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 9 PMOC SABCE (YOE) by Profile w/o Finance Charges
With the addition of VTA Finance charges at $389.72 million (YOE) to the $6,105 million revised
estimate YOE, this results in a total estimate at $6,495 million (YOE) before the application of
risk. This compares to a Sponsor estimate YOE before contingency at $5,458 million, a resulting
recommended increase of $1,037 million (YOE).
2.3 Project Schedule Summary
PMOC has received VTA’s latest basis of schedule dated April 16, 2021. The latest Program
schedule the PMOC has received from VTA, and against which the PMOC’s analysis and
commentary has been performed, comprises ten sub-schedules each updated by the Sponsor to
capture the “February 2021 Update” and all with a common data date (progress updated through)
March 1, 2021. Schedules are in Oracle P6 software and are referenced P0509-01 through 10
named as follows:
1. Program Management and Administration
2. Right of Way Acquisition
3. Design
4. Advertise, Bid and Award
5. Utilities
6. Permitting
7. Construction
8. Vehicles
9. Testing and Commissioning
10. Summary
These schedules are opened together forming the Integrated Master Project Schedule (IMPS) in
the Sponsor file named “MPS February 2021 Update 03-30-2021.xer.” No other schedules have
been provided to the PMOC.
Table 10 below shows the key project milestones.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 10 Key VTA Schedule Milestones
VTA has identified the projects critical path in their IMPS as running primarily through the CP2
Tunnel/Track contract package until it shifts to the CP1 system installation and testing activities
starting in December 2027. Procurement of the TBM, tunneling, structural concrete work in the
tunnel, and track installation are critical path activities. Subsequently, the critical path shifts to
systems installation and testing.
VTA have not yet developed staging and maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) plans which
they have said are in process of development and will be discussed with the City of San Jose and
City of Santa Clara along with other impacted stakeholders and the communities once finalized.
Input is expected from the CP2 contractor which is unlikely to be prior to award in the second
quarter of 2022. MPT will be required for ventilation shaft utility relocations in streets, ground
improvement access shafts and ventilation shaft SOE at a minimum.

July 2021 (Final)
3.0 BASELINE FOR RISK ASSESSMENT
3.1 Sponsor Cost Contingency
Identification of Latent and Patent Contingency
The PMOC has identified no areas requiring adjustment or deletion to remove Latent Contingency
(latent being hidden contingency in rates, quantities, or allowances). However, the PMOC has
identified, as part of their recommended adjustments, an excessive removal of latent contingency
as described below.
Sponsor Contingency Calculation
The Project Sponsor arrived at the estimated amount of allocated contingency for the project by
applying a considered percentage addition to calculated estimate line items although these appear
to have been unrelated to risk and purely based on considering estimating uncertainty.
The Sponsor’s allocated contingency was not supported by their Monte Carlo risk analysis as a
quantitative analysis. Allocated contingency was informed through the application of percentages
on each SCC level 2 addressing uncertainty in estimating source, pricing, and quantification.
A Monte Carlo (bottom-up) cost risk analysis was carried out to calculate unallocated contingency
based on identified ‘discrete’ cost and schedule risks. Risks contained in the VTA risk register
were given a range (minimum and maximum) and a uniform distribution applied. Risk probability
percentile was then used to create the Monte Carlo model. To the risk register generated risk value
was added an allowance for schedule delay adopting the distribution of schedule risk taken from
the schedule risk analysis and calculated by application of indirect running cost delays with an
inflationary allowance. This is, in the PMOC’s opinion, a crude estimation of risk and with the
lack of variability applied to the allocated contingency provides a narrow range of potential overall
cost risk exposure.
Table 11 below provides a summary of VTA’s allocated and unallocated contingency by SCC at
base year dollars and YOE dollars.
Allocated contingency amounts to 19% of SCC categories 10-80. Unallocated contingency
amounts to a further 11% on SCC categories 10-80. Total contingency amounts to 29% as a
percentage of SCC categories 10-80.
PMOC makes following observations regarding the Sponsor’s allocated contingency as set out in
Table 11.
 SCC 60, ROW, has an allocated contingency of 55% yet VTA have stated that they believe
the majority of ROW has been identified in the Real Estate Management Plan (RAMP) and
indeed only minor additional temporary construction easements are expected as work
proceeds to cover any construction related additional working space.
 SCC 70, Vehicles, only has a 4% allocated contingency applied which is significantly
below FTA guidance for a project in this stage of design and longevity

July 2021 (Final)
 SCC 80, Professional Services, only has a 6% allocated contingency applied which is
significantly below FTA guidance for a project in this stage of design and longevity
Table 11 Summary of Sponsor Contingency by SCC (L2)
The PMOC concludes that the imbalance resulting from VTA’s allowances assigned to SCC 70
and, in particular, SCC 80 is forming a misleading risk profile overall across the SCCs and suggests
the overall contingency is low.
3.2 Stripped and Adjusted Base Cost Estimate (SABCE)
In reviewing the VTA cost estimate, the PMOC has highlighted several recommended adjustments
to form a SABCE ready to be used in the Top-Down risk assessment and transferred to the

July 2021 (Final)
associated Profile tables in the Top-Down cost risk workbook. The adjustments have been
categorized into three headings:
A. Direct adjustments
B. Time related (schedule) adjustments
C. Latent contingency adjustments
VTA has submitted their EPD application based upon an estimate at completion of $6,941 million
(YOE). The application contained $389 million in finance costs. The FTA PMOC believes, based
on current detail provided, the base estimate is overly optimistic and should be increased by $1,037
(YOE) to account for low estimates, excessive stripping of contingency, additional schedule
duration and low base inflation. The cost adjustments can be summarized as follows:
A. Direct adjustments ($156 million BY$) for:
 Allowance for Hazardous Material removal ($2 million)
 Low staffing rates and staffing shortfalls ($154 million)
B. Time related (schedule) adjustments ($404 million BY$) to account for PMOC
recommended 18-month schedule adjustment broken down by Profile in Table 12 below.
Table 12 PMOC Summary Time-Related Cost Adjustments

July 2021 (Final)
C. Latent contingency adjustments (refer VTA spot memo dated May 14, 2021 titled Latent
contingency basis in EPD estimate):
 PMOC disagrees with contract profit reduced by 2% for each Contract Package (CP).
CP1, CP3 and CP4 were adjusted from 13% to 11%. CP2 was adjusted from 15% to
13%. ($63.2 million add back); market responses and industry inflationary pressures
do not support this proposed reduction
 PMOC disagrees with TBM production rate increase by 14% ($13.2 million add back);
TBM production rate already overly optimistic
 PMOC disagrees with time-related cost savings based on improved TBM production
rate ($7.2 million add back); TBM production rate already overly optimistic
 PMOC disagrees with precast concrete tunnel lining unit price decrease ($51m add
back); significant risk in PCC lining rate due to special breakouts and reinforced
sections likely to be required for corbel attachment, adit access and crossing of Silver
Creek fault, and casting/production facility location is unknown
 PMOC disagrees with any reduction on base estimate geotechnical items and
allowances; geotechnical allowances as estimated appear reasonable before
contingency ($38.4 million add back)
The VTA figures above total $173 million (BY dollars) and do not align to the difference between
the backup and the Build Main summary by approximately $4.39 million ($173.00 - $168.6).
BSVII Basis of Cost Estimate, Section 5.1.8, lists the same areas where latent contingency was
shifted to allocated contingency, still not aligning with the calculated difference by SCC between
the backup and the Main Build summary. Therefore, PMOC added the missing amounts back in
consistent with the “arithmetic error” between the Build Main summary and the backup, which
isolated it to SCC10-50 and distributed it proportionally across the contract packages. Table 14
demonstrates how the PMOC adjustment was allocated to the CPs and SCCs.
The proposed adjustment at $168.6 million equates to approximately $196 million YOE. Table 13
below summaries the latent contingency add back by SCC level 2 by Profile.
Table 13 PMOC Summary Latent Contingency Adjustment

July 2021 (Final)
3.3 Escalation and Inflation Review
VTA has estimated the cost of the project using 2020 as the base year and stated an internal RSD
of May 7, 2030. The RSD after contingency was stated in the VTA RCMP and the IMPS schedule
as September 15, 2032. The total cost included in the VTA EPD submission for inflation is $839
million ($6,941 – $6,102 million).
An annual escalation rate of 2.72% was used by VTA within its Inflation Worksheets for 2021 to
arrive at this inflation value.
VTA have issued quarterly market saturation study reports with the most recent copied to the
PMOC being Bulletin No. 8.1 dated May 3, 2021 covering the period through December 2020.
This report recommended an increase in annual inflation, termed ‘compound annual growth rate’
(CAGR) in the May 2021 market saturation study (MSS) report to 2.95%.
No sensitivity analysis was performed by VTA on inflationary impact (material, labor or
equipment) sensitivities or potential spikes in particular trades. No account was taken in the most
recent market saturation report of potential TOD driven local inflation, labor shortages, materials
shortages and sub-contractor bidding preferences which may arise through the planned extensive
and concurrent development notably around Diridon Station and 28th Street Station.
The PMOC notes the May 2021 MSS was prior to:
 The Presidential inauguration.
 The release under emergency approvals by the CDC of now three COVID-19 vaccines and
the significant opening up of the economy which is continuing to occur in all sectors.
 The now current President’s proposed infrastructure stimulus packages.
 Supply and demand driven materials shortages and labor wage pressures, increasing gas
prices and shortages of computer chips increasing new and used vehicle prices; and
 Engineering News Record’s most recent reports of significant inflationary pressures well
above the historic average 3.50% level.
The PMOC further notes:
 The Los Angeles Olympics schedule-driven infrastructure program is soon to command
dominance in the California construction market and
 The continuing and increased expenditure of the California High Speed Rail project as the
valley-to-valley engineering gains momentum with the environmental clearances
increasingly reaching their RODs
In the PMOC’s opinion, the 2.72% inflation rate applied is insufficient to cover reasonable
inflation over the planned duration of the project given the potential current inflationary bubble
being experienced and, in the PMOC’s opinion, the likelihood inflation will continue to stay above
average historic levels for the next 1-2 years and possibly longer.
This period of higher than average inflationary coincides with the main bidding period for all main
construction packages. VTA have stated fixed price bids are to be requested for contracts lasting

July 2021 (Final)
up to 7 years in duration. VTA, however, have not stated any clear policy on financing zero-cash-
flow through escrow accounts, payment in advance of completion for work planned to be
completed, escalation formula adjustments or other such risk mitigation measures to reduce
contactor exposure.
The PMOC recommends a 3.50% annual inflation allowance is applied to the base year dollar
values. This adjustment equates to $185 million when applied to the VTA base year dollar estimate
prior to the addition of PMOC adjustments as outlined above.
Table 14 below summarizes the inflated adjusted SABCE and the Sponsor contingency summary.
Table 14 Summary PMOC Inflated Adjusted SABCE
3.4 Sponsor Schedule Contingency

The basis of schedule (Revision No. E dated April 16, 2021) refers to ‘Schedule Contingency.’
More specifically, it states that the IMPS does not include any allocated contingencies with regards
to activity durations.
With the April 2021 EPD application submission, the Program duration from EPD application to
the RSD (early) of May 2030 is 110 months.
In the risk and contingency management plan (RCMP) (Revision No. 0.C dated April 16, 2021)
VTA have calculated the schedule contingency required to achieve 25% of their IMPS (which

July 2021 (Final)
VTA have stated is stripped and adjusted) as 28-month which when added to the Baseline Schedule
Completion RSD (early) of May 2030 results in an RSD (late) of September 2032.
In the PMOC’s opinion the unallocated contingency as currently presented in the VTA schedule,
and before the PMOC’s recommended adjustments, is insufficient to buffer schedule uncertainty
and the identified risks.
3.5 Stripped and Adjusted Base Schedule (SABS)
The PMOC has carefully considered the issues described in this report. The PMOC has reviewed
allowances for normal weather and other delays, the multiple work zones and the early developing
Newhall Yard staging and phasing, details of which have only recently been developed and
provided to the PMOC.
The project schedule is highly influenced by input required from the CP2 PDB tunnels and
trackwork contractor relating to:
 Time for on-boarding after the CP2 Notice to Proceed (NTP), office establishing, BIM
model integration, initial critical design progression and stakeholder approvals of proposed
means and methods and validation of critical construction working and access space
(potentially requiring additional property, temporary or permanent) overall space proofing
and tunnel diameter confirmation
 Utility owner (public and private) ability to meet the schedule required access dates for
utility relocations (no schedule or cost commitments understood to have been provided by
any Utility owner at this time)
 Negotiations, and potential unforeseen impacts to design progression, to reach a lump sum
price for the CP2 scope (by the proposed NTP2 milestone)
 Design interfaces yet to be fully worked through between CP2, CP1(systems), CP3
(Newhall Yard notably phasing and handover and site earth fill to make up levels) and CP4
(contractual interfaces at tunnel / underground station fit outs)
 Tunnel boring machine type, manufacturer, detailed specification, and related
manufacturing and delivery period
 Tunnel concrete liner design, joint waterproofing, the seismic isolation design detailing,
and the special reinforced sections and ductile iron sections required at adit breakouts and
at the Silver Creek fault crossing
 Spoil (muck) treatment and disposal strategy
 Tunnel, station box and ventilation facility buoyancy control
 Approach (means and methods) of tunnel structural fit out with particular reference to the
attachment of the horizontal slab corbels to the concrete tunnel liner
 Dewatering, ground de-pressurization, ground treatment, ground stabilization and overall
ground and property (including existing utilities) monitoring
 Construction staging areas and subsequent sharing / release to other contractors
 Sequence, interface, and access to follow on contractors particularly in completion of the
underground station structures and systems installations

July 2021 (Final)
All the above activities, and these are a sample of issues to be urgently resolved once the CP2
contractor is on-boarded, highly influence the entire project schedule, construction interfaces and
risk sharing.
The IMPS is highly influenced by the tunnel mining productivity rate. A reduced advance rate
provides additional time for relocation of utilities, ground treatment and construction of SOE for
portals, approach works, stations and ventilation facilities and reduces the risk of interface delays
should the tunnel mining be delayed. In the PMOC’s opinion the VTA baseline schedule assumes
an overly ambitious tunnel mining rate which in turn results in significant lack of float at the critical
interfaces making the entire project highly risky and exposed to contractual claims for delay and
disruption. The procurement of CP1, CP3 and CP4 against these highly ambitious access dates
from the tunnel mining is likely to result in contractual disputes from the outset whilst making the
negotiation of a lump sum for the CP2 PDB contract increasingly challenging.
At this still early stage in the design and procurement process the PMOC believes historic norms
must be applied and a conservative approach to risk taken. In this regard the PMOC is of the
opinion that:
 VTA have overly stripped the project schedule
 The tunnel mining rate is overly optimistic and inconsistent with similar large diameter
tunnels in urban environments
 With the significant critical means and methods to be developed as the CP2, and the other
construction packages, proceed through the procurement process schedule contingency
must be based on a robust baseline schedule
After careful consideration the PMOC recommends an overall adjustment to the VTA RSD (as
reported in the latest schedule submitted March 2021 with progress updated through March 1,
2021), of 18 months resulting in a revised RSD, before contingency, of November 7, 2031.
There follows a description of adjustments made to the VTA schedule, both critical and non-
critical path (and before the application of risk) to provide a ‘stripped and adjusted base schedule’.
Critical Path Impacting Adjustments
1. VTA IMPS allowance for mobilization after NTP1 of CP2 fails to allow sufficient time to
establish an integrated office environment, BIM system model transfer and integration,
staffing establishment and logistics. This period typically takes 3 to 6 months however with
the PDB approach and advancements in remote working seen under the COVID-19
restrictions PMOC has constrained its proposed additional time to 1 month (note 2 months
activity duration but only 1 month critical path impact) for the minimum required prior to
a realistic start-up in the VTA project office.
2. VTA IMPS allows slightly less than 12 months from award of a TBM contract to a delivery
to the Newhall Yard site covering design, manufacture, factory testing and delivery (Order
placed June 28, 2022 through delivery on June 30, 2023). VTA have included a very high
risk (95% probability) in their risk register (ref. 9/30/20 Risk ID BSV-139) of a delay in
the manufacturing period. The note included against this risk states “The team estimated a

July 2021 (Final)
22-month duration for procurement. Very high likelihood of a 4 to 6-month delay to the
current plan.” In the PMOC’s opinion this base duration is too low and has increased the
duration by 3 months to 15 months commensurate with feedback from typical industry
procurement timelines.
3. VTA IMPS is based on a tunnel daily production rate (6 days / week) of between 40 and
50 feet per day and calculates to an overall average of 44 feet per day. References to similar
large diameter tunnels have been provided by VTA in two reports:
 Constructability review report Rev.0, August 17, 2020 (see Table 15 below) and
 Project Spot memo: Supplemental Risk Information dated May 17, 2021 see Table 16
below)
Table 15 Large TBM References (from 2020 Constructability Report)

July 2021 (Final)
Table 16 Large TBM References (from May 2021 Risk Spot Memo)
TBM references provided in Table 15 above from the 2020 Constructability report did not provide
production rates. TBM references provided in Table 16 above from the 2021 risk spot memo report
provided production rates per week but no details were provided of what the definition of a ‘week’
was. In neither table were background details expanded to provide location, environment, ground
conditions, issues encountered, whether the production rates included or excluded stoppages and
so on.
The PMOC has investigated from web articles and other sources additional details of each of the
named tunnel references. Table 17 below provides a summary of the findings:

July 2021 (Final)
Table 17 Large TBM Research by PMOC
An analysis of Table 17 above provides the following observations:

 Out of all the tunnel references provided by VTA in their two reference documents
provided to the PMOC only four are in urban environments and out of these only two are
rail tunnels (Barcelona [Spain] and Kuala I & II [Malaysia])
 Barcelona is quoted by VTA with a daily production rate of 10 feet per day; Kuala I & II
is quoted by VTA with a daily production rate of 21 feet per day
 Barcelona is known to be fraught with delays and problems
 Referencing Kuala I & II a recent article on the ‘web’ stated: “We had two standard slurry
machines on that project and we did suffer about 50 sinkholes and escape of slurry to the
surface. This did cause disruption to the city streets and delays in tunneling.”
 Two large diameter tunnels, similar to the size proposed for BSVII, have been completed
in the USA over recent years and both referenced by VTA above: Port of Miami highway
tunnel and SR99 highway tunnel (Alaska Way Seattle). PMOC has researched Port of
Miami tunnel and calculated an approximate average overall daily production rate achieved
of 18 feet per day. Seattle SR99 was quoted by VTA as achieving a daily production rate
of 47 feet per day however PMOC suggests this was excluding the significant stoppages
that occurred and “rescue” operation to replace the main bearing. When the overall duration
from TBM launch to TBM final breakthrough is calculated the actual average daily
production rate equates to just 7 feet per day.

July 2021 (Final)
 Tunnel references to under water and / or under mountain / hill / rural terrain, especially in
countries having lesser environmental and safety regulations compared to that of the USA,
are in the PMOC’s opinion not directly comparable. In addition, the BSVII project has
several critical interfaces which many of the quoted references above do not have being
typically A to B drives.
 The first tunnel referenced in the 2020 constructability report (now removed from the most
recent May 2021 memo), the Tokyo Outer Ring highway tunnel, was reported in February
2021 in press articles as “continuing to suffer reports of sinkholes.”
The PMOC has also reviewed the responses to questions and outreach conducted by VTA over the
period August 2020 through March 2021. Specific to the CP2 Tunnels and Trackwork contract
package six tunnel consortia responded to RFIF requests and attended interviews with VTA. As
part of the responses each provided indicative TBM overall mining durations (before risk and, in
some cases, it appeared, excluding normal maintenance allowances). Table 18 below lists the CP2
RFIF mining duration responses. Please note those respondents chosen as bidders for CP2 are
marked*; PMOC was notified of the selection and announcement during the FTA risk workshop.
Table 18 CP2 Mining Duration Responses from VTA RFIF Process
By comparison, the overall mining duration included in the VTA IMPS is 24.7 months.
The VTA IMPS assumes and includes 3 planned maintenance interventions to inspect and replace
as needed TBM cutters and conduct other TBM routine maintenance. These are highlighted in
Table 19 below at the Stockton Street ventilation facility, at the 13th Street ventilation facility and
at the 28th Street station box. The total tunnel drive is 24,929 feet. The VTA IMPS calculates the
overall daily production rate at 43.97 feet / day (including allowance stated for the three planned
maintenance interventions).
The PMOC considers this average overall planned production rate overly optimistic and well
above comparable projects as detailed above. Table 19 below provides, against each drive, the
PMOC’s opinion of an ambitious production rate of between 25 and 30 feet per day ignoring initial
July 2021 (Final)
break through and first 300 feet of drive. PMOC also considers the baseline schedule should
include for planned maintenance interventions on average after each mile driven or at least at each
intersection with a ventilation or station structure. The PMOC therefore recommends maintenance
interventions be included at:
1. Stockton Street Ventilation Facility
2. Diridon Station
3. DTSJ Station
4. 13th Street Station
5. 28th Street Station
Taking the recommended reduced tunnel production rate and additional proposed planned
maintenance interventions into consideration the PMOC recommends an average overall daily
production rate of 27.73 feet / day. This equates to an overall mining duration of approximately
38.5 months compared to VTA’s proposed 24.7 months and the average ‘of ‘averages’ from the
RFIF process of 39.4 months. The PMOC considers this is still very ambitious, is likely to result
in challenges to negotiate with the selected CP2 contractor and anticipates further risk to be
negotiated on top of this adjusted production rate. The resulting recommended adjustment to the
schedule critical path is 14 months.
Table 19 Mining Productivity Analysis and Adjustment Summary
The resulting overall impact to the VTA IMPS critical path from the above recommended
adjustments is 18 months.

July 2021 (Final)
Non-Critical Path (Before Risk) Impacting Adjustments
1. VTA IMPS is missing any successor to the FTA EPD process award. Change logic to tie
with NTP's of each contract - FTA/FFGA will 'not stop' VTA releasing RFP's to market.
VTA have pre-award authority equivalent to a standard Capital Investment Grants project
in Project Development phase that has completed NEPA. Note that the PMOC has no risk
included for VTA failure to progress activities where pre-award authority exists
2. VTA IMPS does not include any additional geotechnical investigations. The likelihood of
further investigations in the adit locations was stated as high and in order to potentially
apply risk a placeholder activity is required in the schedule. Add an activity for boreholes
at all station adits during first 6 months of the CP2 NTP/ through CP2 NTP/2 period as a
placeholder and link to (make predecessor to) PDB NTP/2
3. VTA IMPS includes summary schedule logic for parcel acquisitions with multiple
instances of latent contingency which requires ‘stripping’. Change all ROW property
acquisitions durations to reflect a 90 day 'quick take' process in place of 'effective
possession period' (Effective possession duration adjusted to 3 months = 65 working days;
Relocation duration adjusted to 6 months = 130 working days)
4. VTA IMPS is outdated as regards procurement and engagement of the CP construction
managers. Extend durations of procurement of all CM's to tie with NTP of each
construction package (3-month lag Finish to Start to allow for mobilization)
5. VTA IMPS period of CP1 procurement overlap with CP2 is believed too aggressive.
Extend duration of CP1 procurement by 3 months to provide additional time for bidding
and stagger receipt of bids
6. VTA IMPS period for review of CP1 bids believed too aggressive. Review period
unrealistic for this size package taking into account BIM model coordination and
incorporation of best and final offers process (BAFO) with feedback from CP2. Extend
review period to 7 months
7. VTA IMPS significantly overlaps the TBM delivery and assembly with the construction
of the west portal approaches and west cut and cover approach structures. Three months is
allowed for the TBM assembly which is shown to take place in parallel with the portal area
excavations and approach structures ground improvements and site preparations. In the
PMOC’s opinion and given the ground improvement and dewatering required and the fact
that the TBM assembly ground slab will be required to support logistics in and out of the
tunnel for some considerable time, this logic is unrealistic. The PMOC has changed the
schedule logic to reflect this preparation work must be completed before the TBM
assembly and site testing can commence. This logic change adds 3 months to the base
schedule but has not resulted in a critical path impact due to embedded leads and lags in
the VTA IMPS.
8. VTA IMPS shows significant overlap of tunnel structural concrete fit out with tunnel
mining operations. PMOC is of the opinion the overlap shown is overly ambitious taking
account of the challenges in soil ballast placement in the tunnel invert sections, fixing of
the corbel support structures and the many interface constraints at ventilation shafts, station
and ventilation shaft adit connections and station box locations. PMOC has adjusted tunnel
concrete fit out durations adding 6 months overall duration to these operations. However,
July 2021 (Final)
no impact is shown to the critical path as the recommended reduced tunnel mining
production rate induces float in these otherwise critical / near critical activities.
9. VTA IMPS has no activity for ‘special trackwork’. PMOC has added for the purposes of
risk identification. No impact to the project critical path.
10. Additional activities have been added into the PMOC’s summary schedule reflecting
VTA’s most recent phasing and staging plans for Newhall Yard as well as including site
fill operations. These have the effect of delaying commencement of CP3 Newhall Yard
and Santa Clara contract works but have no impact to the project critical path.
11. VTA IMPS has no successor to vehicle manufacture and delivery. VTA have advised
testing and start up can be undertaken using the existing fleet. Make RSD successor to
vehicle procurement.
12. Various logic and duration changes were introduced to expand the very high-level detail
contained in the VTA IMPS for underground station fit out and associated interfacing with
systems installations, testing and start-up. None of these logic changes impact to the project
critical path.
All adjustments described above have been applied to the FTA PMOC’s summary schedule
developed from the sponsor’s IMPS. This summary schedule is described in more detail under the
‘schedule risk assessment’ section which follows below in this report.

July 2021 (Final)
4.0 RISK IDENTIFICATION
4.1 Introduction
The BSVII is a project in the new FTA EPD Pilot Program. The risk assessment on the BSVII has
been conducted following the FTA OP 40c Risk and Contingency Management guidance modified
where necessary to align with the EPD process. The project is a ‘mega project’ and is at an early
stage of design.
The PMOC has completed a Scope, Cost and Schedule review in parallel with preparing for and
conducting the OP 40c risk assessment. PMOC has also completed a review of the Sponsors PMP
in addition to reviewing the Sponsors capacity and capability, safety and security management,
quality assurance and quality management procedures and property acquisition plan.
Design is progressing at a pace commensurate with establishing and validating alignment, space
and capacities ahead of procurement of a main civils works contractor to undertake the tunneling
and trackwork under a PDB form of contract targeted for appointment in the second quarter of
2022.
This section of the report details the risk identification process, the FTA compressed risk workshop
and the results of the cost and schedule risk assessment. The PMOC has also reviewed the Sponsors
Risk and Contingency Management Plan (RCMP). The risk assessment builds from the SABCE
and SABS described in the previous section of the report.
Following this section, the PMOC presents their cost and schedule risk assessment, results and
recommendations for contingency capacity and risk mitigation.
4.2 Overview of Process
The PMOC has received project documentation from the Sponsor through their ongoing
monitoring role however the risk assessment is based on final documentation, and latest revisions
of previously issued documentation, received on or before May 14, 2021.
A compressed FTA risk workshop was held over six 2-hour virtual “TEAMS” sessions on Monday
May 10, Tuesday May 11, and Wednesday May 12, 2021. Prior to the risk workshop information
and Question and Answer sessions were provided by the Sponsor to inform the PMOC of scope,
cost, and schedule. The sessions included a review of the Sponsors Building Information
Management (BIM) interactive integrated design Model. The information sessions included status
presentations on utility relocation proposals, property acquisitions, ground improvements and
structural design proposals in addition to space proofing and fire/life/safety and evacuation
modelling proposals.
The PMOC has reviewed the Sponsors risk register. As a result of reviews, the PMOC team has
proposed some different assessments to the current risks (probability and / or impact) and added
additional risks to the Sponsors risk register. The output risk register from the FTA risk workshop
is included as Appendix F.

July 2021 (Final)
4.3 FTA Risk Workshop
The risk workshop was held “virtually” over three days. The attendees at the workshop are
included as Appendix D and the workshop agenda is included as Appendix E. Two 2-hour “virtual”
sessions were held each day. Format of the risk workshop was as follows:
Session 1
 Introductions and Opening Remarks
 Project introduction and virtual site visit
Session 2
 Baseline Scope, Project Management, and Contracting Scheme
 Baseline Schedule
Session 3
 Baseline Cost
 Schedule and Cost Contingencies
Session 4
 “My top risk” round table
 VTA Risk Register – recent updates
 VTA Risk Register – top 10 risks
Session 5
 Conclude discussions on VTA Top Risks
 Presentation by VTA on basis for ground improvement cost estimation, potential
innovations by DB’s and further clarifications on PMOC scope, cost and schedule review
 PMOC proposed top 10 risks discussion.
Session 6 a/b
 Reserved for follow-up topics from previous sessions.
 Wrap-up, Next actions, Closing Formalities.
PowerPoint presentations provided by the Sponsor are included as Appendix G and the PMOC’s
summary PowerPoint presentations from the workshop are included as Appendix H. The SABCE
and SABS are presented in the Quantitative section of this report immediately following this
section.
The review of the PMOC’s observations and recommended changes to the Sponsors risk register
were discussed in summary during the 3rd day of the workshop (Session 5). Workshop time
constraints limited discussions to only the most significant risks including the PMOC’s proposed
adjusted “Top Risks.” PMOC proposed additional risks were presented but not further discussed.

July 2021 (Final)
The PMOC took account of discussion, new information, comments, and responses to questions
during the 6-session (1 ½ day) risk workshop and has used this to inform the risk assessment
presented in the Quantitative section of this report. All assessments are pre-mitigated and the
PMOC provides recommendations at the end of this report and actions to be taken to mitigate risk.
4.3.1 My Top Risk
At the start of session 4, Day 2, the PMOC requested each ‘attendee’ to provide their ONE Top
Risk the objective being to initiate discussion and provide the workshop with an opening statement
of the greatest threats on the minds of the project team and PMOC review team. Duplicates were
allowed. The results are shown below in Table 20.
Table 20 My TOP Risk
Out of the 29 responses, five (5) related directly to concerns over the proposed tunnel production
rate. Underlying trends pointed to a consensus in risk exposure to overall program duration for
design and construction and the challenges in coordination and interfaces between the four main
construction packages.

July 2021 (Final)
4.3.2 Scoring of Risks
The Sponsors risk register adopted a 5x5 risk matrix to score and rank risks which is shown for
reference in Table 21 below.
Table 21 VTA Risk Matrix
The Sponsors risk register adopted Impact and Probability levels as shown for reference in Table
22 below. In the PMOC opinion risk impact levels are reasonable although are likely to produce a
risk distribution resulting in a larger number of risks rated ‘high’ given the longevity and monetary
size of the project.
Table 22 VTA Risk Matrix Legend: Impact & Probability Levels
Comments and observations of the PMOC captured prior to and at the risk workshop discussions
are included against each risk in the risk register. The output risk register from the risk workshop
is included as Appendix F and the PMOC’s summary PowerPoint presentations from the risk
workshop are included as Appendix H.
4.3.3 Distribution of Risks
The VTA most recent risk register dated March 31, 2021 and submitted to the PMOC at the end
of April 2021 contains 85 live risks. The FTA PMOC adjusted risk register adds 27 new risks
resulting in a total of 112 current risks. Seven (7) risks out of the 112 total risks were subsequently
considered ‘duplicate’ by the PMOC, 4 of these ‘duplicate’ risks being PMOC added risks.

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 2 Risk Distribution by FTA Category (No.)
Figure 2 above shows the risks per FTA category and demonstrates a well-balanced distribution
of risks. Figure 3 below shows risks per FTA risk category by percentage of the total number of
risks. Figure 4 shows the risk distribution by VTA impact category by FTA SCC code and
demonstrates BSVII risk dominating in SCC 10, 40 and 80.
Figure 3 Risk Distribution per FTA Risk Category (%)

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 4 Risk Distribution per FTA SCC
4.3.4 Top Project Risks

PMOC has identified 14 risks as “High.” VTA have identified 10 risks as “High.” Four “High”
risks are common to PMOC and VTA.
Table 23 below provides a complete listing of PMOC and VTA “High” (Red) risks in rank order
(by PMOC assessment) of highest to lowest. A ‘blue’ shading indicates a change to the VTA
current assessment by the PMOC.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 23 Project Risks Rated as “High”
Risks numbered “PMOC_xx” and shown in Red text have been added by the PMOC. PMOC has
raised four (4) new “High” rated risks and recategorized four (4) current VTA risks as “High.”
PMOC suggests six (6) risks identified by VTA as “High” are of a lesser severity for these reasons.
 BSV-005: Extensive ground improvement, property protection and monitoring is priced in
base estimate and ‘risked’ which should significantly mitigate property damage
 BSV-041: Existing ground conditions are well understood; ground improvement measures
priced in estimate are designed to work with these known challenging ground conditions.
PMOC has recharacterized this risk (under PMOC_27) as time and cost to perform ground
improvements is the greater risk.
 BSV-139: PMOC has recommended an adjustment to the TBM procurement duration and
the residual risk of further delays is reduced

July 2021 (Final)
 BSV-134: PMOC has reduced this risk since laydown areas are well understood and site
constraints known. Cost and schedule adjustments have been recommended to take account
of known constraints
 BSV-084: PMOC’s understanding is potential delays and additional costs to the project as
a result of CBTC implementation by BART is a lower risk now that a decision milestone
date (November 2022) has been agreed between VTA and BART.
 BSV-133: The tie-in to the existing Phase 1 track and systems is understood to not be of as
high a concern to the VTA team as this risk suggested before additional coordination with
BART was conducted.
4.3.5 Top Risks by FTA SCC
Below is provided a listing of identified risks ranked as “High” (Red) risks by FTA SCC. A ‘blue’
shading indicates a change to the VTA current assessment. Where VTA have identified a risk as
“High” (Red) and FTA have lowered that risk to a lesser category the VTA “High” risk is shown.
SCC 10 Guideway and Trackwork
The PMOC has recharacterized VTA risk BSV-041 ‘Differing ground conditions’ as PMOC_26
reduced TBM mining production rate (in compensating and managing the known significantly
challenging ground conditions) and PMOC_27 time and cost to perform jet grouting and other
ground improvement and property protection measures.
PMOC ranks future escalation (and associated market driven labor, material and plant costs and
availability) as the potentially greatest threat which may impact both cost and time. This is then
followed by the challenges in reaching an agreement on a lump sum and risk allocation with the
successful CP2 contractor whilst maintaining schedule and design coordination.
Table 24 SCC 10 “High” Risks
SCC 20 Stations, Stops and Shelters

No “High” risks have been identified in SCC 20 by either VTA or the PMOC. Most of the risk is
seen to lie with CP2. There is high risk of the CP1 (systems installations) and CP4 (underground
stations) being delayed by the CP2 (tunnels and trackwork) contract but these costs and schedule
July 2021 (Final)
impacts are assumed to be the result of and attributable to CP2 which is where risk mitigation
would reside.
SCC 30 Support Facilities
No “High” risks have been identified in SCC 30 by either VTA or the PMOC. CP4 (Newhall Yard
and Santa Clara station) may be constrained by release of the Newhall Yard site by CP2. The Yard
and facility layout is said to be agreed in principle with BART and the Santa Clara station has
undergone a simplification from that proposed in the initial design proposals. Utility relocations,
specifically the large Sprint fiber optic duct bank on Newhall Yard connecting to the point of
preference facility, is stated by VTA as not impacting either CP2 or CP4 construction operations.
The point of preference facility will be avoided, and the duct bank will now be the responsibility
of the CP2 contractor as enabling works for the West Portal. Inflation and / or an extended CP4
overall contract duration may result from delays in handover of the construction areas from CP2.
SCC 40 Site Works
PMOC and VTA share a common “High” risk that the CP2 PDB contractor, due to selected means
and methods, chosen constructability and / or design detailing, may require late changes to partially
or fully designed and potentially already relocated utilities. This is particularly at risk in the
Stockton Street and 13th Street ventilation facility locations although could occur at any portal,
portal approach, station, or ventilation facility location.
The VTA proposed “High” risk relating to property damage is considered a lower risk since the
extensive ground improvements and monitoring planned and costed by VTA should significantly
mitigate this potential risk. PMOC has applied standard BETA to the ground improvements base
costs noting the need for contingency in this category. Design is currently at an early stage and the
PMOC anticipates significant effort will be applied to mitigate this risk by the CP2 PDB in
collaboration with the VTA team. Risk is more related to pricing uncertainty than unforeseen
conditions.
The PMOC considers dealing with Contaminated material may be more costly and potentially
constraining than VTA have envisaged and recommend this is ranked as a “High” risk to draw
attention to action required to further identify areas of exposure and explore methods for dealing
with contaminated ground and muck.

July 2021 (Final)
SCC 50 Systems
The most significant risk to the CP1 systems installations is design integration with CP2, CP3 and
indeed CP4 and adequate and timely construction access to complete the CP1 scope of works.
Delays to access are most likely to occur by late handover of work areas and concurrent activities
of the CP2 tunnels and trackwork contractor.
The PMOC has applied ‘normal’ risk exposure to systems installations, testing and start-up
activities in both costs, through application of BETA, and schedule duration exposure risk
assessments. PMOC and VTA have identified Testing and Commissioning as a “High” risk and
this is included under SCC 80.08.
Design integration is at an early stage. Integration and collaboration with BART Operations is
stated as progressing well and significant efforts will be required in achieving design configuration
between the four construction packages. Lessons have been learned from Warm Springs and Phase
I of the BART extensions and a greater collaborative effort is being seen between VTA and BART
project teams.
PMOC suggests two (2) risks identified by VTA as “High” are of a lesser severity as described
above: BSV-084 (CBTC) and BSV-133 (Phase I tie-in).
SCC 60 ROW
PMOC believes VTA have potentially understated the risk of additional ROW being identified as
the CP2 PDB contractor progresses detailed design of property protections, utility relocations and
construction working space required to construct the large underground facilities.
In addition, the property market is historically seen as a high-risk cost area which may, depending
on the market and economy, benefit or stress the projects budget and contingency. In inner city
high value locations property values and negotiations with landowners have also significantly
delayed projects in dealing with local politics, large landowners, relocations impacting local work
force and powerful community action groups. BSVII is understood to be supported by both cities
and the multiple stakeholders but economic and political external influences can quickly change
commitments and previously collaborative partners and landowners’ positions. PMOC has applied
recommended BETA factors to base cost and risk to schedule duration commensurate with the
level of current design. PMOC views ROW in general a “High” risk.

July 2021 (Final)
SCC 70 Vehicles
No “High” risks have been identified in SCC 70 by either VTA or the PMOC.
VTA have stated that vehicle delivery and commissioning pose no risk to project RSD. Existing
fleet will be used to support testing, commissioning, and start-up if there are delays in the
manufacture or delivery of BSVII vehicles.
PMOC does consider risk exists in vehicle costs and procurement and has applied a greater risk
factor than that applied by VTA to SCC 70.
SCC 80 Professional Services
SCC 80 collects and groups many time related impacting program risks.
VTA and PMOC share three (3) common “High” risks in this category. PMOC has suggested a
reduced likelihood of contract interface delays than VTA against risk # BSV-066, multiple contract
interfaces, as PMOC has reduced tunnel productivity as a recommended schedule adjustment
which has in turn introduces float at all ventilation and station / tunnel interfaces. PMOC has in
addition recommended a further schedule adjustment in increasing the overlap between tunnel
mining and tunnel structural fit out to reduce interface risk. Nevertheless, PMOC acknowledges
that even after these recommended adjustments interface issues remain a significant management
challenge for VTA.
VTA’s most recently issued risk register adds risk # BSV-171, shown below, but PMOC believes
this is understated and has recommended this is elevated to a “High” risk as the probability of
delays and additional costs due to interface management in this highly complex and integrated
project is seen as one of the major challenges to be faced by the VTA project team as the project
progresses into engineering and detailed design.
PMOC has introduced two new risks rated as “High” in this category.
 PMOC has included cost adjustment to SCC 80 in arriving at the SABCE. Notwithstanding
this recommended adjustment, VTA/BART staffing levels will be challenged in
performing the significant configuration management effort required, which VTA have
stated during discussions and presentations will include management of the project BIM
integrated design model.
 PMOC has been informed during discussions and through documentation including text
included in the most recent RCMP that an OCIP (Owner Controlled Insurance Program)
program is proposed but details and the costs of this are still in early stages of formulation.
Prior project experience points to this project being well suited to an OCIP however effort
and cost in management of such programs and cost of deductibles often exceed Sponsor
July 2021 (Final)
estimations, albeit final costs may well be lower than that which would have been incurred
under a CCIP (Contractor Controlled Insurance Program).
SCC 90 Unallocated Contingency

No “High” risks have been identified in SCC 90 by either VTA or the PMOC.
The VTA risk register contains one (1) risk in this category (BSV-029) concerning VTA’s ability
to finance potential cost increases. PMOC has not adjusted this risk although highlights that the
considerable variance in risk assessment (cost and schedule) developed in this report may raise
this to a ‘High” risk going forwards.
SCC 100 Finance Costs
No risks have been identified in SCC 100 by either VTA or the PMOC. Risks associated with the
amount of and / or costs of finance are EXCLUDED from this risk assessment.
4.3.6 Remaining Risks
As shown in Table 29 below, 74 risks were classified as ‘Medium’ and 24 risks were classified as
‘Low’.
Table 29 Total Number of Risks by VTA Impact Classification
The output risk register from the FTA risk workshop is included as Appendix F.

July 2021 (Final)
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report provides a more detailed summary of the risk analysis results for both
schedule and cost. All results are reported against the baselines SABCE and SABS established in
the previous sections. The reader’s attention is particularly directed towards the list of assumptions
and exclusions as listed below.
5.2 Assumptions/Qualifications/Exclusions
5.2.1 General
The Quantitative Schedule and Cost Risk Analysis (QRA) is based on credible ranges of possible
schedule and cost deviations.
The risk study does not deal with extreme events such as wars, serious earthquakes, stock market
crashes, or multiple deaths / injuries from site accident(s) / Acts of God and any further resurgence
of the global COVID Pandemic, COVID-19 variant or the like.
The risk assessment assumes VTA will progress utility relocations, property acquisitions, the
procurement of the four main construction packages and CP Construction Manager appointments
in parallel to the 120-day EPD review process in alignment with the current VTA IMPS and
regardless of any adverse reaction to interim communication of results from this risk assessment.
The risk assessment does not include any uplift for the project being classified as ‘mega’. Research
indicates significant cost increases have occurred on major infrastructure projects closely
correlated with the number of external stakeholders and TOD. OP 40c provides background and
warnings as to the risks impacting ‘mega’ projects. Not all ‘mega’ projects run significantly over
budget and / or schedule and with an experienced Agency as is VTA in collaboration with BART
no additional BETA has been applied related to ‘mega’ status that would impact the P65 cost and
schedule assessment.
Ground control, avoidance of settlement and management and control of adverse property damage
given the large diameter tunnel in these known challenging ground conditions in the highly urban
and historic environment is a major risk on this project. The alignment is known for irrigational
wells and oil wells and VTA have conducted extensive ground investigations and location surveys
to map past obstructions of all types that could impede tunneling and SOE operations. Accuracy
and completeness of historic records cannot be guaranteed. It should be noted that the P65 values,
cost or schedule, will not buffer a risk similar to that which occurred on SR99 Alaska Way Tunnel
(Seattle) and tunnel production risks applied do not take account of such catastrophic delays which
would be classified as an ‘extreme event’.
No risks have been identified in SCC 100 by either VTA or the PMOC. Risks associated with the
amount of and / or costs of finance are EXCLUDED from this risk assessment.
The Sponsor is advised to carefully consider insurance strategy, insurance coverage, insurance
coverage limits and exposure of the Sponsor Agency, Cities and State to all types of residual risk.

July 2021 (Final)
5.2.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions apply to the risk assessment.
1. Recent communications have identified VTA has only two qualified bidders for the CP1
systems contract. The risk assessment assumes CP1 systems contract will attract greater
than two qualified bidders and resulting compliant offers and that VTA will revise bid
documentation and strategy as needed to ensure a competitive bidding environment is
achieved.
2. Cooperative agreements are yet to be signed with the Cities of Santa Clara and San Jose
and some Agreements remain outstanding with the multiple impacted Utility Owners.
Regardless of any agreements which are now in place, PMOC understands that VTA has
currently no commitment to cost or schedule from Utility owners. The risk assessment is
based on standard BETA factors for cost and normal schedule delay exposure and assumes
a timely and pro-active approach to engaging Utility owners in progressing utility
relocation design and construction as far as a possible in advance of the main construction
works. Given this assumption and the time available in the schedule PMOC has assumed
these Agreements and enabling works are not “High” risk.
3. The risk assessment assumes new vehicles are not required for systems testing or startup
which will be undertaken using the existing BART fleet if necessary.
4. The project design and space proofing is understood to allow for the potential future
incorporation of platform screen doors (PSD) however neither the estimate or risk
assessment allows for the introduction and incorporation of PSD’s.
5. The risk assessment assumes if BART should introduce CBTC cost and / or schedule
impacts will not impact systems installations, systems testing or the RSD of the BSVII
directly.
6. PMOC has not been made aware of other concurrent City projects, impacting TOD or any
interface constraints arising from future connecting projects (e.g. California High Speed
Rail). The assumption is no concurrent or interfacing projects will adversely constrain the
base scope of this project
7. The BSVII has significant interfaces with TOD at Diridon and 28th Street station locations.
It is assumed, and PMOC has been advised, concurrent TOD will not be allowed to impact
progression of base scope and any additional costs of schedule delays which may arise
through requests and agreements to incorporate TOD scope will be paid for by the
impacting TOD.
8. Construction sequencing and maintenance of traffic plans is understood to be awaiting
appointment of the CP2 PDB. VTA have stated MPT plans are being progressed in a
preliminary fashion such that principles have been communicated with relevant impacted
stakeholders and 3rd parties and a rudimentary plan will be included in the RFP documents
as a starting point for the design builders. VTA have stated a high level of support for the
project exists along the alignment. The assumption is that the eventual construction
sequencing and maintenance of traffic plans (MPT) will be agreed to by the Cities of San
Jose and Santa Clara and any impacted communities, businesses, or impacted property
owners.
July 2021 (Final)
9. Any betterment agreed to the main streets and utilities throughout the alignment will not
be allowed to adversely impact the cost and / or schedule of the base scope of BSVII.
10. Construction noise and vibration can be managed within acceptable limits without the need
for extraordinary mitigation measures impacting productivity and means and methods.
11. Noise and vibration in the completed project can be achieved without the need for isolated
slab track construction (as described in the Record of Decision mitigation commitments).
12. Analysis assumes the allocation of risks to the party best able to control them.
13. VTA has been coordinating with FTA’s environmental specialist regarding any
environmental re-evaluation requirements. PMOC has been told that mitigation
requirements are not expected to change substantially with the EPD configuration, on
which PMOC analysis was based.
14. The Sprint Fiber Optic relocation in Newhall Yard was downgraded to a lower risk based
on VTA assuring the PMOC that this relocation work would not impact the project
schedule in any way.
15. PMOC was not provided a ROW parcel plan that overlaid the project alignment and has
not be able to review or ascertain if the proposed property limits are reasonable for
constructing the project. VTA have raised a “High” risk that laydown areas may be
inadequate but not specifically that identified ROW may be inadequate to construct the
project (BSV-134 refers). PMOC has recommended this risk is reduced given it is a known
condition and will be more of a cost issue. PMOC acknowledges a residual risk that the
PDB for CP2 may request additional ROW depending on means and methods proposed but
has assumed from advise provided by VTA in presentations and responses to questions and
that this is a low risk in terms of probability. In any event PMOC assumes that a key area
of early feedback from all bidders for the CP2 package will be to confirm the ROW is
indeed adequate as currently proposed and if not, adequate time will be provided for VTA
to acquire any further ROW without this becoming critical to construction access. PMOC
has recommended however, the current general risk referencing insufficient ROW, risk #
BSV-053, is elevated to a ‘High’ risk until the CP2 confirms the ROW is indeed sufficient.
16. PMOC has been told that environmental mitigation requirements are not expected to
change substantially with the EPD configuration. PMOC has assumed no risk of further
legal challenges to the ROD including any means and methods, remote fabrication yards
or in connection with the emerging muck disposal strategy and that the contractors will be
constrained to work within the approved ROD. PMOC also assumes no DB Alternative
Design Concepts will be entertained that in any way compromise the ROD.
5.3 Schedule Risk Analysis
5.3.1 Overview of Modeling Technique and Software
Schedule and Risk simulation software used for the analysis is Oracle Primavera Risk Analysis
(previously Pertmaster). Primavera Risk Analysis is a simulation tool which reads the probabilistic
data (activity risk ranges, probabilities of risks occurring and correlations) from the Primavera
schedule and runs multiple iterations on the data to calculate float and critical paths. The software
program summarizes the input data providing various graphical and tabular reports including the

July 2021 (Final)
most familiar cumulative ‘S’ curve, providing varying confidence levels against associated start
and / or completion dates.
The schedule risk model has risks assigned from the risk register to activities within the schedule.
A key showing risk assignments together with their risk reference number, probability and duration
range is shown as below in Figure 5. Some risks are assigned to more than one activity and the
same risk may have been assigned a different duration variance than another. Where more than
one risk is assigned to a single activity it indicates these risks can happen at the same time and will
not be cumulative in their impact.
Figure 5 Schedule Risk Input Data Key
The schedule risk model showing input values is provided in Appendix M.

5.3.2 Schedule Risk Analysis Model
The PMOC developed a summary schedule from the VTA IMPS received in April (data date
March 1st, 2021) to form a schedule risk model of suitable size, characteristics, and structure to
assign uncertainty and risks to schedule activities and perform a Monte-Carlo analysis. The
summary schedule is included as Appendix K and the critical path is extracted and included as
Appendix L.
The summary schedule mirrors the VTA IMPS as closely as possible however the VTA IMPS is
lacking in detail in some WBS elements and the PMOC has filled in detail necessary to form a
complete schedule against which to assign risks. The summary schedule removes all finish
constraints and any start constraints that would adversely impact the risk model.
The project is at an early stage of design and the PMOC recognizes the schedule is a developing
tool the construction and interfacing of the main contract packages dependent on choice of
constructability and means and methods which will come after the appointment of the CP2 (tunnels
and trackwork) PDB and then develop in detail and in collaboration with the other main

July 2021 (Final)
construction packages and VTA and BART’s overall goals and objectives. Risk allocation will
play an important role in this developing IMPS since transferred risks will be incorporated in base
project durations as then contractual undertakings, buffer float will be added to represent shared
risk at critical interfaces and contingency allocated for retained Sponsor risk. At this stage the
summary schedule, incorporating PMOC recommended adjustments, forms a base schedule
envisaged as a realistic starting point for negotiations with, in the first instance, the CP2 PDB, but
also in portraying realistic access dates for interfacing contracts. The principle of the summary
schedule is that it forms a base, where if risks do not transpire and innovations are realized, it
supports a possibility of achieving the quoted early date for a RSD as established in the SABS.
The summary schedule includes a 6-day working week calendar applied to tunnel production rates
as is incorporated in the VTA IMPS. Utility and ‘event’ outages are not specific and indeed
unknown at this stage and overall durations and risk applied must account for such constraints.
The PMOC has assigned risks from the PMOC adjusted risk register as output from the FTA risk
workshop as shown in Appendix F.
The schedule risk model (Appendix M) shows the adjusted baseline with the P65 value for each
activity below it and includes tabular data of the P65 start and finish dates comparing the adjusted
baseline (SABS), after risk and uncertainty, for each activity.
The risk model is designed to focus on the risk in not achieving the overall RSD. The schedule
model shows the assignment of risks impacting the same activity at the same time, avoiding
duplication of risk impact. Some risks are assigned to schedule activities to create ‘independence’
and therefore reliability in schedule risk prediction is assured at the RSD. However, because some
risks that may impact the schedule at any time have to be assigned more generally the risk profile
of any one schedule activity extracted from the risk model in isolation may not be representative
of that activities true risk. All risk analysis results reported below are aligned to the collective
impact on the RSD only.
5.3.3 Schedule Risk Analysis Results
Table 30 shows the schedule risk analysis result stating with a 65% confidence the RSD being at
or less than February 2, 2034. This compares to the Sponsor RSD ‘late’ date, after contingency, of
September 15, 2032.
Table 30 P65 Schedule Risk Assessment
Figure 6 shows the relationship of the PMOC adjusted RSD of November 7, 2031 to the Sponsor
proposed RSD of May 7, 2030 and the OP 40c recommended contingency at 25% of the adjusted
July 2021 (Final)
base June 6, 2034. The diagram then shows the resulting PMOC actual risk assessment giving a
RSD of February 2, 2034 at the P65. PMOC recommends at this stage of project development the
RSD is taken to be June 6, 2034 reflecting the FTA guidance of 25% of the adjusted base duration
from date of the risk workshop (May 12, 2021) through early RSD (November 7, 2031).
Figure 6 Schedule Risk Results Summary Graphic
Figure 7 shows the schedule duration sensitivity to the overall risk assessment (i.e. it is not specific
to the P65).
Figure 7 Schedule Duration Sensitivity Chart
BSV11 - PMOC ADJ SUM RISK SCH [EDP] - APR30_ADJ_R0 (Pre-mitigated)
Schedule Sensitivity Index: Entire Plan - All tasks
955 - DB / VTA / BART Phase 2 DYNAMIC Testing [w ith Vehicles] 43%
830 - Complete systems / contractor Phase 1 testing 21%
826 - Systems Inst - New hall Yard, OCC 20%
635 - East transitition slab [at EV] 14%
495 - TBM Drive 1 - West Portal to West Vent Shaft [4,800 ft] 13%
386 - PUBLIC DTSJ station utility relocations 13%
822 - Systems Inst - 28th Street Station 12%
738 - CP3 site mobilization [after CP2 - All] - Remainder 11%
385 - VTA / Uty design / relocation strategy - PUBLIC 10%
530 - DTSJ Sta - PUBLIC Utility relocations [9 months Lead] 9%
Figure 8 below shows duration sensitivity of individual assigned risks to the overall schedule risk
assessment range (not the P65 output).

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 8 Schedule Risk Sensitivity Chart
BSV11 - PMOC ADJ SUM RISK SCH [EDP] - APR30_ADJ_R0 (Pre-mitigated)
Duration Sensitivity
138 - Design interface resolution betw een the 4 DB's [design and construction] 32%
096 - Testing and commisisoning delays RSD 31%
066 - Multiple contract interfaces leading to construction delays 25%
511 - Construction interfaces at vent shaft / tunnel interfaces 20%
086 - Major earthquake impacts station / VS's / Yard const [or fire, accident, storm ... 20%
055 - PDB changes utility relocation design delaying construction 20%
045 - TBM has major mechanical failure 19%
078 - Unclear roles betw een BART / VTA cause delays [incl 097] 16%
513 - TBM mechanical failure [not catastrophic] in construction 16%
113 - TCE's delays construction 15%
The PMOC ran several scenarios to understand and measure the impacts of the known specific
risks to the overall model results. Table 31 shows the scenario analysis results. The equivalent
contingency is the calculated percentage of days lost between the Risk Informed RSD and the
PMOC adjusted RSD (before Risk).
Figures in Table 31 are approximate and for comparative purposes only since the Monte Carlo
model run as a whole will produce results reflective of all risks. This project is complex given the
relationship of tunnel drive to portal, portal approach, station, and ventilation facility SOE and
tunnel structural fit out. The 28th Street Station fit out structural works awaiting completion of
mining operations to allow access to the invert slab by the CP4 contractor plays a significant role
in the critical path to the project RSD. Subsequent interrelationships with trackwork installations,
systems installations and station final fit out all feeding into final integrated testing also make a
complex series of constraints and interrelationships in this project schedule.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 31 Risk Scenario Sensitivity Analysis
Table 31 shows that the risks associated with early risk prior to placement of TBM order (Run 1)
which include utility relocation risk, ROW risk and critical contract procurement (CP2) impact the
overall analysis in isolation by approximately 7 months at the P65. Tunnel and systems related risk
show as similar impacting overall duration of approximately 1 year each at the P65.
5.4 Cost Risk Analysis
5.4.1 Top-Down Cost Model Version and Project Specific Adaptations
A cost risk analysis has been developed adopting the FTA OP 40 Top-Down risk model v5.16a.
The PMOC has added project specific workbook TABS into the base model including Sponsor
Build-Main sub-project worksheets, schedule analysis results, calculation sheets supporting
recommended adjustments and collection tables to capture adjustments through to the applicable
sub-project ‘profile’.
The PMOC has added a summary front TAB gathering analysis results and facilitating the
inclusion / exclusion of recommended cost adjustments and global BETA factor adjustments. The
summary TAB incorporates the recommended global BETA adjustments to specific ‘profiles’ and
the global PMOC inflation adjustment. The adjustments can be switched on / off to immediately
see, test and verify the impact on the overall analysis through the results and graph incorporated
into the summary front TAB.
Specific Profiles introduced for the BSVPII are described below.

July 2021 (Final)
Please refer to Appendix J for the BETA assignment per ‘Profile’. Base cost adjustments are
described and included in prior sections of this report.
5.4.2 Profiles Assigned to the FTA Top-Down Cost Risk Model
PMOC has assigned four (4) profiles within the Top-Down model. These align exactly with the
four (4) estimate summary components as presented by VTA in their estimate workbook. This
approach allows the allocation of specific BETA factors to the proposed four main civils contracts.
To avoid adding further profiles to the model SCC 60 through SCC 80 project wide costs are
incorporated in profile 3. (CP3).
The four (4) profiles are as follows.
Profile 1 – CP1 Systems Installations Design Build
DB Contract for the provision of all Systems for 4.7 miles of underground track alignment; 1.3
miles of at-grade track alignment including Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station; one at-grade
station (Santa Clara Station); three underground stations (28th Street Station, Downtown San José
Station, Diridon Station); outfitting of two mid-tunnel ventilation facilities; testing and start-up;
two systems interface coordination managers seconded to VTA to oversee interface, integration
and coordination efforts between Project contract packages to minimize VTA’s exposure to
claims; support for BART’s Rail Acceptance Officer (testing, start-up, CPUC certification, etc.)
starting 10-12 months prior to revenue service availability.
Profile 2 – CP2 Tunnels and Trackwork
PDB Contract for the design and construction of approximately 4.7 miles of minimum 43’ interior
diameter tunnel; procurement of a minimum 48’ diameter TBM; station structural concrete within
tunnel for two underground stations and two mid-tunnel ventilation facilities (e.g. station and
emergency egress platforms); internal concrete work including emergency walkways, track slabs,
invert, partition walls, etc.; east and west portals; SOE for the 28th Street/Little Portugal station,
Downtown San José Station and Diridon Station; tunnel liner knockout panels for adit connections
and entrances; adits to the tunnel and platforms; trackwork from the BSV Phase I tie-in to the east
portal per BART standard criteria; and associated utility relocations, as required.
Profile 3 – CP3 Newhall Yard & Santa Clara Station and Program Wide SCC 60, 70, & 80
DB Contract for final design and construction of Newhall Yard & Maintenance Facility (excluding
train control systems); vehicle maintenance shops, car wash/cleaner buildings, maintenance and
engineering shops, yard control tower, wheel truing and blowdown facilities; complete build-out
of the end-of-the-line Santa Clara Station (excluding train control systems), including two at-grade
platforms with an underground concourse and pedestrian undercrossing connection to the Santa
Clara Caltrain Station; Newhall Yard trackwork, including turnouts, crossovers and mainline
trackwork to west portal; a 500-stall parking garage for Santa Clara Station; associated utility
relocations, as required; and final site flatwork, landscaping, etc.

July 2021 (Final)
This profile also includes the Project Wide elements of SCC 60 through 80. This is to avoid adding
a 'linked' workbook and these project wide elements do not overlap the specifics of CP3 which are
contained within SCC 10-50
Profile 4 – CP4 Underground Stations
DB Contract for the complete build-out of three underground stations, ancillary facilities and two
mid-tunnel ventilation facilities (excluding train control systems). This work includes rail
operations facilities within the stations; the 28th Street/Little Portugal Station (excluding
demolition and SOE which is included in Contract 2); Downtown San José Station (excluding SOE
which is included in Contract 2); Diridon Station (excluding SOE which is included in Contract
2); the 13th Street mid-tunnel ventilation facility; the Stockton Avenue mid-tunnel ventilation
facility; a 1,200-stall parking garage for 28th Street/Little Portugal Station; final site flatwork,
landscaping, etc.; and associated utility relocations, as required.
5.4.3 FTA Top-Down Cost Risk Model
Overview
The FTA Top-Down model uses Beta factors as a multiplier of the cost of individual project
elements to determine the cost for the worst plausible probable scenario cost, taken as the ‘upper
bound’.
The Beta factors are applied to the SABCE that excludes any contingency (representing a 10th
percentile, lower bound, confidence level). With the two known points, lower bound and upper
bound, it is possible using a beta-pert distribution to characterize the risk profile for each project
cost element and to estimate the risk exposure at any confidence level between the 10th and 90th
percentile confidence levels. The Beta factor is a composite number made up of individual assessed
risk values, for each cost elements, at different stages of the project. The Beta factors are applied
at SCC level 2 (i.e. 10.01, 10.02 etc.).
The FTA Top-Down model is based on characterization of risk under five discrete categories,
referencing the project risk register which is coded to SCC, and is enhanced where appropriate by
the application of generic BETA factors applied for specific project risk exposures applying to
more than one SCC element. The FTA Top-Down model provides guidelines on assignment of
‘normal Beta factors.’ Adjustments, where appropriate, are as described below. The five risk
categories are:
1. Requirement’s risk
2. Design Risk
3. Market Risk
4. Construction Risk
5. Post-Construction Risk
A summary description of each risk category is provided below for reference:

July 2021 (Final)
Requirement Risk
Requirement Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs at the early
conceptual stage of the project and is comprised primarily of scope risk. At this stage the risk can
be fairly high because the scope of the project has not been defined. Typically, these risks are
associated with basic elements such as the length of a project, the performance requirement (i.e.
TOD interactions, cooperative agreements specifically cost sharing, horizontal and vertical
alignment, tunnel diameter, fire/life/safety and evaluation model status, vehicle number and
performance, etc.), the number of elements (i.e. stations, interchanges), the type of technology, the
type of structures, etc. Risks characterized as ‘Requirements Risks’ in the Risk Register would
generally influence the addition and size of a Requirements Risk BETA as that ‘risk’ would not
be included in the generic standard BETA of other risk categories.
Design Risk
Design Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs during the
“design” phase. The BETA model assumes the following design completions for the project which
reflect PMOC’s assessment of design maturity aligned to the capital cost estimate included in the
EPD application:
Profile 3 (Program-wide ROW, Vehicles, and Professional Services)

July 2021 (Final)
Profile 4 (CP4 – Underground stations)
PMOC has applied additional BETA to at grade (Santa Clara station) reflecting the concept nature
of the revised design layout and configurations. In addition, PMOC has applied additional BETA
to elevators and escalators in consideration of the concept architectural station interior layouts
presented in the project scope presentations provided by the Sponsor.
PMOC has applied additional BETA to utility relocations and hazardous material treatment and
disposal as reflected through the risk register and PMOC commentary.
PMOC has applied additional BETA to special trackwork anticipating challenging and costly
crossovers at stations and entering and exiting transitions between side by side and stacked
configurations absent of manufacturer quotations and design still at an early stage.
Trackwork Systems design risk at 30% takes into consideration the incorporation of BART
standard detailing and specifications but also notes the BSVPII contains innovative components
which will require special detailing currently in the early stages of design and yet to be reviewed,
validated, accepted, and progressed by the CP1 DB contractor.
Vehicles design risk at 60% takes into consideration incorporation of current BART fleet
specifications and established approved operational technology and train control. It assumes any
incorporation of CBTC and related technology advancements would be funded by BART outside
of this project where over contingency provisions. In this regard, the projects design and space
proofing is understood to allow for the potential future incorporation of platform screen doors
(PSD) however neither the estimate or risk assessment allows for the introduction and
incorporation of PSDs.
Market Risk
Market Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs after the project
design is completed and the contract is out to tender. The Market or bidding risk will continue to
exist until a firm price has been provided and a contract agreement executed. Typically, the market
bid risk is not as high as the Requirement or Scope risk; however, depending on the stability of
certain markets, it could have a significant impact on certain project cost elements, such as those
that would be affected by oil, steel, concrete, and labor prices.
PMOC has recommended and incorporated a global adjustment to the inflation rate used. In
addition, PMOC has incorporated a ‘market adjustment’ to the CP2 (Profile 2) contract scope to
reflect anticipated challenging commercial negotiations in reaching a lump sum price noting the
significant risk transfer, sharing and retention to be worked through between NTP/1 and NTP/2.
The PMOC is of the opinion that the lack of commercial incentives for the CP2 PDB given by this
time the commitment to a TBM contract and the interrelated design coordination then critical to
the projects overall progression will limit VTA’s ability to negotiate a lump sum within base
estimate allowances.

July 2021 (Final)
Construction
Early Construction Risk
Early Construction Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs at
the start of construction. Most construction risk occurs at the start of construction when the
contractor mobilizes and encounters many risks. These risks typically include unexpected soil
conditions, utility relocation conflicts, timing and cost of utility relocations, property clearance
and access to property, mobilization issues, material availability, etc.
The BSVPII is highly dependent on early clearance of ROW and utility relocations ahead of the
critical portal, approach works, station and ventilation shaft SOE’s and then box excavations. In
addition, ground improvements and establishment of the extensive monitoring program will
require implementing in parallel with the early works proceeding the main civils construction.
Mid Construction Risk
Mid Construction Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs during
the term of the contract. These risks are typically associated with scheduling, weather conditions,
construction operations, labor relations, traffic staging, etc.
The BSVBII has a significant peak in construction operations in tunnel construction and fit out
quickly succeeded by station and ventilation facility structural completions and related
architectural and systems installations. Any delay in tunnel mining operations has an immediate
knock-on impact to the rest of the project. The current schedule strategy envisages all tunnel
operations served from the Newhall site west portal. Any incident in the tunnel blocking or
disrupting logistics (e.g. fire, flood, safety incident, collapse etc.) effectively delays the project and
this risk persists for some considerable period over the project construction period.
PMOC has incorporated global adjustments to CP1 (Profile 1 Systems) and CP4 (Profile 4
Underground stations) to account for the significant interface risk and potential claim exposure
that may result from a delay in tunnel mining and / or tunnel structural fit out by the CP2 PDB
contractor. A higher allowance is applied to CP4 than to CP1 reflecting the more direct and indeed
more challenging to mitigate exposure risk to underground station construction than that to the
Systems contract CP1. Exposure to delays in access to the Newhall Yard and even Santa Clara
station may attract claims exposure by the CP3 contractor however this lesser risk is viewed as
covered in the standard BETA values.
Late Construction Risks/Testing Risks
Late Construction Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs at the
end of construction. Usually associated with the final approvals, punch lists, testing,
commissioning and/or handover conditions. These risks are typically higher in transit projects as
compared to highway projects due to the complexity of integration of the “system” and vehicle
elements of transit projects.
The SVBPII comes on the back of Warm Springs and SVBX phase 1 the latter of which suffered
significant delays in testing and start-up. Lessons have been learned and closer collaboration
July 2021 (Final)
between BART and VTA is noted however this is a common risk to many current and previous
complex transit extension projects around the world.
Post Construction
Post-Construction Risk is the component of the Beta factor that relates to the risk that occurs after
substantial completion and allows for agreement of claims and settlement of change orders and
final accounts.
Schedule Cost of Delay
Taking consideration of PMOC recommended and incorporated adjustments to the project
schedule standard BETA has been assumed to allow for the recommended 25% schedule
contingency at this stage of project development. No further BETA adjustments have been made
to reflect a greater level of risk at this time.
Third Party Utility Cost
With no Third-Party estimations of costs for utility relocations and some Utility owner agreements
not yet in place there remains a risk of potential cost and schedule impacts to the project over and
above standard BETA suggested norms. Requirements BETA has been increased to account for
this specific risk.
Summary BETA Adjustments to Reflect Specific Risks
Appendix J shows the BETA factor adjustments applied to SCC’s by Profile.
5.4.4 Cost Risk Analysis Results
Table 32 shows the cost risk analysis result stating with a 65% confidence the cost at completion
being at or less than $9,148 million including financing costs.
Table 32 P65 Cost Risk Assessment
Table 33 shows the stripped and adjusted base cost (SABCE) in relation to the Sponsor estimate
and the risk protection afforded by the Sponsor contingency relative to the SABCE.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 33 Sponsor Relative Contingency Against SABCE
Table 34 is extracted from the Top-Down model ‘Risk Assessment Analysis’ and shows the
associated SABCE and corresponding risk exposures for each assigned profile.
Table 34 Profile Cost Risk Exposures
As noted above figures exclude finance costs. Reported P65 cost is $9,148 million including
finance costs of $390 million ($8,757.81 + $389.72 = $9,147.53 million).
Figure 9 shows the Probability Distribution extracted from the Top-Down “Risk Distribution
Report Graphics TAB”.

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 9 Probability Distribution
Figure 9 shows the Sponsors proposed estimate of $6,551 million (YOE, excluding finance
charges) as insufficient to meet the predicted risk exposure as developed by the PMOC.
Figure 10 shows the Probability Distribution including finance costs followed by tabular data in
Table 35 corresponding to the graph.
Figure 10 Probability Distribution (with finance costs)

July 2021 (Final)
Table 35 Probability Distribution Tabular Data (with finance costs)

July 2021 (Final)
6.0 RISK MITIGATION
6.1 Primary Mitigation
The VTA risk register includes:
 Risk owners assigned to all risks
 Contains action items and response / status for actions listed
 Contains date showing when last updated
 Contains notes on mitigation actions status
PMOC has not been supplied with the individual action plan sheets for each risk, there is no history
trend log showing the success, or not, of risk mitigation efforts to date (i.e. through a change in
rating from High to Low for example) and there are no ‘measurable’ deliverables identified against
each action (although they may exist separately in the risk database).
The PMOC recommends and requests:
1. Risk mitigation plans with a clear deliverable for each sub-component of the plan, an
owner for each mitigation action to implement the plan and a target date for completion of
each action’s deliverable is developed for each Intolerable and Substantial risk.
2. Risk mitigation plans are updated monthly and formerly reported to the Project Director
in a monthly risk report which would include any additions, deletions or changes to the
status of risks listed in the risk register.
3. Minutes of the regular monthly risk meetings on the project to review the status and actions
of all Intolerable and Substantial risks are copied to the PMOC
4. The Sponsor updates their cost and schedule risk analysis quarterly unless a significant
change in risk exposure (up or down) occurs in which case risk exposure and contingency
impact should be developed immediately.
6.2 Secondary Mitigation
The most recent Sponsor RCMP received by the PMOC is Rev. C dated April 16, 2021 contains
no proposals for secondary risk mitigation. (PMOC notes this section was deleted in the most
recent RCMP but had been previously incorporated)
The PMOC recommends:
1. VTA review PMOC’s schedule adjustments to the TBM mining production rate and the
impact on contract package interfaces. This adjustment has a significant impact on the risk
profile of the project as a whole.
2. VTA consider progressing tunnel and facility design to further prove concepts notably in
construction working space, traffic management and staging and to identify any additional
ROW required and / or utilities requiring relocations.
3. VTA consider escrow account to fund cash flow reducing contractor financing risk
4. VTA consider escalation clauses and formula to avoid excessive inflation risk being added
to contracts in this uncertain market and economic conditions

July 2021 (Final)
6.3 Contingency
In the PMOC’s opinion contingency should be increased in alignment with early stages of design
of tunnel elements awaiting CP2 PDB input.
The PMOC recommends:
1. VTA revise their approach to cost risk modelling to reflect uncertainty on unallocated
contingency
2. VTA advance their schedule risk model through an independent summary schedule to more
accurately reflect risk exposure and opportunity currently overly influenced by missing
activities, inconsistent detail and logic discrepancies in the developing IMPS
3. VTA introduce buffer float at key interfaces in the CP2 tunnels and trackwork activities to
recognize intermediate uncertainty and better account for interface risk in dates provided
to successor works packages

July 2021 (Final)
7.0 RISK AND CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN
7.1 Introduction
The most recent Sponsor RCMP received by the PMOC is Rev. C dated April 16, 2021.
The Sponsor RCMP contains following structure:
 Definitions
 Overview
 Risk Management Process
 Insurance requirements
 Primary mitigation
 Cost and schedule risk management
 Contingency management
 Iterative risk management
The most recent previous version provided to the PMOC was Rev. B dated September 30, 2020.
7.2 PMOC Observations
General
 Cross references should be provided to related and interfacing project procedures.
Definitions
 Further definitions are required to elaborate on relationship with trends, potential changes,
pending changes and approved changes.
 Separate definitions should be provided for allocated and unallocated contingency; PMOC
notes more elaborate descriptive is provided in Section 5, cost and schedule risk
management
 Definitions of Hold Points should be added
Overview
 No organization chart is provided to define reporting lines of the risk manager through the
organization
 No relationship or definition exists on project risk reporting and evaluation and enterprise
risk management and reporting
 No reference is made to a risk management committee or how risks are reported up to the
VTA Board
 The RCMP does not establish a clear baseline for risk in the opening sections in terms of
overall project objectives, scope boundaries, budget, key dates and does not contain any
listing of assumptions, exclusions and qualifications impacting contingency and risk
assessments. PMOC notes baselines are described in Section 5, cost and schedule risk
management but a summary of these should be included earlier in the RCMP.
 The RCMP does not define or refer to VTA’s overall risk appetite or risk tolerance
July 2021 (Final)
Risk management process
 How independence in risk characterization and reporting is achieved is not described.
 No relationship to the discipline or department leads is shown or described except to be
generally coordinated through the BSVII program administrator and the risk manager
 No relationship, role, responsibility, ownership or reporting of risk by the DB / PDB
contractors is described except in general terms
 The RCMP contains no description of risk transfer, sharing or retention strategy with the
DB contractors and how an integrated risk management approach is to be achieved aligning
contractors, project risk management, program risk management and enterprise risk
management. General mention of risk meetings with contractors is made in RCMP section
2.1 but given this project is to be DB essentially managed and coordinated by the CM’s
and DB’s a much stronger process is required in the RCMP to describe how this will all
work together. It would be expected, for example, each CM would be required to identify
and lead risk manager who in turn would report up to the VTA program risk manager.
 A cut-off date for monthly risk assessment and monthly cadence of review and updating
risk qualitative and quantitative assessment to support regular reporting of risk
management, risk mitigation and contingency exposure and draw down is not discussed in
any detail.
Insurance requirements
 Insurance strategy and details are extremely broad and general and describe a ‘typical’
OCIP structure and are not specific to the BSVII and are lacking in detail necessary to
support the impending Contract Package procurements
 PMOC notes responses to recent RFIF’s noted general acceptance to an OCIP but required
further details and clarifications of risk allocation
 The RCMP refers to an OCIP insurance, safety and claims procedures manuals. It appears
these have not been progressed. Specific policy descriptive and allocation of risk is
therefore assumed yet to be developed in detail.
Primary mitigation
 Management of contingency requires better definition and cross reference to change
control and management and overall cost and schedule management. PMOC has not been
copied a Trend Register, Pending Change Log, Potential Change Log or Approved Change
Log and has seen no ‘issues’ register.
 The RCMP should set out a risk mitigation strategy typically contained in a ‘claims
avoidance plan’ and an ‘excess profit avoidance plan’. Excess profit avoidance is defined
as “avoidance of transfer of risk better shared or retained by the owner for to transfer would
encourage high mark-up to cover the eventuality of the risk occurring”. This strategy will
be key to a successful risk matrix and collaborative working relationship adopting the PDB
approach proposed for CP2 tunnels and trackwork. The transfer of very low probability
risk with very high impact or risk which cannot be managed by a contractor is a recipe for
exposure to extremely high costs and typically does not result in risk transfer as intended
July 2021 (Final)
if in the event the risk materializes. These strategies can also dovetail into risk management
and allocation between 3rd party stakeholders and 3rd party utility owners through risk
sharing and allocation described in 3rd party and cooperative agreements
 No clear monthly review process is established describing the multiple departments and
3rd parties that will be involved in regular assessment of risks. Regular review and cut off
processes require better definition
 The four-square risk matrix approach does not provide references to individual risk
numbers and does not align to the scoring and ranking of risks ; that is the risk matrix and
risk heat map do not align to the four-square risk matrix. It is, in the PMOC’s opinion, a
confusing and not standardized approach to view risks.
 Summary of primary risk mitigations is generalized
 Tabulated risk descriptive and risk mitigation plans would be better presented in individual
risk mitigation and action plans (as was the approach on BSVI) with a summary provided
of key risks impacting cost and schedule objectives
Cost and Schedule Risk Management
 This section is generally well developed however PMOC has seen no update to these cost
or contingency projections which are now over 6 months out of date. The March 2021
RCMP shares no update beyond the EPD submitted application
 In the PMOC’s opinion cost and schedule contingency requires re-evaluation in accordance
with recommendations contained in this report. VTA have stated that the cost and schedule
contingencies will be updated in line with the full estimate update planned for 3Q2021
Contingency Management
 Cost and schedule contingency draw down requires further analysis once the
recommendations in the PMOC’s risk assessment have been further considered
 Cost and contingency management should be performed regularly, ideally monthly but at
a minimum, quarterly. (RCMP states ‘periodically’)
 The cost or schedule contingency management draw down curves (Figure 7 and Figure 8
in the RCMP) do not appear to recognize the expected transfer of risk to DB contractors as
is expected under lump sum fixed price DB contracts. This would suggest a greater risk
sharing and retention than the current VTA documents describe.
Iterative Risk Management
The process is well described but general and, as stated above, provides no definitive regular
reporting timelines or cadence for risk updates. Specifically, under RCMP section 7.3,
“Updates to the RCMP will be made as major Project/Program milestones are
achieved. Examples of these major milestones include:
 At design deliverables
 At awards of major contracts
 At mid-point of construction

July 2021 (Final)
 Other intermediate stages of construction”.
The Sponsor provided no dates associated with the iterations.

July 2021 (Final)
8.0 OP 32C: PROJECT SCOPE REVIEW
8.1 PMOC Review
This section documents PMOC’s review of the project scope based upon supplied sponsor
documents. VTA chose to exercise an abundance of caution with respect to protecting the
confidentiality of documents that will be included as part of the RFP packages. Therefore, PMOC
conducted reviews on summaries and presentation materials VTA used to demonstrate the design
development when necessary.
8.1.1 Project Delivery Method, Contract Packaging
The main work groups are planned to be packaged into the following four large construction
packages:
 Systems CP1 (DB)
 Tunnel and Trackwork CP2 (PDB)
 Newhall Yard, Santa Clara Station and Parking Garage CP3 (DB)
 Stations and Support Facilities CP4 (DB)
VTA’s Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII specifically states that all local, state, and
Federal requirements must be adhere to, and the delivery method that VTA has chosen of DB &
PDB meets the requirements of all local, state & Federal regulations and circulars, as provided in
FTA’s Best Practices Procurement Manual (BPPM) and FTA Circular 4220.1F guidance.
VTA has stated in its Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII (2.1.4) the construction
work for BSVII will be packaged into contracts that are best suited to satisfy BSVII objectives and
optimize work scopes and costs, while minimizing risks and interferences among work packages
with respect to schedule and budget. The proposed contracting strategy is based on consideration
of size, scope, geography, design requirements for civil, systems and major structures,
constructability, and general pricing of the packages.
VTA has stated in its Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII the determining factors for
their procurement methodology. In addition, the PMOC team agrees with the contract
methodology of PDB for CP2 although notes and agrees with responses to RFIF process for CP1
and CP4 suggestions that consideration should be given of one or both of these packages also being
PDB given the integration of design and fast track nature of the program. VTA has not indicated
whether they took those suggestions under consideration and performed any cost-benefit analysis
or evaluation. PDB is growing in popularity on large complex projects as a method to get the DB
contractor on earlier when Employers requirements are still developing especially where a DB’s
specific means and methods and associated innovation proposals impact schedule, cost and indeed,
the base design
VTA have stated they will own and coordinate the BIM model and ensure coordination and
configuration of design and clash detection. Notwithstanding, the latest documentation suggests
that all of the interface management responsibility is placed on the CP1 contractor, who does not
have a contractual relationship with the other contractors. The PMOC has not seen any plans that
July 2021 (Final)
indicate how VTA is overall responsible to ensure that the interface management occurs and is
structured correctly to ensure integration of all disciplines.
In section VTA’s Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII 3.6.3 VTA Risk Management,
VTA is implementing an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) for BSVII. VTA has
estimated that an OCIP will save BSVII approximately $30 million. PMOC’s prior project
experience points to this project being well suited to an OCIP however effort and cost in
management of such programs and cost of deductibles often exceed Sponsor estimations, albeit
final costs may well be lower than that which would have been incurred under a CCIP.
Text in the Project Delivery and Procurement Plan suggests most of the risks are to be placed with
the DB contractors (the VTA Risk Register gives no details on proposed transfer, sharing or risk
retention). In addition, the interface risks of all of the construction contracts (CP2, CP3 & CP4) is
described as to be placed on the CP1 DB contractor. There is not enough detail in current plans or
procurement documents that indicate how the CP1 contractor will be able to manage the other
contractors’ contracts with VTA and be able to enforce any interface disputes or solutions. VTA
is currently working on the details of the CP1 interface responsibilities.
The PMOC Team has yet to see design levels at 30%, and correspondence and status information
received and presented to the PMOC during reviews has confirmed generally design is targeted to
reach 30% in 3Q2021 coinciding and supporting the RFP process for the CP’s. At this point the
estimate and schedule will be refreshed and aligned to this design milestone with an anticipated
target release of updated cost and schedule status late summer to fall 2021. The exception to this
is scope under CP2 (Tunnels and Trackwork) where VTA has stated design is on hold at between
10% and 15% level pending the engagement of the PDB targeted for spring 2022. PMOC is
concerned this will essentially lose 6-9 months of valuable design time, delay interface design
coordination with CP1 and CP4 and site access planning for CP3 to Newhall Yard given the
dependencies around means and methods of the selected PDB contractor and will likely impact
the commencement of construction and the ordering of the TBM.
VTA has a detailed risk registered that is in line with a lot of the PMOC’s top risk for the project.
VTA continues to address the uncertainties with technical analyses and associated reports. With
respect to the major uncertainties, the CP2 PDB will need to progress more with the tunnel design
and site explorations to mitigate major uncertainties in the project. As PMOC already noted the
interface management responsibility is described to lie with the CP1 contractor when the design
interfaces will be under revision while the PDB is in Stage 1 design development and early works,
all while there is no contractual relationship between CP1 and CP2 design builders. Design of CP1
will impact detailed design of CP4. VTA have presented to the PMOC the extensive efforts to
space proof tunnels, stations and ventilation facilities based on BART standard equipment
specifications and standards. Until the CP1 DB is onboarded and confirmed the space proofing
this remains a risk and will constrain design development and coordination.
VTA has indicated in their Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII (2.1.4) will be
packaged into contracts that are best suited to satisfy BSVII objectives and optimize work scopes
and costs, while minimizing risks and interferences among work packages with respect to schedule

July 2021 (Final)
and budget. During the PMOC review process VTA have made scope transfers between CP4
(underground stations) and CP2 (tunnels and trackwork) to place SOE, adit construction and
ventilation facility complete structures to reduce interface risk and improve coordination aligned
to means and methods of CP2. PMOC expects to see further scope transfers between packages as
is common as strategy develops and feedback from the RFIF and RFP processes continues.
VTA has facilitated requests for industry feedback and held meetings with the proposed bidders
and had an industry review of their construction packages. VTA has completed an RFIF S20183
Systems (CP1); RFIF S20174 Tunnel & Trackwork (CP2); RFIF S21019 Newhall Yard & Santa
Clara Station (CP3) & RFIF S20209 Stations (CP4). With respect to CP 1, there are only two
potential bidders for this scope of work. For the most part, responses to the potential RFP’s being
let has been positive.
VTA’s Third Party agreements with the local municipalities, state & Federal agencies are currently
finalizing the cooperative agreements, which define the review period, maintenance of traffic
requirements, and approvals. Transit Oriented Developments (TOD) have also been agreed to with
Google, as another third party organization and other developmental agreements are not expected
to impact the project schedule, as VTA will progress the design leaving a demarcation point for
other development to occur at a later time if required.
VTA has performed a statement of qualification (SOQ) review and has approved all the proposed
bidders to proceed with bidding on the project.
VTA’s Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII procurement follows industry practice
and federal requirements. The Contract Packages describes the requirements for the contractors
and identifies the timeframe of the deliverables and long lead items. The PMOC Team has not had
the opportunity to review the procurement contracts, but VTA’s procurement plan is compliant
with industry practice and FTA Circular 4220.1F.
Third Party Procurement Contracts
VTA has held meetings with the proposed bidders and had an industry review of their construction
packages. The agency has widely marketed the project and have received a large interest in their
program, though the only exception appears to be with the CP 1 contract, where there is currently
only two potential bidders. VTA is exploring options to increase this number.
Currently, VTA has no 3rd Party agreement for procurements of long lead items. VTA is
considering BART procuring the running rail, as BART has a business relationship with the
specialized manufacturer of this type of trackwork. Until that decision is finalized, it is assumed
the requirement and responsibility fall on the CP2 contractor.
VTA is currently finalizing the RFPs and cooperative agreements with the local municipalities and
agencies. The PMOC Team cannot determine any conflicts in schedule until the cooperative
agreements have been signed and sent to the PMOC for review.
The VTA Project Delivery & Procurement Plan for BSVII complies with all Buy America and
Federal requirements.

July 2021 (Final)
Not all utility contracts have been completed and signed. Numerous master utility relocation
agreements are executed, and the remaining are progressed to final drafts that will be ready to
execute shortly. Subsequently, the detailed agreements for individual relocations will need to
progress based on preliminary designs that BSVII plan to include in the RFP documentation.
VTA will provide all geotechnical data and site investigation to all the CP contractors. VTA have
stated they are not expecting CP’s to conduct further site investigations apart from specific to
station and ventilation facility adits to support localized final design and approach to ground
improvement and settlement control related to specific means and methods.
The PMOC Team has yet to see the documents that describe the following terms and scope, as
VTA is working on finalizing these documents: General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions,
and Division 1 of the Specifications adequately describe, for bidding construction contractors,
project site access; schedule; unit prices; provisions for increased and decreased compensation
through incentives and liquidated damages; the construction contractor’s design/engineering scope
of work; mobilization costs; cash flow in general including pay schedule; requirements for bonds,
insurance, taxes; maintenance and warranty provisions; contractor field management and
supervision; socioeconomic requirements related to bidding; and weather impacts or concerns and
protection of the work.
The VTA program and procurement plan takes all of the following into consideration. Though
market conditions are highly volatile now since we are currently experiencing COVID-19.
1. Market conditions for the state/regional/local construction economy for the general
contractors/subcontractors on public works and private.
2. Market conditions for the national construction economy for transit general
contractors/subcontractors.
3. Availability of labor for various trades such as electricians, etc.
4. Availability of major materials at the bulk commodity level (fuel, cement, steel, copper,
plywood/lumber, etc.) and the finished component level (traction power supply and
distribution, train control elements, vehicles, microprocessor equipment, etc.)
5. Availability of construction equipment/sequencing/timeframe requirements for specially
designed, or project specific equipment such as cranes, launching girders, pre-mix plants,
barges, etc.
Access and occupancy of project construction sites:
1. Local community restrictions and accommodations are assumed to be addressed in the
cooperative agreements with the CSJ and CSC.
2. Though VTA’s staging plan focuses on the use of the Newhall Yard property, the PMOC
has not seen the potential contractor’s maintenance of traffic or mobilization plans to make
a meaningful determination. VTA is progressing a preliminary maintenance of traffic plan
in the RFP documentation that will be included as a starting point for the design builders.
The following details have not been shared with PMOC in the EPD application materials: site
availability in terms of hours per day, days per week, months or seasons during a year, considering

July 2021 (Final)
ongoing operations for transit, railroads, pedestrians, bicycles, and roadway traffic; impacts such
as transportation, social and economic conditions; constraints due to public spaces, historic and
archaeological resources, air quality, noise and vibration, contaminated materials and natural
resources, among others. VTA has been discussing the same topics with the local jurisdictions
during design development and have reported to PMOC that these will be included in the RFP
documents.
VTA is advancing preliminary utility relocation designs, but each location will be progressed to
final design either by the design builder (storm and sanitary sewer) or by the utility owner (all
other utility types). Master utility relocation agreements for most utilities have been executed, but
not the specific agreements by location. The master utility relocation agreements did not address
schedule commitments or requirements or provide estimates for the proposed relocation works.
Potential waste sites for the disposal of HAZMAT, and tunnel and excavation muck disposal sites
have been identified and contact information will be provided in the RFP documentation for use
at contractor’s option.
VTA is advancing the design and agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (in conjunction
with BART, who is the ultimate power customer during operations) for TBM power supply for
use at contractor’s option.
8.1.2 Design Relative to Site and Geotechnical Conditions
Pre-construction site reconnaissance visits have not been conducted by VTA with prospective
bidders since the project has not reached that phase and restrictions through then COVID-19
Pandemic have limited any interactions and in-person gatherings over the last 18 months.
However, VTA staff and consultants have reportedly been on site during the design phase to
observe existing conditions.
VTA designs are being advanced based on completed boundary and existing conditions surveys,
which have been completed over the life of the project. As of April 31, 2021, one site was still
subject to access limitations; otherwise, access had been obtained for all environmental site
assessments and geotechnical evaluations.
Geotechnical investigations have been conducted by VTA on this project over many years. There
are a substantial number of borings covering the project. Investigations are not yet complete but
with over 1,000 borings, they are more than sufficient at this phase of design to characterize the
subsurface conditions for most of the project. Additional investigations are scheduled for the near
term at Santa Clara Station and Diridon Station. The selected progressive design builder may also
determine additional investigations are warranted before they will agree to what is planned to be a
negotiated or joint Geotechnical Baseline Report.
The copious number of borings mean this project is less likely than most to encounter unexpected
subsurface conditions. However, the conditions do not make for easy construction. The
geotechnical data identified high groundwater combined with the mixed alluvial materials. The
Sponsor has investigated methods to keep the tunnel, station boxes, and portals from floating, but
will leave means and methods to the selected design builder. Similarly, VTA has acknowledged
July 2021 (Final)
that multiple means of ground treatment might be needed at the station adits, but the final selection
of ground improvement will be left to the design builder.
The Geotechnical Data Report has been compiled in two volumes, one with the historic data
collected over the life of the project and the second with the most recent investigations. Laboratory
testing has continued, and borehole logs are being updated accordingly.
The Obstructions Report has been progressed through an internal Inter Disciplinary Review (IDR)
in May 2021. The Property Protection Study will go through an IDR as well as an over-the-
shoulder (OTS) review by a technical advisory panel prior to the CP2 RFP. As the property
protection study has progressed over recent months additional property acquisition needs have
been refined in parallel and will be progressed through the certification process once the
requirements are confirmed.
Local seismic conditions and codes have been taken into account. The Silver Creek Fault crossing
draft report, including recommended design criteria, has been submitted to BART for concurrence.
BART requested and VTA complied to have a technical peer review of the report and associated
criteria. The tunnel liner design through the fault zone is an area of potential innovation, so VTA
is leaving additional design to the progressive design builder.
Taking the urban and historic environment with built public and private infrastructure and facilities
into account the project has prioritized progressing the property protection options. PMOC
considers the amount of money included for monitoring and ground improvement as well as the
settlement risks in VTA’s risk register as confirmation that VTA also acknowledges this as one of
the most substantial risk elements. The avoidance and mitigation of settlement will continue to be
a concern through construction and the risk remains VTA’s until it is contractually shared or
delegated to the progressive design builder.
The horizontal and vertical alignment of the track and tunnel have reportedly been refined in
response to buried structures and utilities over the past several months. The alignment was
advanced to be frozen and considered prescriptive for the procurement process including CP1,
CP2, and CP4.
No allowance was specified in the cost estimate for hazardous materials. VTA indicated that the
removal and disposal of hazardous materials was included in the earthwork costs and quantities
for the project, but the details could not be substantiated in the estimate by PMOC.
8.1.3 Third Party Agreements
VTA originally identified seven (7) third-party agreements as critical:
1. BART IL #42
2. BART IL #35
3. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board PCJPB / Caltrain
4. AT&T
5. Comcast
6. Sprint

July 2021 (Final)
7. PG&E
PMOC requested FTA determination of criticality for 5 additional agreements:
1. UPRR Master
2. City of San Jose (expired)
3. City of Santa Clara
4. FAA
5. Caltrans (expired)
Upon further evaluation:
UPRR – FTA determined no critical agreement was needed for EPD application, as pertinent terms
were covered in the original Purchase and Sale agreement.
FAA – FTA determined that substantial coordination prior to the 7460-1 Notification, but no
formal agreement required at this phase.
Leaving 10 critical agreements for execution prior to the application per the NOFO, which are
listed immediately below and selectively discussed in detail below the list:
1. BART IL #42
2. BART IL #35
3. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board PCJPB / Caltrain
4. AT&T
5. Comcast
6. Sprint
7. PG&E
8. City of San Jose
9. City of Santa Clara
10. Caltrans
Caltrans
PMOC review began based upon the expired SVX agreement and VTA’s request to Caltrans to
generate a new agreement in similar format and content.
PMOC was not informed of VTA modified approach until after a different agreement was executed
and provided. Measure B Master Agreement was used for the framework, with an amendment
executed related to BSVII. Three crossings were added as separate projects.
PMOC concerns with this approach:
1. Crossings are not standard highway improvement projects, which is what the agreement
was established for.
2. This agreement specified the need for a project-specific cooperative agreement or
amendment to the Master Measure B Agreement at later date. (This is what PMOC would
have expected to be completed to meet the intent of the NOFO for EPD application and
FFGA.)
July 2021 (Final)
Construction cooperative agreements will be required at a later date for each of the crossings.
Additional correspondence from Caltrans was provided indicating that the project approval was
based on the 2010 project report. When PMOC questioned the validity of that project definition,
VTA acknowledged that report was out of date and indicated VTA would be updating in parallel
with the upcoming cooperative agreement.
VTA has been negotiating a draft cooperative agreement with Caltrans and anticipates execution
in June 2021 for incorporation into the RFP for CP2.
City of San Jose (CSJ)
The agreement for SVX was executed covering BSVII but expired in 2018.
When accelerating to meet the NOFO execution requirement it was done at the expense of
including certain details that could have protected VTA’s (and therefore FTA’s) interest. The
executed master agreement does not commit CSJ to a set duration for review of project submittals.
It also does not establish the milestones or frequency of design submittals for CSJ review.
VTA is currently negotiating CSJ Cooperative Agreement #1 – Scope & Requirements Definition
and Pre-DB Procurement City Reviews. This agreement might be approved by San Jose City
Council in June 2021 to be incorporated into the RFP for CP2.
City of Santa Clara (CSC)
PMOC has similar concerns related to lack of detail as in CSJ executed master agreement.
VTA is currently negotiating CSC Cooperative Agreement #1 – Scope & Requirements Definition
and Pre-DB Procurement City Reviews. This agreement might be approved by Santa Clara City
Council in June 2021 to be incorporated into the RFP for CP2.
City Agreements Combined
As interim measure to document VTA’s readiness to submit and meeting the intent of the NOFO,
FTA requested a detailed plan for each Master City Agreement regarding the anticipated follow-
on cooperative agreements to clarify future details. Steps to execution were expected to be laid out
with timeframes, allowing FTA to understand the process VTA anticipates as well as monitor
progress while the EPD application may be under review.
Especially important for the scope and requirements definition agreements because there is no
float between the need-by date and the anticipated execution date and no time allowing for
incorporation of terms into the RFP after that need-by date. PMOC acknowledges the need-by date
is based on the first RFP, which is Contract Package 2 – Tunnel and Trackwork, planned for late
July 2021 release. Terms specific to the other contract packages could lag slightly but also could
complicate the process with additional agreements or amendments.
Google/P3 and TOD agreements

July 2021 (Final)
The existing Google/P3 agreement includes a financial commitment and locations for construction
staging. Next steps will need to address more detail for construction staging
milestones/needs/constraints in a joint agreement between VTA/CSJ/Google.
Project Labor Agreement
The new VTA leadership and Board of Directors are evaluating the scope of the PLA. There are
policy level decisions which need to be made and might impact the BSVII-specific agreement. If
the agreement is not executed prior to the RFP, labor provisions will be included by other means
in the RFP documentation. Any changes to those provisions with the executed agreement will
require either an addendum to the RFP documentation or a modification to the contract depending
on the timing of execution. PMOC notes that the Project Labor Agreement was deleted from the
latest version of the plan, but it should be addressed as it is a required third-party agreement.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 36 Third-Party Agreements
VTA/VTA’s Consultant
Agreement/ Permit/ Other Owner Critical/ Non-Critical Status Expected Execution
team Owner
Master Utility Relocation
AT&T Utilities Lead Non-Critical Executed 10/16/2020
Agreement
VTA General Manager
Comprehensive Agreement BART Non-Critical Executed 11/19/2001
(GM)/ Counsel
Operations & Maintenance
BART VTA GM/ Counsel Non-Critical Executed 05/22/2020
(O&M) Agreement
Implementation Letters BART VTA GM/ Counsel Critical Executed 09/01/2020
Master Agreement City of San Jose Third Party Manager Critical Executed 10/16/2020
Cooperative Agreement #1 City of San Jose Third Party Manager Non-Critical Draft 05/28/2021
For design reviews
Cooperative Agreement #2 City of San Jose Third Party Manager Non-Critical 01/07/2022
during DB
Cooperative Agreement #3 City of San Jose Third Party Manager Non-Critical For construction 04/08/2022
Master Agreement City of Santa Clara Third Party Manager Critical Executed 10/29/2020
Cooperative Agreement #1 City of Santa Clara Third Party Manager Non-Critical Draft 05/28/2021
For CP3 Pre-RFP
Cooperative Agreement #2 City of Santa Clara Third Party Manager Non-Critical 01/07/2022
review
For design reviews
Cooperative Agreement #3 City of Santa Clara Third Party Manager Non-Critical 01/07/2022
during DB
Cooperative Agreement #4 City of Santa Clara Third Party Manager Non-Critical For construction 03/03/2023
Comcast Utility Lead Non-Critical Executed 11/03/2020
Agreement
Cooperative Agreement PCJPB Third Party Manager Critical Executed 11/02/2020
PG&E Utility Lead Non-Critical Executed 01/14/2020
Agreement
Engineering Utility
T-Mobile (Sprint) Utility Lead Non-Critical Executed 10/30/2020
Agreement
Cooperative Agreement Caltrans Third Party Manager Critical Executed 10/30/2020
Non-Critical
Cooperative Agreement for
Caltrans Third Party Manager Draft 04/30/2021
DB

July 2021 (Final)
VTA/VTA’s Consultant
Agreement/ Permit/ Other Owner Critical/ Non-Critical Status Expected Execution
team Owner
Non-Critical
Master Utility Relocation Level 3
Utility Lead Draft 04/30/2021
Agreement Communications, LLC
MCI Communications
Services, LLC Utility Lead Non-Critical Draft 05/14/2021
Agreement
(Verizon)
Master Utility Relocation XO Communications
Utility Lead Non-Critical Draft 05/20/2021
Agreement Services, LLC.
Zayo Group LLC Utility Lead Non-Critical Draft 04/30/2021
Agreement
Encroachment Permit Caltrans Contractor Non-Critical For construction 09/15/2023
Joint Use and Maintenance
Caltrans VTA GM/ Counsel Non-Critical For operations 11/24/2027
Agreement
Encroachment Permit City of San Jose Contractor Non-Critical For construction 07/11/2022
Encroachment Permit City of Santa Clara Contractor Non-Critical For construction 06/14/2023
Other FAA VTA/ Contractor Non-Critical For construction 08/26/2022
PSA UPRR VTA GM/ Counsel Non-Critical Executed 12/15/2004
Encroachment Permit
Valley Water Third Party Manager Non-Critical Draft 06/18/2021
Application
Programmatic Agreement and State Office of
VTA GM/ Counsel Non-Critical Executed 05/09/2018
Treatment Plan Historic Preservation
Bay Area Air Quality
Permit Third Party Manager Non-Critical For operations 02/16/2027
Management District
Source: BSVII Third Party Agreement Management Plan Rev 0.C April 18, 2021.

July 2021 (Final)
VTA has planned next steps and is working diligently to negotiate agreements with third parties
which will establish the project design and construction requirements, define betterments, identify
review costs and timeframes, and define responsibilities and costs for inspection and testing. In
the meantime, the BSVII baseline schedule and estimate are based on allowances for the third-
party costs and design review interfaces.
8.1.4 SCC 10 Guideway and Track Elements
BSVII has a unique track alignment configuration in a large single-bore tunnel. The two-track
main line is side-by-side from the east portal through the 28th Street/Little Portugal Station and a
mid-tunnel ventilation facility at 13th Street. The track transitions from the 13th Street facility to
a stacked configuration, which is maintained through the Downtown San Jose and Diridon
Stations. Between Diridon Station and the Stockton Avenue ventilation facility the tracks again
transition to side-by-side, which is maintained through the ventilation facility and west portal into
the at-grade portion containing the Newhall Yard & Maintenance Facility and Santa Clara Station
at the end of line.
The track installation is primarily direct fixation (roughly 27,500 RF), comprised of track and rail-
slab construction in the tunnel and track slab at Santa Clara Station. Ballasted track will also be
constructed (roughly 3650 RF) at grade. Approach slabs, bumping posts and rail lubricators are
included in the scope for SCC 10.11, Track: Ballasted. A total of 16 crossover switches and
turnouts comprise special trackwork in SCC 10.12
Noise and vibration analysis that was conducted during NEPA resulted in a mitigation commitment
for Isolated Slab Track (IST) in various locations within the proposed tunnel to reduce ground
borne noise levels. The Sponsor is currently revising analysis based on the proposed configuration
and is assuming the requirement will be eliminated, therefore there is no cost allowance in the
estimate for this mitigation. Although this could be considered a scope omission, PMOC has
applied the same assumption and is not recommending a cost adjustment for IST as identified in
the MMRP.
VTA has progressed a design concept used for space proofing access, egress, refuge areas,
ventilation, emergency evacuation, walkways, vehicle dynamic envelope, lighting, and systems
including communications, train control, and traction power. The design will require confirmation
by the design builder to take over the existing design and progress as engineer of record.
Design is progressing at a pace commensurate with establishing and validating alignment, space
and capacities ahead of procurement of a main civils works contractor to undertake the tunneling
and trackwork under a PDB form of contract targeted for appointment in the second quarter of
2022.
The ventilation and evacuation routes have not been approved by the Fire Life Safety committee
and will need design builder confirmation to take over the design and progress as the engineer of
record.

July 2021 (Final)
8.1.5 SCC 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals, and SCC 30 Support Facilities:
Yards, Shops, and Admin Buildings
The at-grade Santa Clara Station is the BSVII terminus adjacent to the Caltrain Santa Clara Station.
The 28th Street/Little Portugal Station is underground cut-an-cover construction with side platform
configuration.
Downtown San Jose (DTSJ) and Diridon stations are both stacked platform stations with the
platforms in the single bore tunnel and the station entrance, adits, back-of-house and
ventilation/egress facilities location in off-street cut-and-cover headhouses.
The cost estimate evaluated by PMOC included the excavation and SOE, permanent box structure
and station fit-out for the two off-line underground stations as part of the stations contract package.
VTA has since implemented a (no cost and no schedule impact) configuration change to move the
following scope of work at both stations to the tunneling package:
 deep shaft excavation
 deep shaft SOE
 Initial support of adits
 Ground improvement for adit excavation
 Adit Excavation
VTA considered also shifting the permanent station box structure from CP4 to CP2 but determined
to leave that with the CP4 contractor.
There are two mid-tunnel egress and ventilation facilities (under SCC 20.04 Other stations,
landing, terminals) which will be cut-and-cover construction and included in the CP2 scope of
work.
Newhall Yard & Maintenance Facility is adjacent to the Santa Clara Station and the west portal.
The yard has recently been re-designed to fit within the property which VTA already owns and
was formerly a UPRR facility. VTA has attained BART approval of the new configuration for the
yard and the Santa Clara Stations and the design will progress accordingly.
8.1.6 SCC 40 Sitework and Special Conditions
Utility relocation designs are currently underway for inclusion in the procurement documents.
VTA has reported 98 (locations) of utility relocations, which are grouped by owner and by
location, not a count of individual facilities. VTA have provided the PMOC with the Utility
conflict matrix noting location, size, owner for each utility proposed to be impacted. The list is
extensive.
Coordination with utility owners is still underway, ramping up to final design by those owners.
Cost sharing differs by owner, but when in public ROW, the cost is generally shared 50/50 for the
majority of utility agreements. The schedules for the final design and relocation activities at
individual locations are still to be determined and agreed to by the owners. What has been shared

July 2021 (Final)
with utility owners: BSVII program schedule, milestones for utility design completion, RFP
process, and construction start.
Four additional communications companies have been recently identified requiring master
relocation agreements due to proposed impacts to existing facilities. The agreement with Level 3
has been executed, but the agreement had not been provided PMOC or FTA as of the status date
of this report. VTA reported the Zayo and MCI agreements will be executed in late May or June
2021. Although Verizon owns both MCI and XO Communications a separate master utility
relocation agreement will be required for each due to their functioning as independent companies.
The XO Communications agreement will be based upon the MCI agreement once executed.
Per the BSVII Third Party Agreement Management Plan Rev 0.C April 18, 2021:
After the Master Utility Agreements are in place, individual directives for
preliminary design, final design, and construction of relocations at various
locations will be issued by VTA based on cost estimates provided by the utility
companies and verified independently by VTA. Individual Notices to Proceed for
design and construction activities will be tracked in PICS.
The design and construction of utility relocations and/or rerouting work will be
performed by third party utility owners and their subcontractors or under contract
to VTA. Design and construction performed under contract to VTA will be
completed in accordance with the private third-party utility company’s standards.
Sanitary and storm sewer relocations will be the responsibility of the project, whereas all other
utilities will be relocated by the respective owners.
VTA has recently adjusted their approach to utility relocations in that the designs are being
advanced by the project consultants instead of waiting until the design builders are on board and
could experience substantial delays due to coordination with utility owners. This is an appropriate
approach and as long as VTA continues to progress the designs and execute the relocation
requests/notices with the utility companies it will be a commendable mitigation strategy for
potential schedule delays.
8.1.7 SCC 50 Systems
SCC 50.01 Train Control and Signals
As described in the SCC Workbook, train control and signals scope includes five new train control
zones across four stations and multiple interlockings.
VTA is currently carrying enough costs for either a conventional train control system or a
standalone Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) system. This is based on the unit pricing
that VTA experienced during SVBX Phase I and includes the unit pricing for the BART/Hitachi
CBTC contract, which includes an option for BSVII. As the PMOC was told by VTA during the
risk workshop, BART will need to make a decision on what train control technology BSVII needs
to install by November of 2022. BART is about to retrofit 80 existing vehicles with the CBTC
onboard equipment. Hitachi will be working on the retrofitting.
July 2021 (Final)
Using New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) as a comparison project for
implementing, integrating and safety certifying their CBTC system. The earliest that MTA was
able to remove their traditional train control systems was one year after all their vehicles had the
onboard equipment. Bear in mind, MTA has experience on multiple lines with CBTC and it is still
taking them a year to remove their traditional train control system after initiating and testing
CBTC.
Looking at the current VTA schedule and decision point for BART (November 2022), PMOC
believes it unlikely that all 80 cars will be outfitted with CBTC, tested and commissioned, and
safety certified on a route. Bear in mind, the CPUC will have to concur that CBTC is safe as a
standalone. BART will also initiate the option with Alstom to have Hitachi installed onboard
equipment at the factory prior to delivery of new vehicles. Having said all of this, it is not
unreasonable that CBTC can be ready prior to revenue service, but VTA’s program schedule
decision making point makes it improbable that CBTC will be installed on BSVII as a standalone
train control system. It might be prudent for VTA to investigate whether they can push back the
decision-making point to allow BART additional time to safety certify CBTC with CUPC.
VTA and BART have indicated that all yards will operate with tradition train control system. The
train control system will interface with the new Newhall Yard for dispatching trains from the yard.
Standard details and components were given more credence by the PMOC with respect to systems
and design maturity than other disciplines. This is because the design must meet BART standards
and requirements and the associated costs are based on established history.
With respect to a contingency plan if BSVII does not install CBTC, it is unclear to PMOC who
bears responsibility for the potential overlay. PMOC analysis assumes that BSVII will not require
project budget to cover it; per the information provided by VTA that will be a local cost covered
separately.
SCC 50.03 Traction Power Supply: Substations
The Traction Power Substations (TPSS) are located at each of the four passenger stations, at
Newhall Yard, and at the West Portal. Gap breaker stations (providing sectionalization) are located
within three project facilities: one each in the East METVTF and West MEVTF and two at the
Newhall Yard. Scope is in Systems contract package.
SCC 50.04 Traction Power Distribution: Third Rail
System wide construction of the third rail or traction power contact rail. The contact rail includes
the contact rail, jumpers, insulators, and coverboard. Part of Tunnel and track contract package
and Newhall yard contract packages.
SCC 50.05 Communications
System wide construction and installation of communication equipment for passenger information
and train operations, located in all four stations, Train Control room and Newhall Yard control
tower. Scope is part of Systems contract package.

July 2021 (Final)
SCC 50.06 Fare Collection System and Equipment
Fare collection equipment will be located in entrances to all four stations, includes installation of
fare payment and ticket entry gate equipment. Scope is part of Systems contract package.
8.1.8 SCC 60 ROW, Land, and Existing Improvements
The RAMP is developed to a level of detail consistent with the design phase of the project.
Although the EPD pilot program does not include a milestone for entry into engineering, PMOC
finds the RAMP to be complete commensurate to that level. Land acquisition activities have been
progressed per the RAMP and applicable policies and procedures. Preparatory activities for
relocations have begun to meet VTA’s plan for sufficient time to relocate owners and tenants.
ROW exhibits shared with PMOC for the January 2021 ROW workshop identified property in the
following categories:
1. Tunnel Easement
2. Tunnel Easement (Exclusion Zone Only)
3. VTA-Owned Property
4. Proposed Fee Take
5. Permanent Easement (Tieback)
6. Construction Staging Area/Temporary Construction Easement
7. Overlapping Easement
8. Utility Easement
Survey documents have not been shared with PMOC, however VTA has reported progress on
surveys with their schedule progress updates. Although PMOC has not obtained the survey
documents, VTA has demonstrated via virtual presentations that the property information and
survey data are fully coordinated with the design drawings for guideways and buildings, site
features, utilities, streets, railroads, site access, construction easements and staging areas.
Property acquisitions are being certified based on the proposed project footprint and tunnel zone
of influence; therefore, excess property has not been specifically identified on any right of way
plans shared with PMOC.
VTA has planned and implemented environmental site assessments as necessary in advance of
property acquisition activities.
VTA has identified the acquisitions and relocations shown in Table 37 (per Spot Memo 15: Right-
of-Way Acquisitions dated April 23, 2021):
Table 37 Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Relocations
Land
Full Parcel Takes 10
Tunnel Easements 57
Partial Takes (including partial fees, non-tunnel easements, and/or a combination, and other interests) 12
Relocation
Residential 8
Business 35

July 2021 (Final)
VTA is negotiating the tunnel easement language with BART and will request approval for all
acquisitions in a single action based upon preliminary linework. The final linework based on
design refinements prior to the CP2 RFP is planned to be complete in May.
8.1.9 SCC 70 Vehicles
As per BART’s Rail Fleet Management Plan FY2020 to FY2036 (DRAFT Revision D September
2019):
“VTA will have capital responsibility for 60 cars associated with the Phase I
extension to Berryessa and 60 associated with the Phase II extension to Santa Clara,
with BART having capital responsibility for the remainder of the fleet.” [p62]
“BART has not yet finalized a contract for a subsequent procurement of 425 ‘E’
cars, but their reliability, availability and maintainability requirements will be as
specified for the current contract of 775.” [p60]
VTA has included 48 of the 60 Phase II vehicles in the scope of this project and the remaining 12
will be paid for entirely with local funds.
BART has an established vehicle procurement program for the fleet expansion. Updates to the
specifications, testing and inspection plans, maintenance and training requirements will be
addressed as needed in the future.
The upcoming BART procurement could be impacted by the buyout of their current vehicle
manufacturer; configuration changes being implemented based on current fleet performance; and
supplier cost increases.
VTA has not provided a bus fleet management plan and although the project will impact bus routes
in the vicinity of proposed stations, BSVII does not include the purchase of any new buses.
8.1.10 SCC 80 Professional Services
 Scope for SCC80 includes program-wide elements as well as work associated with the four
major contract packages. Nearly every SCC80 sub-section consists of efforts by VTA staff,
BART staff, and professional services consultants. SCC80.06 will also include the
necessary professional services consultants performing reviews on behalf of third parties
and third-party staff. Please refer to the PMOC’s recommended cost adjustment related to
SCC80 (later in this report) for additional analysis of the allocation of costs and the
Sponsor’s staffing plans for BSVII.

July 2021 (Final)
9.0 OP 33: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE REVIEW
9.1 Introduction
The PMOC followed guidance outlined in FTA OP 33 to verify the cost of the project through a
review of the documents provided by the Sponsor, VTA, as listed in Appendix B.
This project is presented by the Sponsor under the EPD pilot program. PMOC has worked with
the procedures where possible but time and expedited approach has not allowed a complete review
as under a traditional submission. Effort has been concentrated in identifying any major shortfalls
and deficiencies in the presented estimate and associated back-up.
The PMOC received the estimate in its original format and subsequent cost estimate backup files
beginning in August of 2020 through May 2021. Please reference Appendix B for detailed dates
of documents received and reviewed along with their revision history.
Due to the accelerated nature of the PMOC review, this report will not include developing
independent cost estimates for General/Supplementary Conditions/Division 1 for the three largest
construction contracts and the systems work.
9.2 Estimate Status
1. By the AACE Cost Estimating Classification System, the Estimate falls broadly under a
“Class 3 estimate” which is defined as design development, budget authorization, and
feasibility. The maturity level of project definition deliverables is generally between 10%
and 40% and would equate to a Schematic level of design. Some elements are less mature,
for example the Santa Clara Station, the Newhall Yard operations and maintenance
facilities and vehicle storage yard, and some are more advanced such as Systems
installations adopting BART standard detailing and specifications. The bulk of the
quantified elements of the estimate reflect the main civil works of the tunnel, ventilation
facilities and underground station structures and station architectural works which were all
at generally a 10% to 15% level of design when adopted for the submitted estimate.
2. The original civil works estimates SCC 10-50 were provided in 2019 Q4 dollars. Project
elements aligned to SCC 60-80 were provided in 2020 base year dollars. To accommodate
SCC workbook requirements and align all the SCC codes to a common base year the
Sponsor escalated the SCC 10-50 elements to 2020 Q1 dollars by multiplying with a factor
of 1.0068 (=1+0.0272/4 adopting a 2.72% annual inflation rate for 2019 to 2020).
For reference, Table 38 is provided the AACE cost estimate classification table.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 38 AACE Cost Estimating Classification System
Maturity
Level of Expected
Design Development /
Project End Usage Methodology Accuracy
Estimating Contingency
Definition Range
Estimate Deliverables
Class (Typical
(Expressed as (Typical (Typical (Typical variation
(Typical
% of complete purpose of purpose of estimating in low and
allowance)
definition) estimate) estimate) method) high
ranges)
SF or m2
Program or factoring, L: -20% to
Functional area,
Rough order of parametric -30%
Class 5 0% to 2% or concept 20% +
Magnitude models, H: +30% to
screening
(RoM) judgment, or +50%
analogy
Parametric
L: -10% to
Schematic models,
Concept or 15% to -20%
Class 4 1% to 15% design or assembly
Feasibility 20% H: +20% to
concept study driven
+30%
models
Semi-
Design
detailed unit L: -5% to -
development,
Schematic costs with 10% to 15%
Class 3 10% to 40% budget
Design assembly 15% H: +10%
authorization,
level line to +20%
feasibility
items
Detailed unit
L: -5% to -
Control or cost with
Design 10%
Class 2 30% to 75% bid/tender, semi- forced 5% to 10%
Development H: +5% to
detailed detailed take-
+15%
off
Detailed unit L: -3% to -
Check estimate
Construction cost with 5%
Class 1 65% to 100% or pre bid/tender, 0% to 5%
Documents detailed take- H: +3% to
change order
off +10%
9.3 Methodology
The PMOC followed guidance provided in FTA OP 33, Capital Cost Estimate Review, dated
September 2015 in the review of the Project Sponsor’s cost estimate. The PMOC’s review had
the following objectives:
 Evaluate Sponsor’s project control organizational structure, systems and software
 Evaluate Sponsor’s cost escalation methodology
 Ensure the Capital Cost Estimate (CCE) is mechanically correct and complete
 Ensure the CCE is consistent with industry and engineering standards and practice
 Ensure consistency with project scope
 Identify the method of estimation being used is appropriate
 Ensure the CCE is mapped correctly onto the SCC Main Worksheet
July 2021 (Final)
For the cost portion of the PMOC review, a sampling of larger ticket items with the rationale that
20% of the scope will carry 80% of the cost was taken. Such items will fall along the critical path
of the proposed schedule and are time-based, such as the tunnel boring machine. While the whole
estimate was reviewed for the included work content, more of a concentration of effort was given
to the larger items whose costs were significant. This approach was taken to understand the level
of accuracy while trying to identify large cost items that represented most of the type of work that
was reflected in the project. In doing so, shortages and/or overages that may have more of an
impact on the overall costs could be identified.
9.4 PMOC Observations
Summary of Findings as Related to PMOC Review of the Cost Estimate
The Sponsor has submitted their EPD application based upon an estimate at completion of $6,941
million (including finance charges). The FTA PMOC is of the opinion, and based on the details
provided, that the estimate is overly optimistic and should be increased by $1,037 million (YOE)
to account for overly optimistic inflation, excluded scope (in the base estimate), under estimation
of SCC80 staffing costs, overly optimistic schedule and over stripping of the base estimate
transferring base costs to contingency and thereby suppressing contingency norms related to the
base. The recommended cost adjustments, details of which can be found in the OP 40 section of
this report, can be summarized as follows:
1. Direct adjustments ($156 million BY$) for:
2. Time related (schedule) adjustments totaling $404 million BY$ to account for PMOC
recommended 18-month schedule adjustment
3. Latent contingency adjustments totaling $169 million BY$ to account for over stripping of
base and allocation to contingency
4. Inflation adjustment on base estimate at $185 million and an additional $96 million when
applied to the PMOC adjustments resulting in an overall total inflation adjustment of $309
million based on a 3.50% annual rate of inflation
In summary and in performing the review the PMOC has verified that:
1. Sponsor’s estimating and project controls organization is experienced, has the necessary
capacity and capability to perform the work,
2. Scope was accounted for in the estimate,
3. The PMOC checked the estimate mathematically summed. Discrepancies described below
were encountered.
4. Estimate was Coded to FTA SCC cost accounts, however there were minor details that
were noted to be out of place during the PMOC’s review of the contract package alignment
to the FTA Standard Cost Categories:
a. Noise Dampers found under 10.07 should be under 10.13 to align with accurate
SCC breakdown and analysis.

July 2021 (Final)
b. There is no backup data to show how the totals for SCC80.08 were achieved, there
is simply a lump sum of $68.8M in for Start-up Costs in the SCC Workbook Build
Main tab.
c. In the 05 – 06-17-20 – Option 1a – R5 workbook Bid Package by SCC tab, the
dollar amounts for BP-02, BP-03, and BP-04 do not have costs for 80.03 Project
Management for Design and Construction; BP-01 is the only contract package that
feeds into the total project costs column.
5. Inflation calculation was consistent with FTA methodology and used the FTA standard
workbook inflation calculation sheet based on approximate base year annual expenditure
inflated using compound annual inflation rates, however inflation was in the PMOC’s
opinion underestimated
6. Through sampling of data, quantities, labor, equipment and material rates, (noting
quotations where provided) correctly rolled into summary sheets with consistent mark-ups
and sales tax applied as appropriate,
7. Estimate took account of contract packaging strategy, constructability, project constraints,
prevailing market conditions and any project labor agreements and / or local union hall
agreements
8. Estimate and mark-ups made provision for Insurance, bid and performance bonds as
described in the draft terms and conditions and
9. Identification of latent [hidden] and patent [exposed] contingency was identified and
adjusted to form the Sponsors proposed SABCE, however, was in the PMOC’s opinion
over-stripped
9.4.1 Characterization of Significant Uncertainties
The most significant area of estimating uncertainty relates to TBM mining rate productivity. Utility
relocations are highlighted given that there is currently no undertaking from any of the Utility
Owners to comply with City Ordnance as to cost or indeed to relocate in accordance with the
project schedule requirements.
In summary, the items in the estimate which the PMOC considers remain of higher uncertainty are
summarized below in Table 39.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 39 Cost Characterization of Uncertainties
9.4.2 Reliability of Cost Estimate

The PMOC was presented summary estimate back-up but not detailed quantity take-offs. The
estimate was produced by multiple teams from different consultants. The overall structure of the
cost estimate was found to be traceable to the associated work in the project and the PMOC did
not find any significant missing areas of scope unaccounted for.
There is discrepancy between the SCC Workbook updated and provided to the PMOC in January
of 2021 and all supporting back-up and detailed estimate totaling $168.6 million BY$ which
PMOC initially categorized as a mathematical error. It was later assumed this difference was due
to the deletion of latent contingency which the Sponsor made on the estimate but without
corresponding mathematical flow through to the summary sheets. This latent contingency
adjustment was detailed in a response to questions from the PMOC at the risk workshop and
subsequently detailed in the Spot memo: Latent Contingency Basis in EPD Estimate dated May
14, 2021, explaining where, in the Sponsors opinion, latent contingency has been removed from
project costs.
A total provided in the Spot Memo referenced above for latent contingency amount to $173
million. The proposed Sponsor reallocation to contingency from the base estimate were provided
as:
 Contractor profit: $63.2M
 Tunnel boring machine production rate: $13.2M
 Time-related indirect costs savings based on improved TBM production rate: $7.2M
 Precast concrete tunnel lining: reduced tunnel lining unit price: $51M
 Geotechnical items and allowances: reduced the geotechnical items by 15% due to initially
conservative allowances and unit pricing for geotechnical items: $38.4M
July 2021 (Final)
PMOC offers following observations on the proposed reduction of base estimate for latent
contingency:
 Profit allowance reduction – CP1 13% / CP2 15% are in the PMOC’s opinion fair and
reasonable allowances given current market conditions and the high risk nature of this
project likely to attract additional profit addition and should not be stripped further ;
Sponsors claim of keen market response is questioned given CP1 current limit of only two
qualified bidders. PMOC further notes on the CP2 contract over 50% of respondents did
not buy into VTA’s tunnel production rate / schedule.
 TBM production rate and time related costs – refer to PMOC proposed adjustment. The
mining rate is believed to be overly optimistic.
 Precast concrete tunnel lining rate – PMOC questions Sponsor proposed reduction in
PCC ring rate. PMOC was informed they had not allowed ‘special CI break out panels’ at
Adit connections, nothing was allowed for crossing of Silver Creek fault and the corbel
design will require significant additional reinforcement in the PCC linings at top and
bottom levels. PMOC experience is that PCC rates vary considerably. Tunnel linings are
very ‘specialist’ and in this case will likely require special double or even triple gasketed
joints for waterproofing. PMOC has received no estimates from Sponsor from suppliers to
support rate reductions or any more comprehensive research into typical rates for
comparative tunnels.
 Ground improvements allowance reduction – PMOC has checked back Sponsors
proposed Jet Grout quantities per location and found they were reasonable and reflective
of planned minimal volumes by Sponsor in supporting responses to PMOC questions.
However current allowances are not viewed as conservative or indeed containing latent
contingency in any way conservative and claim latent contingency. The back-up Sponsor
provided was not supported by location specific detailed quantification. Feedback to
PMOC questions at the Sponsors BIM model presentation was that ground treatment was
likely to be more extensive than originally envisaged notably around station adits.
Feedback at the risk workshop was that the likelihood of a combination of jet grouting, soil
mixing and / or freezing would be required. All the respondents to the RFIF process have
emphasized the challenges with these very large adit connections and indeed the
complications about design and responsibility between CP2 and CP4.
9.4.3 Statement of Potential Range of Cost
Based on the AACE Class 3 estimate classification of -10% through +20% Table 40 below
provides the corresponding calculation on base year and YOE dollars. These ranges reflect base
uncertainty and not risk.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 40 Potential Range of Costs
9.5 PMOC Review

9.5.1 Estimate structure and composition
PMOC reviewed the Sponsor Basis of Cost Estimate Revision No. C dated September 30th, 2020.
This basis of cost stated a total project cost including finance charges of $6,739 million (YOE).
Finance costs were included as $188 million. The Sponsors EPD submission was for $6,941
million based on an increase in finance charges from $188 million to $390 million. Supplemental
cost memo’s and updated workbooks have been received from the Sponsor between September
2020 and May 2021 however the PMOC has not received an updated Basis of Cost aligned to the
submitted EPD application.
The Basis of Cost Estimate includes:
 A summary of program costs by FTA cost category
 Descriptive of the estimate development setting out responsibilities and the estimating
breakdown structure adopted for SCC 10-50
 Summary estimate detail, basis and source by FTA cost categories
 Detailed descriptive of the basis of estimate
 Explanation estimating elements covering the BART scope
 Escalation methodology and formulation into the program budget
Appendices include:
 Craft labor rates
 Construction equipment rates
 Materials summary
 Cost estimate detail
 Cost estimation materials and finishes
 Right of Way base costs
 FTA SCC workbook
The estimate is definable into the four main contract packages and program wide elements. Since
the submission of the initial Basis of Cost Estimate the scope included within each contract
package has changed and these amendments have been passed through to the PMOC in updated
workbooks attached to Spot cost memoranda.
The PMOC is concerned as to the age and source of SCC 10-50 of this estimate workbook being
from 2019.
July 2021 (Final)
PMOC cannot be confident all adjustments have been correctly incorporated and that summary
totals reflect ongoing adjustments or indeed that the “Profile” totals aligned to the four main
contract packages are precisely correct given the number of ongoing changes the PMOC has
received from the Sponsor.
9.5.2 Cost Data Reviewed
Please refer to Appendix B for list of documents reviewed.
9.5.3 Level of design completion
The PMOC is of the opinion that the estimate was based on design definition, alignment, associated
plans and sections, layouts and quantities where available to the following level of completion:
 CP1 – Systems 30%
 CP2 – Civil 15%
 CP2 – Track 30%
 CP3 – Yard and Facilities 30%
 CP3 – Santa Clara Station < 15%
 CP4 – Underground stations 15%
 Vehicles – 60%
 ROW – 15%
 SCC 80 – 15%
The Sponsor has provided PMOC with several Spot memo cost updates specific to cost estimate
checks that have been performed in the process of trend analysis.
As an example, BSVII Spot Memo 21 – Cost Estimate Update gives order of magnitude cost ranges
that each design refinement listed could potentially change the overall cost of the estimate. It
provides a brief description, a location, a contract package impact, and a note giving reason to why
each design impact might be a cost impact to the overall project. These line items are weighted by
a scale of [-5 to -1] for a cost savings and [+1 to +5] for additional costs, however, the scale is not
linear in nature and falls short of a way to predict pricing changes from original estimate as shown
in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Cost Impact Ranges
The PMOC carried out a cross checking of sampled elements of the project estimate with the
project scope contained in the design documents to determine degree of correlation between the
design deliverables and proposed estimate adjustment. Limited sketches, basis of design, estimate,
schedule, etc. were provided and reviewed by the PMOC. The level of detail provided in the memo

July 2021 (Final)
was not sufficient to allow PMOC to allocate the identified increases/decreases to any specific
Contract Package, nor compare/relate/associate the line items to EBS/WBS.
The Sponsor adopted the midpoint of an adjustment range, e.g. for a $10-20M impact, $15M was
used as an order of magnitude to quantify their proposed changes in the base estimate. This was
compiled prior to the Risk Workshop in May, 2021, when it was understood that the Sponsor had
been updating their estimate on an on-going basis and scope items that appeared missing from
current estimate submission would be included in subsequent revisions. Essentially a Trend
analysis.
Based on the estimate ranges used in Spot Memo 21, the Sponsor’s assertion that a cumulative
change of only $3M overall is not supported by the PMOC. When using the midpoint of each
applied range for each identified item, PMOC calculated the total increase to be $10M. Backup
for the cost impacts can be found in Appendix O, Sponsor and PMOC Cost Adjustments. Further
this analysis speaks to the fact that the level of detail provided to the PMOC by the Sponsor is not
sufficient for PMOC to incorporate or take account of these items as adjustments to base cost as
their relationship with the entire estimate is unclear. It would be more relevant to await the
Sponsor’s cost estimate based on the RFP plans. Any adjustments would lend too much credibility
to what was included as ROM’s and were not comprehensive of all design updates since the cost
estimate was completed in June 2020.
PMOC will take the cost summary memo as indicating the level of design development has still
not been reflected in the cost estimate and keep the contingency levels at those appropriate to a
10-20% design maturity, or a schematic level of design. This will avoid double counting any
increases from the Sponsor adjustments, as the PMOC will apply 10-20% BETA factors to the risk
model.
9.5.4 Project Controls Organizational Structure Specific to Estimating
VTA and its Consultants have estimating responsibilities for the entire Project, although the
development of the BSVII EPD estimate submission has required input from many groups,
including BART.
In addition to the construction cost estimate for SCC 10-50 and 80.02, VTA’s Consultant Team
are coordinating the planning and development of the estimate and providing Project-wide
guidelines and procedures.
Within VTA’s Consultant Team, the estimate for SCC 10 through 50 and SCC 80.02 was prepared
by a Joint Venture (JV) between Mott MacDonald and PGH Wong Engineering and their
subconsultants (MMW-PGH Wong JV). BKF Engineers prepared the utilities estimate.
9.5.5 Cost Estimate Structure / Quality / Level of detail
PMOC has noted development of the construction estimate and schedule by the Sponsor attempted
to follow a parallel development to ensure that the construction approach and schedule
considerations were included in the estimate. Due to multiple parties compiling information
together and with remote working conditions and extensive revision history of the documentation,

July 2021 (Final)
the PMOC observes the updates do not entirely reflect the details across the entire estimate
breakdown in following along with the schedule.
The Sponsor’s approach to the estimate was to prepare an estimate in the same manner as a
contractor. The estimating team is comprised of estimating professionals who have performed
bottom-up, production-based estimates as contractors utilizing estimating software common to the
construction industry. A project wide estimate breakdown structure was adopted as set out in the
Basis of Estimate. The estimating process adopted industry standard coding and included the use
of the following aids and industry software:
 Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) coding structure to align the estimate with
project specifications
 HCSS, B2W and Sage Estimating System software
 Standard electronic estimating templates
 Project specific database of unit rates for labor, plant and materials
The Sponsor aligned the estimate to the FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCC) line items with the
estimate line items by detailed spreadsheet coding and sorting.
Workshop presentations were provided by the Sponsor to further explain source, composition, and
structure of the estimate for the PMOC. Questions were tabled and Sponsor has provided PMOC
back-up where requested. Separate meetings were held as the PMOC progressed their review of
the Sponsors schedule to review cost alignment reviewing schedule assumptions and activity
durations of critical items matched the Basis of Cost assumptions.
The estimate has been broken down into the four main civils works contract packages and the
program wide elements (SCC 60-80) as follows:
 Contract 1 (CP1) Systems – includes the system elements to be installed throughout the
Project, such as system wide engineering, system wide conductors, system wide
equipment/fixtures (e.g. large emergency ventilation fans, tunnel lighting, communication
systems, bulk power supply stations, traction power, line electrical, radio, Train Control,
other related systems and equipment), and Newhall Yard Maintenance Facility systems.
 Contract 2 (CP2) Tunnel and Trackwork – includes the bored tunnel construction;
procurement of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), long tunnel conveyors and tunnel
liners; tunnel interior structures fit out including station platforms; portals, Mid-Tunnel
Egress, Ventilation and Track Transition Facilities (METVFs), and 28th Street/Little
Portugal Station utilities, enabling works, SOE installation, excavation and support and for
portals and METVFs permanent structure fit out including building services, civil site
restoration and demobilization; mainline trackwork including contact rail; compensation
grouting; care and maintenance in tunnel for Contract 1 Contractor during system wide
installation and testing.
 Contract 3 (CP3) Newhall Yard Maintenance Facility and Santa Clara Station and
Parking Garage – includes the Newhall Maintenance and Operations Yard and buildings,

July 2021 (Final)
yard track and contact rail, civil site restoration and demobilization, and the full
construction of the Santa Clara Station and parking garage.
 Contract 4 (CP4) Stations and Support Facilities – includes Downtown San José (DTSJ)
and Diridon Stations utilities and enabling works; entry headhouse and platform end
ventilation and egress shaft SOE installation; excavation and support; permanent structure
fit out including building services, civil site restoration and demobilization; ground
improvement for adit, adit excavation support, adit lining, and adit fit-out; 28th Street
/Little Portugal Station permanent structure fit out including building services, civil site
restoration and demobilization; building underpinning in vicinity of shafts at DTSJ and
Diridon stations, if necessary.
In addition to these four main civils works construction contract packages the estimate separates
program elements as follows:
 Right-of-Way (ROW) costs – VTA provided the Real Estate acquisition, relocation and
easements estimates.
 Vehicle costs – VTA provided the Vehicles estimates.
 Design Integration – VTA’s Consultant Team provides coordination of the design and the
improvements to be installed throughout the entire Project. The design work through the
time of the FTA EPD Pilot Program grant request has been performed by the MMW-PGH
Wong JV.
 Project Management (PM)/Construction Management (CM) Services – VTA’s
Consultant Team provides the overview and coordination of project controls (cost and
schedule), administration, information technology, document control, and other support
services to the Project. Support services include, but are not limited to, coordination of
ROW, third party and procurement services. VTA is in the process of procuring
Construction Management Services for each main construction package. Other Consultants
are also expected to be engaged to provide the internal VTA team management support,
coordination, and administration.
 BART Scope – BART provides services and equipment to the Project, including Project
and Design Oversight and Management, Testing, Commissioning and Start-up. BART will
supply equipment, will provide special BART related operational software and hardware,
will provide liaison with BART design, construction and operational departments, and
support and then perform integrated systems testing and start-up. BART will also provide
oversight services for BART-administered contracts, including implementation of core
system modifications, modifications required to the Operation Control Center (OCC),
installation and implementation of automated fare collection equipment, and procurement
of revenue vehicles and associated specialty hardware.
Table 41 below provides the estimate breakdown structure:

July 2021 (Final)
Table 41 Estimate Breakdown Structure
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Bid Item Description
SCC Code Work Area Bid Package Number Bid Item Number
40.01 030 3 000100 Remove Concrete Sidewalk
4 3 1 6 <No of Digits (Total 14)
9.5.6 Characterization or Stratification of Cost Items

The PMOC has characterized in Table 42 the Sponsors estimate approximately into:
1. Unit pricing – Unit costs are used when items in an estimate can be measured or quantified
and a cost applied to labor, materials, and equipment used.
2. Cost Estimate Relationships (CER) – A CER is a way to use a previous cost of an item
to determine or predict that of another, e.g. Phase 1 utilized to calculate Phase 2 costs.
3. Lump Sums – A lump sum is a dollar amount allotted to an item within an estimate as an
allowance.
The stratification of the cost items shows that for SCC10-80:
 Unit Costs - 42%
 CER - 48%
 Lump Sums - 10%
In SCC 10, Guideway and Trackwork, nearly 79% of the total make-up of the estimate is derived
from a bottom-up detailed engineering approach. This is described in the Sponsor’s memo
regarding cost estimating methods.
In SCC 20.06, Automobile parking / multi-story structure, all the pricing is from a dollar per
parking stall referenced by historical figures of parking structures in cities around the Bay area.
In SCC 50, Systems, is depicted as lagging in design with the estimate generally based on adjusted
Phase I costs (through CER) along with the inclusion of several lump sums / allowances covering
Signals, Communications, and the Central Controls. PMOC were informed VTA instructed the
estimating team to carry $20 million for the VTA’s contribution for work at the BART Central
Controls facility based on prior experience.
In SCC 80, Professional services, estimates reflect a combination of spent-to-date costs, CER’s
and unit costs related to FTE staffing estimations. Spent-to-date costs have been incurred under
Project Development and are captured in 80.01.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 42 Sponsor Estimate Stratification
Sponsor Estimate Stratification
Standard SCC codes Estimate BY$ Unit Prices CER Lump Sums
Estimate w/o % Unit Price % CER Price % Lump Sum Pricing Lump Sum
SCC Category Unit Pricing Total CER Pricing Total
Contingency Contingency of Total of Total % Pricing Total
10 GUIDEWAY $ 1,079,481,417 27% $ 849,972,841 79% $ 121,560,434 11% $ 107,948,142 10%
10.06 Guideway: Underground cut & cover $ 83,012,924 18% $ 58,109,047 70% $ 16,602,585 20% $ 8,301,292 10%
10.07 Guideway: Underground tunnel $ 893,671,854 28% $ 714,937,483 80% $ 89,367,185 10% $ 89,367,185 10%
10.08 Guideway: Retained cut or fill $ 43,144,509 18% $ 30,201,156 70% $ 8,628,902 20% $ 4,314,451 10%
10.09 Track: Direct fixation $ 45,831,683 17% $ 36,665,346 80% $ 4,583,168 10% $ 4,583,168 10%
10.11 Track: Ballasted $ 3,854,955 17% $ 3,083,964 80% $ 385,496 10% $ 385,496 10%
10.12 Track: Special (switches, turnouts) $ 9,965,493 17% $ 6,975,845 70% $ 1,993,099 20% $ 996,549 10%
20 STATIONS, STOPS $ 1,156,985,214 20% $ 731,149,299 63% $ 314,125,946 27% $ 111,709,970 10%
20.01 At‐grade station, stop, shelter, mall, $ 65,501,795
17% $ 39,301,077 60% $ 19,650,539 30% $ 6,550,180 10%
terminal, platform
20.03 Underground station, stop, shelter, $ 805,709,279
21% $ 563,996,495 70% $ 161,141,856 20% $ 80,570,928 10%
mall, terminal, platform
20.04 Other stations, landings, terminals: $ 122,944,311
18% $ 73,766,586 60% $ 24,588,862 20% $ 24,588,862 20%
Intermodal, ferry, trolley, etc.
20.06 Automobile parking multi‐story $ 72,687,930
17% $ ‐ 0% $ 72,687,930 100% $ ‐ 0%
structure
20.07 Elevators, escalators $ 90,141,900 17% $ 54,085,140 60% $ 36,056,760 40% $ ‐ 0%
30 SUPPORT FACILITIES $ 199,889,600 18% $ 127,158,877 64% $ 39,977,920 20% $ 32,752,803 16%
30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility $ 136,070,386 18% $ 95,249,270 70% $ 27,214,077 20% $ 13,607,039 10%
30.05 Yard and Yard Track $ 63,819,215 17% $ 31,909,607 50% $ 12,763,843 20% $ 19,145,764 30%
40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS $ 152,885,625 18% $ 25,616,941 17% $ 25,680,355 17% $ 101,588,329 66%
40.01 Demolition, Clearing, Earthwork $ 24,483,849 36% $ 19,587,080 80% $ ‐ 0% $ 4,896,770 20%
40.02 Site Utilities, Utility Relocation $ 116,342,054 15% $ ‐ 0% $ 23,268,411 20% $ 93,073,643 80%
40.07 Automobile, bus, van accessways $ 12,059,722
17% $ 6,029,861 50% $ 2,411,944 20% $ 3,617,917 30%
including roads, parking lots
50 SYSTEMS $ 337,859,714 17% $ - 0% $ 255,212,425 76% $ 82,647,289 24%
50.01 Train control and signals $ 82,617,205 18% $ ‐ 0% $ 41,308,602 50% $ 41,308,602 50%
50.03 Traction power supply: substations $ 138,169,726 17% $ ‐ 0% $ 138,169,726 100% $ ‐ 0%
50.04 Traction power distribution: catenary $ 20,551,910
17% $ ‐ 0% $ 20,551,910 100% $ ‐ 0%
and third rail
50.05 Communications $ 42,405,373 17% $ ‐ 0% $ 21,202,686 50% $ 21,202,686 50%
50.06 Fare collection system and equipment $ 33,979,500 15% $ ‐ 0% $ 33,979,500 100% $ ‐ 0%
50.07 Central Control $ 20,136,000 15% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0% $ 20,136,000 100%
Construction Subtotal (10 - 50) $ 2,927,101,571 22% $ 1,733,897,958 59% $ 756,557,080 26% $ 436,646,533 15%
60 ROW, LAND, EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS $ 200,257,543 55% $ - 0% $ 200,257,543 100% $ - 0%
60.01 Purchase or lease of real estate $ 188,943,227 56% $ ‐ 0% $ 188,943,227 100% $ ‐ 0%
60.02 Relocation of existing households and $ 11,314,317
30% $ ‐ 0% $ 11,314,317 100% $ ‐ 0%
businesses
70 VEHICLES (48) $ 165,600,000 4% $ - 0% $ 165,600,000 100% $ - 0%
70.02 Heavy Rail $ 165,600,000 4% $ ‐ 0% $ 165,600,000 100% $ ‐ 0%
80 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,180,070,906 6% $ 149,472,740 13% $ 1,030,598,165 87% $ - 0%
80.01 Project Development $ 149,472,740 0% $ 149,472,740 100% $ ‐ 0% $ ‐ 0%
80.02 Engineering (not applicable to Small $ 190,599,926
11% $ ‐ 0% $ 190,599,926 100% $ ‐ 0%
Starts)
80.03 Project Management for Design and $ 312,749,024
8% $ ‐ 0% $ 312,749,024 100% $ ‐ 0%
Construction
80.04 Construction Administration & $ 335,994,984
5% $ ‐ 0% $ 335,994,984 100% $ ‐ 0%
Management
80.05 Professional Liability and other Non‐ $ 41,543,516
5% $ ‐ 0% $ 41,543,516 100% $ ‐ 0%
Construction Insurance
80.06 Legal; Permits; Review Fees by other $ 55,639,944
5% $ ‐ 0% $ 55,639,944 100% $ ‐ 0%
agencies, cities, etc.
80.07 Surveys, Testing, Investigation, $ 25,293,544
5% $ ‐ 0% $ 25,293,544 100% $ ‐ 0%
Inspection
80.08 Start up $ 68,777,228 5% $ ‐ 0% $ 68,777,228 100% $ ‐ 0%
Subtotal (10 - 80) $ 4,473,030,020 19% $ 1,883,370,698 42% $ 2,153,012,789 48% $ 436,646,533 10%
9.5.7 Mechanical Check of the Estimate

The PMOC mathematically summed all lump-sum prices as appropriate, unit price and quantity
calculations, and cost estimating relationships to confirm the sponsor’s total cost estimate. There
appears to be some errors in calculating subtotals in CP2 Tunnel and Track Work and this will
require the sponsor reform the pricing workbook of the EPD Rev 5 Draft. Supplemental
documentation does not provide enough detail and assumptions to show how dollar amounts relate
to the overall estimate.
PMOC also highlights discrepancies between detailed backup and summary workbook due to late
latent contingency adjustments as described above.

July 2021 (Final)
Each contract package was evaluated for completeness and cross-referenced with their respective
back-up data workbooks provided by the Sponsor. Each summed into the main estimate SCC Main
tab and into the FTA Standard Cost Categories, but no SCC category matched its respective
summation into the Build Main tab in the SCC Workbook. In summary, formulas within a
workbook totaled correctly, but separate documents did not add up together.
9.5.8 Comparison with Industry and Engineering Standards
During the PMOC review process, unit prices were sampled, and quantities were assessed for
conformance to industry standards, regional variations, or other unique characteristics.
The Sponsor referenced standard or Davis-Bacon wage rates that coincide with northern
California, which have been referenced in the Basis of Cost Estimate Appendix A. (Craft Labor
rates). The PMOC has verified rates conform with local Union wages.
In the Basis of Estimate the Sponsor noted that estimating quantities were derived from a
combination of early plan sets and drawings, architectural renderings of stations and tunnels and
directly from the BIM model where detail was progressed sufficiently to do so.
Informal presentations and review workshops were held between the PMOC and Sponsors
estimating team to review the capturing of sampled individual bid/contract package content and
walk through how data had been extracted and to verify alignment to constructability as well as
checking appropriate usage of SCC codes.
Samples for Concrete and Steel have been checked where used in differing, more normal,
conditions to ensure local conditions and difficulty factors were considered in the individual
estimated units. This included rebar and tonnage of delivered steel as well as precast and cast in
place (CIP) concrete forms, liners, and structures. Specifically:
 Concrete pricing: While Bid item 20.03.310.4.001200 - Concrete CIP at Diridon - West
Vent & Egress appears high at $1,168/CY, these were not out of the ranges for industry
standards as compared to RS Means and other cost databases when supplied material costs
were compared. [Please refer to Table 6]. Due to the complexity of the project, mostly due
to underground location, labor productivity would decrease, adding to the overall installed
cost per item. The average cubic yard of concrete can range from $481.75 to upwards of
$1,693.99 depending on reinforcing, forming, finishes, admixtures, and pumping, with the
average close to $1,087/CY installed. [reference materials chart]. PMOC concludes rate
used at $1,168/CY is comparable to industry standard at $1,087/CY.
 Steel pricing: Comparing the price of steel material and installed using line item
10.06.812.2.242000 Excavation & Temporary Support-Temporary Support & Materials-
Internal Steel in Appendix N (estimate backup data) lists the quantity of 1,384,404 lbs for
a price of $3,643,888.19. The cost of the steel material and labor involved to install or erect
on site is derived from the Sponsors estimate at approximately $2.63 per pound or
$5,264.20 per ton. This is common and typical in the current market, however, the price of
steel in Q1 and Q2 of 2021 has increased dramatically and production is at an all-time high
to meet demand. Per RS Means, structural steel tubing ranges $1.76 to $2.54 and a

July 2021 (Final)
W12x190 is $322.75/LF which equates to 1.70 per pound. To this, add for slow
productivity for site conditions, project complexity, tight labor market and specifically add
for galvanization $0.38 per pound. Price range for ton of steel: $4,157 - $5,404. PMOC
concludes rate used at $5,264.20 per ton is comparable to industry standard at $4,157 -
$5,404 per ton.
9.5.9 Correspondence with Scope Review
Sampled quantities provided in the estimate were cross checked against those indicated in the
design documents for the corresponding work. Those were found to be consistent and in line with
the documents and were therefore determined to be accurate.
A general overview of the estimate was performed as a “sanity check” of the included items of
work with their associated costs. This was done to verify the accuracy of the estimate to ensure
that major work components were accounted for with an associated cost. In turn, this aided in the
determination of any cost deficiencies and potential risks.
9.6 Review of estimate by FTA SCC code
Provided below is a summary of sampling reviews and associated commentary carried out by the
PMOC:
9.6.1 SCC 10 – Guideway and Trackwork
Running Tunnel Ground Improvement costs range from $520/CY to $2,300/CY, depending on the
location and approach. Sponsor stated lower rate was used for Jet Grouting assumed to be from
street level whilst higher rate was used for Jet Grouting assumed to be from within station,
ventilation or tunnel structures to surrounding ground. Pressure grouting ranges from $687.87 to
$1,227.51/CY and a slurry wall is priced at $2,377.26/CY. Table 43 below shows an overview by
location of base year ground improvement total costs. No back-up detail or quotations were
provided to the PMOC.
Table 43 Base Year Ground Improvement Costs

July 2021 (Final)
9.6.2 SCC 20 – Stations, Stops, Terminals
PMOC reviewed substructures and superstructure core and frames for Underground Stations and
Ventilation / Emergency Egress Facilities
 PMOC reviewed bulk quantities for the underground stations, ventilation facilities. Bulk
quantities for SOE, excavation and concrete were checked and found to be in the correct
order of magnitude. Rates used for excavation, concrete and steel were checked and again
found to be in the expected range of cost.
 The budget for Stations and Stops per the Sponsor’s estimate is $1.593B in YOE
dollars. The PMOC noted Bid item 20.03.610.2.220000 - Excavation and Support - SOE
-4ft Slurry, Deep appears high at $362.83 per SF for the Underground Station - 28th Street
Headhouse. This number is inconsistent with the SOE 4ft Slurry at West Mid-Tunnel -
Vent and Egress Shaft at $291.58 per SF and still dissimilar from East Mid-Tunnel - Vent
and Egress Shaft at $360.38/SF. This is due to the excavation approach used at each
location.
PMOC reviewed Structure and Architectural finishes estimate of above ground (Santa Clara
Station) and below ground stations and makes following observations:
 20.01 – Santa Clara Station – At Grade Station included square foot costs that appeared on
the higher end such as steel (ornamental and structural) at a rate over $16,900 per ton,
glazing at a rate of $285 per SF, and flooring at nearly $78 per SF. When the extravagant
finishes and architectural work is taken into consideration as shown on the Architectural
renderings and notes, these are appropriate costs for the design of the station.
 There appears to be a lack of vendor or subcontract quotes and the Sponsor should look
into obtaining them prior to the next estimate submission on items such as the light-weight
curved GFRC concrete panels at DTSJ Johnny V entrance at grade and the exposed roof
structure of SCSTA comprised of laminated and formed timber members constructed in
open-frame mesh with a roof membrane of translucent PTFE with a special Teflon coated
finish.
 Regarding Diridon Station, the columns prescribed in the atrium space that go from grade
at the main entrance, through the concourse, B2, B3, and to what appears to be the ceiling
of the upper platform are noted to be one-piece metal with circular columns. The unit cost
is not apparent and in the body of the estimate lists only lump sums. Again, a quote from
an industry professional is recommended on these items.
9.6.3 SCC 30 – Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings
SCC 30.03 Heavy Maintenance Facility – The PMOC also raised concerns over the yard layout
and design, with train control costs for the yard amplified due to the anticipated need for greater
routing flexibility and control for operations requirements. TPSS are priced at $138M in BSVII
and $44M per Phase I, yet the quantity is relatively the same number of TPSS. If Phase I pricing
was used in obtaining in current Phase II pricing, there is a large disparity in the unit costs. This
should be evaluated. During the Risk Workshop, the Sponsor assured that the budget for
Communications and SCADA was acceptable, and the amount was agreed to by BART.
July 2021 (Final)
Currently the budget for the Newhall Yard including trackwork is $234M. A previous Light Rail
Heavy Maintenance Shop that stored 60 LRVs, constructed in 2014, cost approximately $154M
with similar scope and property size, and it utilized right-of-way purchased from an existing Class
1 Railroad, which continues to operate adjacent to the Light Rail Maintenance Facility. Comparing
these similar facilities, the PMOC finds that VTA’s budget estimate is in line with the current cost
of constructing a heavy maintenance facility.
9.6.4 SCC 40 – Siteworks and Special Conditions
SCC 40.02 Utilities
The total SCC budget cost of the utility relocation is $149 million YOE, or 3.66% of the project
construction budget (SCC 10-50 YOE$). Although this is a small percentage of the projected cost,
it was reviewed because of the potential risks in this category. The design drawings do not identify
utilities at this stage of the project. According to VTA, the cost of the utility relocation will assume
that all utilities in the street ROW will be relocated. VTA used current utility maps to identify the
utility relocations with respect to the alignment, however, these were not provided with the
documents for review and verification.
Utility Owner claim of liability is based on VTA’s Enabling Statute which gave VTA certain rights
within the public right of way. Over the years VTA has negotiated claim agreements that have
established precedent for the following cost relationships:
 AT&T 50/50 Claim in Public Right-of-Way
 Comcast 50/50 Claim in Public Right-of-Way
 PG&E 50/50 Claim in Public Right-of-Way
 San Jose Water Co. 100% VTA Cost
 T-Mobile (Sprint) 100% VTA Cost
Note that these cost relationships only apply to public right of way. Should the Utility have
established land rights within the public right of way or on private property VTA assumes 100%
of the liability. EPD Cost Estimate is conservative in that it assumes VTA 100% liability. VTA
will update claim of liability assumptions when Utility Owners have completed their final designs
and submitted cost estimates and claim of liability under the agreements with VTA.
9.6.5 SCC 50 – Systems
Currently the systems budget for BVSII is $396M. This amount indicates the direct cost of
installing a traditional train control signaling system, which VTA has previous experience in
understanding the costs, as VTA recently installed a traditional train control system in Phase 1.
VTA & BART agreed that a decision whether to install a Communication Based Train Control
(CBTC) System or a traditional train control system, which is currently reflected in the budget,
will be made by November 2022. With respect to the cost of installing a CBTC System, it is less
costly than installing a traditional train control system. BART has negotiated a fixed price with
Hitachi on their CBTC system for their current alignment and vehicles, which also includes the
on-board equipment on the new procured vehicles required for Phase II. The potential issues are
if there is a need for both a traditional train control system and a CBTC system, the current budget
July 2021 (Final)
is not sufficient, even with contingency funds included. The PMOC finds as long as only one train
control system is chosen, the current allocated budget for the train control system is in line with
VTA & BART negotiated fixed price and is sufficient.
9.6.6 SCC 60 – Right of Way
Please refer to PMOC OP 23 review for commentary and analysis of ROW costs.
9.6.7 SCC 70 – Vehicles
SCC 70.02 Heavy Rail
Currently the vehicle procurement budget is $173,M. The cost is in line with BART’s vehicle
procurement fixed price contract, including option vehicles, with Alstom/Bombardier. The PMOC
finds that the allocated budget for the vehicles is sufficient.
9.6.8 SCC 80 – Professional Services
A general “overview” of the total estimate under SCC 80 was performed. The PMOC gave it a
sanity check to ensure that all major components appear and are represented by costs. Figure
12below shows Professional Services account for 26% of SCC 10-80. For a complex long tunnel
project this is not generous.

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 12 Percentage of Total Cost by SCC Code L1
After further discussion and presentations of the project scope and details at the Risk Workshop
held May 10-12, 2021, the PMOC determined that the proposed staffing levels are too optimistic,
and multipliers need to be adjusted to Table 8 (Table 44) and Figure 1 (Table 45) extracted from
the Sponsors Basis of Estimate report and Table 1 (Table 46) extracted from the Spot memo #2
SCC 80 Costs BSVII Staffing Plans and Organization Charts (April 14, 2021) as below.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 44 Table 8 from Basis of Cost
Table 45 Figure 1 from Basis of Cost

July 2021 (Final)
Table 46 Table 1 from Cost Memo #2: SCC 80 Costs
The SCC 80 costs include for all contracted and in-house professional, technical and management
services related to the design and construction of fixed infrastructure (Cats. 10 - 50) during the
engineering, construction, testing, and start-up phases of the project. This includes environmental
work; surveying; geotechnical investigations; design; engineering and architectural services;
materials and soils testing during construction; specialty services such as safety or security
analyses; value engineering, risk assessment, cost estimating, scheduling, Before and After studies,
ridership modeling and analyses, auditing, legal services, administration and management, etc. by
agency staff or outside consultants. Provisions for professional liability insurance and other non-
construction insurance should be included in 80.05.
Staffing Numbers
The Staffing Plan by Discipline by Year (Table 46 – Table 1 from Cost memo #2: SCC 80 Costs)
indicates:
1. Quality staff total of 5 FTEs, all assigned to project wide functions, for entire project
duration including manager, auditors, inspection staff and given that the contractors have
their own quality programs, one person overseeing each contract’s quality program is very
modest. PMOC considers that this should be twice that number or 10 FTEs total.
2. Project Controls has 14 total FTEs, 6 project wide functions, 2 each over each of the
contracts. However, the plan indicates 15% of their time is project controls, with no
indication of where the remainder of each person’s time will go, seemingly low for time
allotment and distribution.

July 2021 (Final)
3. Architecture has 13.5 total FTEs, 20% are project wide functions, 10% are CP2, 10% are
CP3, 60% are CP4, yet org charts for these contracts have no architecture positions or in
project wide staff.
4. Tunnel Structures positions have a total of 7.67 FTEs, 20% project wide functions, 60%
CP2, 20% CP1 with no distribution of FTEs in CP 3 or CP4 application of structures.
Contractors will all have Tunnel Structures staff, but with a project of this nature
demanding this type of expertise across the board and oversight/collaboration by so few
staff, this appears to be inconsistent and understaffed.
Overall, it appears as if VTA’s organizational charts do not reflect the distributions in this table.
No architectural, tunnel/structural staff are indicated in organizational charts. The distribution of
FTE total budgets seems illogical. There are 13.5 FTEs listed as architectural, 20% project wide
functions, 10% CP2, 10% CP3, and 60% CP4. This would seem to indicate approximately 8
architectural staff as CP4, yet the CP4 org chart lacks any architectural positions, rather, they are
primarily PM, contracts staff, office engineers, etc. Tunnel-structural engineers are indicated as
7.67 FTEs initially, tapering down to 3-5 FTEs. 20%, or about 1.5 of these FTEs are PW, with
about 4.5 FTEs on CP2, while the rest of the contracts share about 1 FTE. In the PMOC’s opinion
base staff estimations are too low and considers additional staff will be required to coordinate and
support this challenging and complex project.
Staffing Charge/Wage Rates
In supplementary information supplied by the Sponsor, the PMOC found that the multiplier rate
for the staffing decreased to support a previous dollar figure. BSVII Spot Memo 2 – SCC 80 Costs
dated April 14th, 2021 (submitted to the PMOC on April 19, 2021) states that the labor multiplier
used for the staffing estimate is 2.4 instead of 2.6 from the Basis of Cost Estimate. This amounts
to an almost 8% reduction in multiplier which when multiplied over thousands of manhours
presents a significant delta in OH, profit, and fringe benefits. This indicates that in order to capture
any additional staffing, the rates had to decrease in order to support a prior staffing cost number.
The $75/Hour figure used by the Sponsor seems low for the senior staff they have in place.
Checking similar position titles across the country, many of the staff would be paid in excess of
$100/HR and the average rates for staff across the board increased by 10% when adjusted for Santa
Clara County. This was verified across several position titles including cost estimators, schedulers,
structural engineers, project managers, et al from intermediate level to senior level, to supervising
to chief.
The PMOC recommends increasing this wage rate from $75.00 to $82.50/hour, multiplier
remaining at a 2.6 multiplier, to increase the assumed yearly hours as 2,080 per year, and to
increase the DB costs from 6.5% to 8%.
Table 47 below is extracted from the Cost memo #2: SCC 80 Table 2 showing costs at BY$ and
YOE$ for SCC80 costs based on a 2.4 multiplier. The following Table 48 is extracted from the
Sponsors Basis of Cost based on a 2.6 multiplier. It is not possible with information provided to
reconcile the two tables.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 47 FTE Staffing Summary using the 2.4 Multiplier from Spot Memo 2

July 2021 (Final)
Table 48 FTE Staffing Summary using the 2.6 Multiplier from Basis of Cost Report
SCC80 Cost Adjustment

With the wage rate increase from $180 to $200 per hour, increase of 1.5% for DB costs, and
addition of (5) FTE professionals to fill in areas of the staffing that were lacking such as auditing,
reviewing, quality control, quality enforcing, and surveilling over 8 years, the increase in SCC 80
for Contracts 1-4 and overall project-wide would be an increase to the base cost of the estimate of
$151 million. (BY$). This would also address the large risk of the interfacing of contracts and
additional staff and support in the design phase to increase coordination and management.
Commentary on BART costs included under SCC80
Figure 13 below is extracted from the BSVII Cost memo #2 of BART proposed FTE staffing plan.
(refer Table 46 – Table 1 from Cost memo #2: SCC 80 Costs above)
BART shows a “doubling of their team” in the final three years of construction comprising systems
installation, completion of Yard and Shop, Systems testing, commissioning and BART Phase 3
start-up in readiness for start of Revenue Operations.
PMOC is of the opinion BART will need additional staff when developing plans (to interpret the
BFS and Design Basis) as this is where their problems started in Phase I (using the wrong BART
staff), review design plans, meet with designers, oversee/review equipment spec development,
help prepare/review testing requirements, reporting, scheduling, etc. The Cost memo #2: SCC80
also stated that the primary BART operations staff were going to moonlight on BSVII. These are
senior BART officials, deeply engaged in day-to-day operations. PMOC’s opinion is that BART
will need additional full time personal to support the BSVII project and that current estimations
are inadequate.

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 13 BART Staffing Costs as Shown in Cost Memo #2
9.7 General/Program Wide Items

Use of allowances – The use of allowances was evaluated for reliability with respect to the scale
of the work covered and known project risks.
 SCC 80 Professional Services – this section’s costs contain allowances using a percentage
of the total construction costs for each cost category – these percentages seem low
compared to industry standards and history of similar work in the area. (phase 1)
 General – Craft labor rates include a 5% allowance for overtime added to the base wage
rate
 General – Scheduling, storm water control, traffic control, quality control, construction
safety monitoring, and other General Condition-related work includes line items as
allowances. This varies per contract package and the mark-up applied is between 12-15%.
Allocated Contingency
Allocated contingency is expressed as a percentage of the estimate construction cost by SCC. The
following Table 49 shows the allocated contingency included in the estimate by SCC category. A
more detailed discussion on Contingency appears in the OP 40 section of this report

July 2021 (Final)
Table 49 Allocated Contingency by SCC Category
Allocated Total Allocated
SCC Description
Contingency % Contingency ($M)
10 Guideway & Track Elements 27% $286
20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal 20% $234
30 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs 18% $35
40 Sitework & Special Conditions 18% $28
50 Systems 17% $58
Subtotal (SCC 10-50) 22% $642
60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements 56% $109
70 Vehicles 4% $7
80 Professional Services (applies to categories 10-50) 7% $71
Total (SCC 10-80) 19% $830
The larger amounts include Guideway and Track Elements at 27% and ROW for 56% allowance
due to market conditions.
Evaluation of Contract Package Elements
Contract package elements were assessed for specific services such as QA/QC and scheduling.
Contractors are required to develop and submit their own QAPs for their work as some sort of
implementation plan with specific actions like QA audits/surveillances/reviews planned out over
a set schedule or calendar. This would be their opportunity as to negotiating a price for their quality
implementation under the contract. The General Contractor should hire quality subcontractors to
do the work.
Elements of contract language that would reasonably serve as a basis for additional compensation
not part of a scheduled payment item might include OCIP, MBE/WBE compliance, liquidated
damages, delays, and sound ordinances.
Restrictive schedule or mobilization requirements that would be material pricing elements in
developing a bid may occur with staging of the project. The use of purchased property and
acquisitions underway may delay starts of critical path items. Bid Package 2 has been noted as the
contract that sets all others, as the tunnel boring begins all other activities related and following its
course of excavation. The TBM is calculated as tunneling at a rate of 40 linear feet a day, with a
50-hour work week. The PMOC believes this rate is high.
Geotechnical data and pricing approach to changed conditions should be in special provisions or
as reference materials. The contractors will be granted the opportunity to check the data provided
before committing to a price. This responsibility belongs to the contractor to discern for items such
as differing dewatering scenarios, depressurizing wells, etc.
Unit pricing and allowed variability in unit pricing is covered in the special provisions and if it is
not addressed in there, the owner has the option to negotiate it with the contractor. Most contracts
will have a contingency allowance for these types of hidden costs and would be settled by change
order process. CIP concrete, for example, ranges from $500-2,000/cy depending on how it is
formed, where it is located, the amount of rebar included, and finishing as applicable.

July 2021 (Final)
9.8 Escalation and Inflation Review
Provisions for escalation and inflation were reviewed per documents received by the Sponsor.
Sponsor has based their inflation calculations as included in the SCC Workbook, on a 2.72% per
annum inflation rate over the duration of the project and this has been applied in the inflation
tabulation.
As part of the PMOC review, the estimate and corresponding backup documentation was evaluated
for uniformity of application of escalation and inflation factors. The application of the escalation
factors to overall project costs were reviewed and evaluated regarding the application of inflation
rates to the Base Year dollar costs to arrive at Year of Expenditure dollars. While considering the
adequacy and reasonableness of the rates and the soundness of the economic forecasts, it should
be noted that the Sponsor has not performed any sensitivity analysis to supports its projections.
Sponsor proposed Inflation Adjustment
The Sponsor issued an updated Market Saturation Study 8.1 in May 2021 showing data in support
of a mid-point approach to apply cost escalations using a 2.95% factor. The Sponsor contented
that by adopting a mid-point approach to apply cost escalation a reduction would be achieved in
total escalation. No adjustment was made to the submitted EPD application by the Sponsor.
The Sponsor stated the mid-point approach was updated to better reflect the current market and
impact of COVID-19. PMOC also notes from Sponsors Inflation report they are using a different
percentage for ROW which PMOC has not factored in but the Sponsors report does not state what
it is or how they have applied it. Sponsor states their calculation allows for separate escalation of
ROW based on the Sponsor’s real estate team forecasts and finance charges included in nominal
terms.
The PMOC was able to mathematically check escalation and inflation provisions through a
cashflow analysis. PMOC created an approximate mid-point cash flow model based on the four
main construction packages and program wide elements as shown in Table 50 below. The model
was run to compare the escalation at 2.72%, 2.95% and 3.50% per annum.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 50 PMOC Mid-Point Cash Flow Model
PMOC picked out the start / NTP and then calculated the mid-point from start / NTP through
Contract completion for each of the CP’s and for the SCC 60-80. Using a 3.50% per annum checks
within $20m to the TOP DOWN MODEL output / adj proposed at 3.50% per annum based on the
SCC workbook cash flow calculation as proposed by the Sponsor and which the EPD application
has been based adopting 2.72% per annum.
Table 51 below summaries the results of the mid-point sensitivity analysis and the PMOC contents
the Sponsors assertions that changing to a mid-point using a higher rate produces a saving is
incorrect.
Table 51 Comparative Analysis of Different Inflation Rates Adopting a Mid-Point
Calculation
In summary, the Sponsor-provided base cash flow was used to show how the top-down model in
the Inflation tab of the SCC Workbook provided a difference of 0.28% ($20.8M) when comparing
the difference between the FTA top-down model and midpoint analysis at a rate of 3.50%. The

July 2021 (Final)
difference is greater, however, when comparing the Sponsor’s YOE overall cost to the midpoint
analysis approach with a delta of +3.76% or $261M.
Inflation Rate Analysis
The PMOC compared escalation and inflation factors used by the Sponsor to Producer Price Index
data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) (http://www.bls.gov) and other sources such
as Engineering News Record (ENR) quarterly, and the Associated Builders and Contractors news
releases to ensure adequate escalation and inflation cost is included to carry the project to the mid-
point of construction (the assumed time when contract unit awards will be complete).
Accordingly, the baseline CAGR to the Study is updated, on a quarterly basis, from 2.99 percent
to 2.72 percent, and for cost estimation purposes, the midpoint of construction (2024) cost
escalation rate equivalent, drops from 3.46 percent to 3.34 percent (see Table 52). Figures used by
the Sponsor have been updated numerous times since the submission of the Cost Estimate, its
backup documentation, and multiple Market Saturation Studies, using 2.95% to the midpoint of
construction analysis.
In a recent article published May 7, 2021, BLS stated that nonresidential construction input prices
increased 1.6% for the month. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The
Economics Daily, Consumer price index up 4.2 percent from April 2020 to April 2021.
Table 52 Baseline Case Cost Escalation Rate
The PMOC finds there will need to be some adjustment to the base escalation of the cost estimate.
The inflation/escalation factors are not appropriate and are shy of other published national figures
from ENR (5%), BLS (4.16%), and ABC (3.50%) using data from May 2020 to April 2021. ENR
in their last weekly construction report indicates that there is a shortage of specialized labor. At a
minimum, the Sponsor should consider using an historic 3.50% to the midpoint of construction
adjustment to base year dollars to adequately capture the project’s escalation.

July 2021 (Final)
Table 53 Producer Price Index, April 2021
Figure 14 Producer Price Index Percent Change
Inflation Factor Adjustment

In the PMOC’s opinion the inflation/escalation factors are not appropriate and are shy of other
published figures referenced from ENR (5%), BLS (4.16%), and ABC (3.50%) using data from
May 2020 to April 2021. Staffing rates are low compared to industry average yearly rates, which
exceed $75 per hour with 2.4% markup.

July 2021 (Final)
VTA’s inflation included in their EPD submission SCC workbook based on 2.72% per annum
annual inflation rate is $839 million. This is based on the FTA Inflation TAB in the SCC
workbook. This inflation TAB has been incorporated into the PMOC’s TOP DOWN risk model
workbook as a new TAB.
VTA have modified their contract package scope content since the workbook submission moving
SOE and ventilation shaft structures into CP2 from CP4. This movement of costs impacts the
inflation calculation, but VTA have not provided an updated calculation. It is taken into account
through the PMOC CP split to Profiles and associated inflation adjustment in the TOP DOWN
model.
The additional inflation calculated on the PMOC SABCE is $185 million. The additional inflation
calculated using VTA’s base costs (before PMOC adjustments) is $240 million. Based on the
PMOC’s recommended adjustments to form the SABCE and after the addition of risk through the
BETA model additional inflation is calculated at $309 million. (note there is a $3 million rounding
error within the model).

July 2021 (Final)
10.0 OP 34: PROJECT SCHEDULE REVIEW
This section summarizes the PMOC’s review of the Sponsor’s development of the schedule.
10.1 Technical Schedule Review
The BSVII IMPS is a collaborative effort that has been developed and will be managed by VTA’s
Consultant Team, which is described in the PMP and in the Management Capacity and Capability
Plan. In addition, assigned technical leads from VTA, BART, VTA’s Consultant Team, and other
consultants and contractors will regularly participate and provide monthly schedule updates.
The IMPS has been developed as a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule per the Project scope
identified in the PMP and the Basis of Design report, along with input and verification of Project
scope from team leads. The schedule has been cost-loaded (Section 6) and a critical path (Section
7) has been identified from the activity-sequencing to determine the tasks that control the minimum
schedule duration necessary to complete the Project. The schedule was developed in Primavera P6
Professional Project Management.
The IMPS will be updated through the end of the previous month with schedule update reporting
due by the 15th of the current month. VTA’s Consultant Team and VTA staff are responsible for
this effort, with input from other responsible leads on schedule revisions and information on the
status and progress of the schedule activities. Various consultant and contractor schedules are
received, reviewed, corrected if needed, and approved updates are then added to the IMPS.
Working meetings with responsible leads and Project Controls staff are held to address comments
every month. Similar process will be followed for receiving updates from the contractors of the
contract packages. A monthly schedule narrative, including various schedule reports, is then
prepared and distributed at the end of the month, at the project summary level according to the
Basis of Schedule.
Monthly schedule reports are provided for schedule control needs and external reporting
deliverables. Detailed schedule dashboards and reports will be generated monthly in conformance
with VTA formal requirements.
The Work Breakdown Structure was set up as follows:

July 2021 (Final)
Figure 15 Work Breakdown Structure
P0509
01
S17017
P0509 01 S17017 AB CD EF
AB
CD
EF
P0509.01.S17017.AB.CD.EF
 Where the Level 0 – P0509 is the project
 Level 1 – 01 is the Work Element
 Level 2 – S17017 is the Contract
 Level 3 – AB is the Task
 Level 4 – CD is the Sub-Task
 Level 5 – EF is the Work Package
It appears the WBS built in the schedule covers all the required pieces of the contract and does
leave room for any additional scope that might be added.
The schedule contains all the require sections to cover the scope. The WBS has been created to the
scope of work.
Basis of Schedule Review
BSVII Basis of Schedule was prepared to document the schedule preparation methodology as a
means of understanding the schedule of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase
II Extension Project (BSVII or the “Project”). This Basis of Schedule describes the schedule
development process methodology and approach taken to develop the Integrated Master Project
Schedule (IMPS), including Work Breakdown Structure, project delivery and construction
packages, and schedule logic.
The management of the schedule will be performed by technical leads from VTA, BART, VTA’s
Consultant Team, and other consultants and contractors will regularly participate and provide
monthly schedule updates.
Scope, schedule, and cost variables on the Project are supposed to be interdependent however it
was found that the cost in the schedule were not the same as those within the cost estimate.
The WBS is to be followed to ensure reporting consistency as outlined in the Cost and Schedule
Control Procedure. The contract language shall also follow the WBS for work packages and cost

July 2021 (Final)
accounts. There is no inclusion of the SCC codes for the schedule to compare back to the cost
estimate.
The major categories for the activities are broken out to include: Project management, Third party
coordination, Environmental, Preliminary engineering, Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, Final
design, Utility relocations, Construction, and Testing and start-up. The Final Design is a broad
topic and it would be helpful to have this section broken down by the design elements. There is
no safety or quality covered in the Basis of Schedule (BOS).
The contingency sections states “After the reviews were complete, reasonable amount of allocated
contingencies were added to the durations to get the final schedule” however there is no
explanation as to how this contingency was calculated nor spread in the schedule.
status and progress of the schedule activities. Procedure and control schedules not conforming to
the contract specifications will be returned to the respective contractor or consultants for
resubmission. There is no discussion as to what means will be employed if the contractor or
consultants do not send their updates in a timely manner.
The schedule development claims to be through tradition manners but does state what these
traditional manners are. To date there is no Interface management program but the BOS claims
the schedule has activities with interfaces between contract packages which is true but how does
this relate to the interface management program.
The BOS discusses the different types of activities, relationships, and constraints and how
activities in the future will be developed into more detail as the contract packages are approved.
A technically complete schedule will have only two open ends, the very first and the very last
activities in the schedule. The schedule has open end and constraint dates. The BOS states “there
are several sequences of activities that have an overarching effect on the BSVII IMPS and will
require the use of constraint dates.”
The BOS discusses the plan for the procurement of contract packages that the milestones will be
met and all packages will be released as indicated in the master program schedule however these
dates have already been adjusted between the November 2020 schedule and the February 2021
schedule.
The BOS for Construction is broken out by packages, CP 1 is Systems, CP 2 is Tunnels/Track, CP
3 is Newhall Yard and Santa Clara Station and CP 4 is Underground Station. The descriptors for
these packages in the schedule are not the same. The schedule breakout is CP1 System, CP 2
Newhall Yard, Santa Clara Station and Parking Garage, and CP 4 Stations and Support Facilities.
The BOS for construction CP 1 does not discuss procurement of the equipment. Sequencing of
the reaches is not discussed nor is material staging.

July 2021 (Final)
For CP 2 there are bullets for Site Remediation and Environmental and Archeological requirements
in reference to the demolition but no details of what is expected.
Testing and Start-up should be part of the critical path and is not mentioned.
There is no discussion as to who the float belongs to; this should be addressed in the BOS and the
contract documents.
In conclusion the BOS and the schedule align with one another for the most part but there are a
few items which are included in the schedule but not covered in the BOS.
10.2 Soundness Check
 The WBS has been properly structured and is consistent with the scope. The way the cost
has been spread within the schedule is questionable as there are sections within the
schedule that have no cost assigned to them such as the Testing And Commissioning.
 The construction schedule is the only schedule within the project that has Project calendars.
The remaining schedules are utilizing global calendars.
 There is a 2-day Weekend calendar which has no holidays.
 The 5-day night calendar is indicating the only nonwork day (night) as Saturday. This does
not equate to a 5-night work week.
 There are two 5-day week calendars. They each have the same naming and neither one of
them include any holidays.
 The is a 5-day week calendar (2 Shifts) which is indicating 16 hours per day however has
no holidays.
 There is a 6-day week calendar with only Sundays as a nonwork day however this calendar
has no holidays.
 There is a 7-day week calendar which contains no holidays.
The schedule contains activities which identify the required work for the scope of the work
however many of the activities are extremely high level with large durations. Proper durations
applied to activities, along with their proper calendars.
Relationships
 There are open ended activities within the schedule that require either predecessors or
successors.
 There are relationships with positive lags.
 There are LOE activities with non-standard relationships such as FS instead of a FF.
 There are activities with reverse logical paths.
 There are activities with predecessors but no start relationships.
 There are activities with successors but no finish relationships.
Some of the float values are extremely high due the issue with open ends. While other activities
have high float values even with both a predecessor and a successor. However, the majority of the
float values are reasonable.

July 2021 (Final)
The critical path is identifiable and begins in the Design & Permitting schedule. The critical path
does not contain any of the Right of Way activities. Of the critical activities the only ones that are
cost loaded are those in the construction segment of the schedule. The critical path contains many
concurrent activities.
Multiple float paths are not clearly identified.
Cost in the schedule do not agree with the cost in the estimates and do not have SCC cost accounts
assigned.
10.3 Schedule Management Review
The schedule format is relevant to industry practices with the use of the WBS and the multiply
schedule for different portions of the project.
The Sponsor is utilizing Primavera P6 Professional Project Management (P6) scheduling software.
The schedule analytics are being performed with Acumen Fuse’s 14-point schedule assessment.
Both of these soft wares are capably for the size of this project.
status and progress of the schedule activities. Various consultant and contractor schedules are
received, reviewed, corrected if needed, and approved updates are then added to the IMPS.
Working meetings with responsible leads and Project Controls staff are held to address comments
every month. Similar process will be followed for receiving updates from the contractors of the
contract packages. A monthly schedule narrative, including various schedule reports, is then
prepared and distributed at the end of the month, at the project summary level.
The updating method should be adequate as the IMPS will be updated through the end of the
previous month with schedule update reporting due by the 15th of the current month. VTA’s
Consultant Team and VTA staff are responsible for this effort, with input from other responsible
leads on schedule revisions and information on the status and progress of the schedule activities.
Various consultant and contractor schedules are received, reviewed, corrected if needed, and
approved updates are then added to the IMPS. Working meetings with responsible leads and
Project Controls staff are held to address comments every month. Similar process will be followed
for receiving updates from the contractors of the Contract packages. A monthly schedule narrative,
including various schedule reports, is then prepared and distributed at the end of the month, at the
Program summary level.
The BSVII Project Change Request Procedure describes and governs the processes for revising
the BSVII Baseline Scope, Schedule and Budget. The BSVII Project Change Request Procedure
governs the processing of any change (including design and construction changes), and establishes
the processes leading to the approval and/or rejection of change requests.
The Cost and Schedule Control Procedure describes the process for managing, monitoring, and
controlling the budget, estimate-at-completion, and schedule for BSVII. One of the objectives of

July 2021 (Final)
the Cost and Schedule Control Procedure is to establish the process to analyze and manage the
overall Project progress during the design and construction phases. The Project Controls and
Reporting Lead is responsible for ongoing evaluation of cost and schedule performance and
impacts in accordance with the Cost and Schedule Control Procedure.
The sponsor has provided a draft Configuration Management and Design Change Control Plan.
This document describes the methodology used to maintain the Baseline scope, schedule and
budget during design and construction.
The sponsor has not incorporated claims avoidance techniques in their Basis of Schedule. There is
a section in the PMP titled Claim Avoidance Procedures; however, it is a description of the claims
management procedure and not processes. PMOC recommends VTA consider adding time impact
analysis and claims mitigation processes to the Basis of Schedule.
10.4 Technical Schedule Review
The schedule contains activities for Environmental Commitments Monitoring MMRP with actual
dates indicating completeness as December 2018. In addition to there are activities for Align
Design Criteria and Technical Requirements with Environmental Commitment Record (ECR),
Develop Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) Criteria for all CPs and
Environmental Specifications, Site Assessments (ESAs), Contaminant Management Plan and
Remedial Action Plan. The Contaminant Management Plan and Remedial Action Plan have time
for the public comments.
Engineering Phase
The engineering phase of the work continues with the development of the Preliminary Design
which leads into the Design Bid Ready Packages. The activities for the design are long duration
activities and is not detailed out. Value Engineering will be accomplished at the end of the
Preliminary Engineering and priory to the Design Bid Ready Packages. The third-party agreements
have been broken out by Utilities and by Agencies to the completion of the agreements.
The Right of Way Acquisition within the schedule is showing all the required parcel and whether
relocation is required. The activities cover from Survey to Possession and/or relocation.
Procurement RFP activities and procurement RFP reviews are in the schedule per contract. The
reviews have durations from 1 day to 20 days. Bid and award are well detailed within the schedule
for each of the contracts. Construction, system integration and startup and testing have activities
in the schedule however they are lacking detail which will added after the contracts are let.
Full Funding Grant Agreement or Small Starts Grant Agreement
The section in the schedule for consist of seven activities finishing with the Approval of the
funding. However, the approval activity and milestone do not tie into any other portion of the
schedule with the exception of the summary schedule. Therefore, indicating it isn’t a requirement
for anything else in the schedule.
Procuring of equipment and materials is per contract for Contracts 1 ,3 and 4. The activities have
large durations with very little detail. There are no activities for the procurement of materials for
July 2021 (Final)
Contract 2, Tunnel & Trackwork. Bid and award are well detailed within the schedule for each of
the contracts.
The construction portion of the schedule is broken out into contract. The contracts are overlapping
in work with contract 1: Systems being the first to start and last to complete.
 Contract 1: Systems is then broken into three sections, Summary, Systems, and Testing
(Track and Systems). All the activities are at very high level with large durations.
 Contract 2: Tunnel and Trackwork has four sections, Utilities Relocation, Enabling Works,
Construction and Fit-Out. Each of these is then subdivided by location of the work. All the
activities are at very high level with large durations.
 Contract 3: Newhall Yard, Santa Clara Station and Parking Garage. There are sections,
Santa Clara and Yard Civil Contract and Santa Clara Station Parking Structure. The Santa
Clara and Yard Civil Contract has the most detail in reference to WBS break out but the
duration and activities will require much more break down as the project progresses. The
parking structure consist of one activity and an NTP.
 Contract 4: Station and Support Facilities has 6 sections, Summary, Utilities Relocation,
Enabling Works, Construction, Fit-Out and 28th Street Station Parking Structure. Each of
these is then subdivided by location of the work. All the activities are at very high level
with large durations.
There is a LOE in the Program Management and Administration section of the schedule. This
activity has a successor of TS.8610: Track testing to turnover to BART and a processor of
Cons.2440: System Integration and Testing - Phase III (BART).
There is a separate schedule for Testing and Commissioning and at this time it consists of two
activities, one for Revenue Service Phase and one for System Integration and Testing - Phase III
(BART). Both of these activities are details under the Testing and Commissioning Plan WBS.
The project schedule is lacking in the close out requirement. There is an activity for the IDR
Closeout and then Contract 3 and Contract 4 each have activities for Closeout but the Contract 1
and Contract 2 are lacking any closeout activities. Contract 3 is the only place training is discussed
and it is for Training on Operation of All Systems and Equipment. Contract 1 and Contract 4 have
activities to prepare, review and update required manuals. There is also nothing at this time storage
of all records, and transfer of warranties. The resources/cost assigned to the schedule do not align
with the Cost Estimate. All the resources in the schedule are coded as Nonlabor Resource Type.
This version of the schedule does not break out material, equipment and labor. There is no
indication that labor and material availability have been factored into the durations. There was
discussion of using previously completed as-builts from other project with similar scope. The
schedule and the Cost Estimate do not agree with one another. There are more dollars in the
Estimate than in the schedule.
The Program Budget Professional services were mapped to activities in for SCC 80.20 and SCC
80.04 according to the Cost and Schedule Control Procedure; however, the SCC codes are not
available in the schedule.

July 2021 (Final)
Scope, schedule, and cost variances will be monitored constantly through bi-weekly and monthly
update meetings with all BSVII consultants and Contractors, as facilitated by management and
controls personnel. Using this process, cost and schedule performance issues will be identified and
resolved or mitigated, and the EAC will be updated continuously to close the gap between baseline
and projected costs to complete.
The Basis of Schedule nor the Cost and Schedule Control Procedure does not discuss any software
setting.
When the ten schedules are calculated as one schedule, so the inter-schedule relationships are
applied there are one hundred fifty-three (153) activities with constraints, one hundred twenty-four
(124) activities without predecessors and one hundred seventy-nine (179) without successors. The
breakdown of activities is shown in Table 54.
Table 54 Breakdown of Activities
Schedule Activity Number of Occurrences
Projects 1
Activities 2424
Not Started 1725
In Progress 295
Relationships 3969
Completed 404
There are fifteen (15) activities being performed out-of-sequence, and eleven (11) Milestones with
invalid relationships.
There is a continues critical path from the current data date to the Start of Revenue Service which
is the last activity in the project.
The project is broken into ten (10) different schedules:
P0509 01 BSV Phase II Project – Professional Services
P0509 02 BSV Phase II Project – Right of Way Acquisition
P0509 03 BSV Phase II Project – Design
P0509 04 BSV Phase II Project – Advertise, Bid & Award
P0509 05 BSV Phase II Project – Utilities
P0509-06 BSV Phase II Project – Permitting
P0509 07 BSV Phase II Project – Construction
P0509 08 BSV Phase II Project – Vehicles
P0509 09 BSV Phase II Project – Testing and Commissioning
P0509 10 BSV Phase II Project – Summary

July 2021 (Final)
These different schedules do cover the overall scope of the project in most cases in the high-level
manner.
It appears the work scope is accounted for in the schedule however there are areas within the
schedule such as Agency Utility Design and Utility Owner Relocation Design, Systems
Installation, and Testing and Commissioning which are very high level and contain only two or
three activities. Once the design is further along the schedule will require added information.
The critical path is clearly identifiable and at this time logically sound. The same for the near
critical items.
There are few activities for environmental documents, but the ESA are represented in each of the
contracts.
As expected, because the project is in the EPD Program, Request to Enter Engineering and
potential requests for any Letter of No Prejudice are not addressed.
The FFGA has its own section within the Program Management and Administration schedule
starting with a Project Justification and ending with EPD Grant Request Approval. This schedule
is accurately reflecting the activities up to “Submit EPD Grant Request” have been completed. The
Submit EPD Grant Request has a submittal date of 15MAR21 and an approval date of 13JUL21,
which have been overcome and would be expected to be revised with future schedule updates.
There is a section with the Program Management and Administration schedule which covers Risk
Assessments. This section is broken out into 5 smaller sections, Internal Risk Assessment, CP-1
Risk Assessment, CP-2 Risk Assessment, CP-3 Risk Assessment and CP-4 Risk Assessment. The
intern assessment was completed as of 20JUL20. The risk assessments for CP- 1, 2 and 3 should
had started in April and shall be completed in September of 2021. The risk assessment for CP-3 is
indicating a start in April 2022 and completing in July 2022.
PMP and sub-plan review are included in the schedule as noted below:
 The PMP for construction is indicating it was completed as of January 2020.
 The CCIP/OCIP plans were completed in 2019.
 Contracting Implementation Plan was completed July 2020.
 Develop Risk, Contingency Management Plan completed November 2018.
 Risk, Contingency and Claims Management Plan was completed July 2020.
 Schedule Control Plan was completed December 2017.
 Safety and Security Management Plan was completed March 2018.
 Rail Fleet Management Plan was completed August 2019.
 Financial Plan was completed October 2020.
 Buy American Plan was completed August 2019.
 Station Area Planning was completed August 2019.
 Muck Handling Plan is indicating a completion of March 2021.

July 2021 (Final)
 There are some review activities in the schedule but this is an area that will require
additional detail. The BOS discusses the durations being “Place Holders” and the durations
will be revised prior to the procurement of the contract packages.
 The real estate acquisition section of the schedule has been broken out by parcel numbers
and is very detailed.
 There is a section for the FFGA and the correct time frames are in place. There are no other
funding sources mentioned in the schedule.
Initial durations for activities in IMPS were established based upon the following:
 The scope of activity
 Consultation with experienced project and task managers on the time required to perform
the activity
 Where appropriate, consultation with third parties involved with competing the activity
According to an earlier version of the Basis of Schedule, allocated contingencies were added to
(unidentified) select activity durations. The PMOC reviewed the schedule to identify contingency
as the Sponsor has stated it was spread throughout the durations. However, there was no clear
understanding of how this spread was accomplished and the associated statement was deleted from
the latest version of the BOS.

July 2021 (Final)
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 Risk
The PMOC is concerned with respect to the ambitious schedule and derived cost impacts. The
PMOC notes the very considerable contract interfaces and coordination required both physically
and contractually and the high involvement of management and coordination that will be required
of VTA and their internal project team and consultants.
The PMOC disagrees with the stripping of the estimate and suggests a strategy by VTA to move
base costs into contingency and then to align the total contingency with FTA recommendations
contained in OP 40. The result is a low base SABCE (starting point) and, when risk is then applied
adopting the BETA guidelines and recommendations aligned to the design status the resulting risk
calculated through the TOP DOWN model is disproportionate (exceeds) to the expected norms
and guidance.
PMOC will continue to monitor the project and notify FTA of any major changes in scope,
schedule, or cost which might warrant an updated risk assessment at a future milestone.
11.2 Scope
PMOC is of the opinion that the project scope by and large captures the project as defined in the
Record of Decision and the Basis of Design and is more loosely consistent with the project as
defined when approved to enter Project Development in the Capital Improvement Grants program.
This is due to the configuration change after entering Project Development from twin-bore tunnel
with cut-and-cover stations in line with the tunnel to the large single-bore tunnel with two
underground stations offset with adit connections to the stacked track and platforms.
The PMOC is of the opinion the proposed scope of works is overly ambitious in the time frame
and at the cost proposed given the multiple contract interfaces, design coordination and
construction coordination interfaces and the very challenging known ground conditions to be
encountered on this large diameter single tunnel proposal.
The PMOC is concerned about the potential impact of the considerable TOD proposed around the
main station sites. Although VTA have insisted these will not be allowed to influence or impact
the base scope given the status of the 3rd party developers and the City and Regional politics it is
difficult to envisage how these TOD works can be isolated. Experience of large transit
developments in other major cities has shown that where multiple TOD and 3rd party stakeholders
are integrated with the base scope significant cost increases and schedule delays occur.
Industry feedback has suggested that the Sponsor procure the Systems and Stations packages as
PDB in addition to CP2 due to complicated interfaces. PMOC is of the opinion that further review
of the contract packages might be warranted.
PMOC is concerned that the scope of the Utility relocations is still largely unknown, agreements
in cost sharing are for the most in place but no commitment to cost or schedule has been negotiated
with any of the Utility Owners. PMOC notes the current schematic proposals for utility relocations
may still change after the engagement of the PDB (CP2)
July 2021 (Final)
PMOC is concerned the that the scope and details of ground improvements are largely concept.
Reasonable cost allowances have been included in the estimate, but they are essentially just
allowances. Time included in the schedule is also extremely preliminary based on no supporting
back-up and could vary a lot from assumptions and introduce schedule constraints and restrictions
if significant in street works are identified, as necessary. No detailed plans exist on proposals for
compensation jet grouting or other ground improvement and property protection work. The
required temporary works design influenced by the PDB (CP2) may indeed result in significant in
street works, additional access shafts and additional temporary or permanent ROW necessary to
accommodate property protection works and ground improvements.
PMOC is concerned with the lack of executed third party agreements necessary to establish
requirements and schedule commitments.
PMOC is concerned with the lack of definition of testing and commissioning scope, roles, and
responsibilities.
PMOC’s conclusion regarding design maturity varies from VTA’s because the project and site-
specific elements are what constitute or dominate design maturity. The use of standard drawings
this early in the design development to quantify design maturity skews the picture. PMOC opines
design maturity for the various elements as below:
Profile 3 (Program-wide ROW, Vehicles, and Professional Services)

July 2021 (Final)
Profile 4 (CP4 – Underground Stations)
11.3 Cost
Sponsor’s estimating and project controls organization is experienced, has the necessary capacity
and capability to perform the work.
Scope was adequately accounted for in the estimate.
The PMOC checked the estimate mathematically summed. Discrepancies were encountered.
PMOC recommended adjustments are based upon:
 schedule adjustment of 18 months and corresponding additional direct ruining costs and
overheads of the CP’s and extended SCC80 costs
 estimate to be generally over stripped with base costs transferred and constraints applied
to otherwise a corresponding inflated contingency
 staffing rates under SCC80 are low compared to industry average yearly rates
 staffing levels under SCC80 are generally low and recommends that the sponsor provide
more details into the determination of FTE for staff-loading and resourcing throughout the
duration of the project.
 Sponsor’s inflation rate is low and not consistent with market trends and feedback from
several state and national benchmarks and industry wide predicted forecasts.
Estimate was Coded to FTA SCC cost accounts, however there were minor details that were noted
to be out of place during the PMOC’s review of the contract package alignment to the FTA
Standard Cost Categories.
Inflation calculation was consistent with FTA methodology and used the FTA standard workbook
inflation calculation sheet based on approximate base year annual expenditure inflated using
compound annual inflation rates, however inflation was in the PMOC’s opinion underestimated.
Through sampling of data, quantities, labor, equipment and material rates, (noting quotations
where provided) correctly rolled into summary sheets with consistent mark-ups and sales tax
applied as appropriate.
Estimate took account of contract packaging strategy, constructability, project constraints,
prevailing market conditions and any project labor agreements and / or local union hall agreements
Estimate and mark-ups made provision for Insurance, bid and performance bonds as described in
the draft terms and conditions and
Identification of latent [hidden] and patent [exposed] contingency was identified and adjusted to
form the Sponsors proposed SABCE, however, was in the PMOC’s opinion over-stripped

July 2021 (Final)
11.4 Schedule
The PMOC is concerned with respect to the current schedule status and resulting cost impacts. The
PMOC notes the very critical interfaces between tunnel and other structures impacting and
requiring coordination, and in some cases additional design and cooperation agreements with the
main civils works contract. The assignment of risk will be challenging at these interfaces both in
terms of design responsibility, working around and taking over temporary supports to excavations
and structures, quality of work especially where slabs and walls require water proofing
applications and the concurrent working environment given ongoing tunnel mining and fit out by
CP2 whilst fit out works continue through CP4. The cost of transfer and indeed sharing of risk
could well exceed estimate and contingency allowances.
The schedule is generally developed to 10% design completion.
There is little to no schedule from the utility owners
There is sparse systems detail
 The Systems and Testing has very little to no detail in the February schedule. Systems
installation is broken out to the different locations with no other information. The testing
is running concurrently after the start of testing which begins approximately a year after
the beginning of the installation however it is completing only one week after the last of
the installation.
 High reliance on awaiting input from PDB (CP2) on means / methods /staging / phasing
 There is no contingency within the schedule with the exception of the right of way section.
The Sponsor stated the contingency was built into the durations by setting the end date
based on the need-by date.

July 2021 (Final)
12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 Risk
1. The PMOC has reviewed schedule activity durations and concurrency of design and
construction contracts together with the procurement timelines necessary to implement the
proposed strategy. PMOC recommends an adjustment to the VTA RSD of 18 months
resulting in a revised RSD, before contingency, of November 7, 2031 and that the base cost
before contingency is increased by $1,037 million (YOE) to account for over stripping,
overly optimistic tunnel production rates, low SCC80 staff estimates, overly optimistic
inflation rates and additional consequential increases in costs associated with the adjusted
schedule duration.
2. PMOC recommends the Project Readiness to be conditional upon VTA obtaining
additional contingency capacity to support the significant and understated risk apparent at
this stage of the project’s development.
3. PMOC recommends the P65 cost is adopted at $9,148 million, an increase over the VTA
EPD application of $2,206 million. PMOC recommends the RSD including contingency
adopts the SABS plus 25% equating to a revised RSD of June 21, 2034, a 21-month
addition over the EPD Application.
With reference to the Sponsors RCMP, PMOC recommends:
 Cross references to other procedures to be inserted
 Definitions to be expanded
 Basis of risk to be formally established. Baseline scope, cost and schedule to be inserted in
forward section of RCMP. List of assumptions, exclusions and qualifications to be inserted
in RCMP
 Organization and reporting lines to be established in RCMP and cross referenced to PMP
 Risk committee to be defined and approach to independent Board reporting established
 OCIP program and clarity of risk ownership, deductibles, caps etc. to be better defined and
aligned to RFP documentation
 Relationship and responsibilities of DB CM’s and DB’s themselves in management and
reporting on risk to be established
 Risk mitigation plans to have action deliverables and status reporting which are measurable
 Regular reporting dates and cadence to be inserted in RCMP
 Contingency draw down curves to be reviewed and aligned with expected sharing / transfer
/ retention of risks through the DB/PDB contracts
12.2 Scope
4. VTA should consider making ROW needs part of the PDB proposal to force proposers to
do their due diligence for validation of VTA-proposed ROW early and allow VTA time to
complete appropriate acquisitions.

July 2021 (Final)
5. PMOC recommends the Sponsor conduct additional constructability and access review for
ROW needs against the latest developments for ground improvement and consider
including such feedback as part of the PDB proposal.
6. PMOC recommends that the Sponsor clarify reporting relationships, authorities, and
dispute resolution for all CP1 scope related to interface and integration management over
the other design builders.
7. PMOC recommends that prior to grant award the Cooperative agreements with Caltrans, ,
City of San Jose (Cooperative Agreement #2 at a minimum) and City of Santa Clara
(Cooperative Agreement #3 at a minimum) be executed. The three-party Diridon Station
Construction Agreement between Google/CSJ/VTA should also be executed prior to grant
award.
8. Increase the complexity of the agreements tracking matrix to acknowledge each
cooperative agreement as an entry. Include TOD and construction staging agreements in
the matrix to have a centralized database even if TOD designs and work are theoretically
excluded from the project.
9. PMOC recommends that in response to industry feedback VTA demonstrate they have
performed adequate due diligence evaluation of PDB versus DB for all packages and the
packaging scheme is still appropriate based on industry appetites.
12.3 Cost
10. PMOC recommends that the sponsor compare and align the project cost estimate, with its
backup documentation and with the schedule to increase confidence of cost estimate.
11. PMOC recommends the sponsor provide a way to tie the estimate backup to the estimate
summary and to the SCC Workbook. This should follow a flow chart and not be
cumbersome to the reviewer. It should include all SCCs and all construction packages.
12. The FTA PMOC is of the opinion, and based on the details provided, that the estimate is
overly optimistic and should be increased by $1,037 million (YOE) to account for overly
optimistic inflation, excluded scope (in the base estimate), under estimation of SCC80
staffing costs, overly optimistic schedule and over stripping of the base estimate
transferring base costs to contingency and thereby suppressing contingency norms related
to the base.
The recommended cost adjustments, details of which can be found in the OP 40 section of
this report, can be summarized as follows:
Direct adjustments ($156 million BY$) for:
Time related (schedule) adjustments totaling $404 million BY$ to account for
PMOC recommended 18-month schedule adjustment
Latent contingency adjustments totaling $169 million BY$ to account for over
stripping of base and allocation to contingency

July 2021 (Final)
Inflation adjustment on base estimate at $185 million and an additional $96 million
when applied to the PMOC adjustments resulting in a overall total inflation
adjustment of $309 million based on a 3.50% annual rate of inflation
13. PMOC recommends that the sponsor provide more details into the determination of FTE
for staff-loading and resourcing throughout the duration of the project. SCC80 requires
more back-up information. After a Spot Memo regarding staffing was received and
reviewed, the added difficulties of coordination of all contract packages remain and are not
addressed.
 The staffing rates are low and have changed in supporting documentation details.
 The rate multipliers keep changing in documentation i.e. 2.6 to 2.4 (backed up into
previous costs).
 The Design Development percentage seems low at 6.5%, suggest increasing to 8%.
14. PMOC recommends that the Sponsor revise the midpoint in the inflation tab of the SCC
Workbook to Q3 2025 so that the compounded escalation reflects a rate of 20.13%.
15. PMOC recommends that the Sponsor establish separate SCC Workbooks for the separate
contract packages. (Either separate workbooks or separate build-main tabs.)
16. PMOC recommends that the Sponsor not rely upon escalation of past unit rates, but instead
obtain new quotes from suppliers to update both quantities and unit prices in the revised
2021 estimate.
12.4 Schedule
17. After careful consideration the PMOC recommends an overall adjustment to the VTA RSD
(as reported in the latest schedule submitted March 2021 with progress updated through
March 1, 2021), of 18 months resulting in a revised RSD, before contingency, of November
7, 2031.
18. There are duplicated Activity Code Value definitions. All the Activity Code Titles should
be unique.
19. Agreement & Permit Matrix dates do not agree with the schedule dates. There should be
either an explanation or a correction so that these documents concur.
20. Not all of the schedules have project calendars. Calendars need to be verified and properly
assigned to the activities.
21. There are constraints in the schedules. Baseline Schedules should only contain constraints
that are specifically called out in the contracts and constrains should not be used instead of
relationship logic.
22. The cost in the schedule for ROW contingency do not agree with the cost in the estimate
for the Contingencies. The cost in the schedule are higher. Explanation to why the cost for
Contingencies in the schedule and the estimate are different.
23. There is no task activity for time contingencies in the schedule. The BOS states the time
contingency has been spread throughout the durations but no explanation as to how this
was done.
24. The overall cost in the schedule does not agree with the estimate. Explanation of how the
moneys are not the same between the schedule and the estimate.

July 2021 (Final)
25. Explain how the SCC's codes are to be identified in the schedule cost.
26. Explain how the cost accounts are utilized in the schedule cost as there doesn’t appear to
be any cost account codes.
27. All the resources appear to be assigned to Non-Labor Resource types. Explain where the
labor resources are assigned and how it was determined which activities were given
resources.
28. There are summary (LOE) activities with assigned Resources. While it is not necessarily
incorrect, it is unusual for summary activities to have resources assigned to them. Since
these types of activities have variable durations, resource quantities or costs may vary as
well. Also have to be careful of double-counting the same resources when both task and
summary have resources assigned.
29. There are sets of duplicate activity descriptions with in each of the schedules. Each
description shall be unique by the use of area or location.
30. There are duplicates of WBS code definitions. Each definition shall be unique by the use
of area or location.
31. There are different types of Duration Types being utilized on the schedules. There are Fixed
Durations and Units/Time duration types. This type is used when the activity is to be
completed within a fixed time period regardless of the resources assigned and there is have
Fixed Duration and Units duration types. This type is used when an activity has fixed
resources with fixed productivity output per time period. Explain as to the different
Durations types and why and when they are used.
32. There are task activities with zero durations. This isn't correct for a task activity. Verify if
this should be Milestones or require a duration.
33. EPD Grant Request Approval only successor is to the Summary portion of the schedule. It
is not tied to any other work. There should be a clear path as to what work can or cannot
be performed once the approval is granted or not granted.
34. The schedule contains open ended activities. All activities with the exception of the very
first and the very last should have both a predecessor and a successor relationship. The
schedules should be driven by relationship logic and not constraints.
35. Out-of-sequence work should be corrected for logic to provide a correct critical/longest
path of remaining work.
36. Odd relationship pairs were found. These are activities that share more than one
relationship. The only exception to this rule is if a Start-To-Start (SS) relationship is used
with a Finish-To-Finish (FF) relationship. Relationships should be verified.
37. There are relationships that are causing Reverse Logic Paths. Activities with a FF
predecessor and a SS successor act in a 'reverse' logic manner in that if their duration grows,
then the overall logic path 'shortens' in time. This is especially critical for critical path
activities. Relationships should be verified.
38. There are activities with predecessor identified but the logic used only constrains the finish
of the activity, not its start. Varying the durations of the above activities will not influence
project completion. Relationships should be verified.
39. There are activities without finish relationships. These activities do not have any constraint
on completion, only on their start. Once started, CPM rules will not consider their

July 2021 (Final)
completion important, other than for Project Completion. A delay on these activities will
not result in a Project Delay to the current path of activities. These activities are missing a
Finish-To-Start or a Finish-To-Finish relationship that would tie the finish of this activity
to the timing of successor activities. Relationships should be verified.
40. Agencies have standard turnaround times for reviews and these times are normally written
into the contract documents. Review times for the Utility companies should be in the
schedule.
41. The activities should be set to coincide with the start and finish times of the working day,
such as '08:00' and not at '00:00'. The hours posted for the working day's start and finish
time in the activity's calendar were used to determine that the activities are using the wrong
time.

July 2021 (Final)

Federal Analysis of The BART's San Jose Extension

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Analysis of The BART's San Jose Extension

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Federal Analysis of The BART's San Jose Extension

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project

Status as of May 14, 2021

PMOC Contract Number: 69319519D00021

Atkins North America, Inc.

PMOC Lead: Jena Montgomery, 720.475.7107, Jena.Montgomery@atkinsglobal.com

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project i

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ii

Executive Summary Cost Risk Results OP 40 Contingency

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iii

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project iv

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project v

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project i

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project ii

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project v

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project vi

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project vii

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-2

1.4 Project Status

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-3

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-4

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-5

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 1-6

CP1 – Systems Installations Design Build

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-3

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-4

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-5

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-6

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-7

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 2-8

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-1

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-2

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-3

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-4

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-1

3.4 Sponsor Schedule Contingency

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-2

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-3

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-4

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-5

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-6

An analysis of Table 17 above provides the following observations:

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-7

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-9

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 3-11

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-1

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-2

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-3

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-4

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-5

4.3.4 Top Project Risks

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-6

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-7

SCC 20 Stations, Stops and Shelters

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-9

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-10

SCC 90 Unallocated Contingency

BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project 4-12