New Midwest/California Bi-Level Discussion

If I recall correctly, the ARRA grants were large enough to buy everything in the order. Your question is a good one worth double checking. Here’s the facts I can find a verifiable link to.....
Sumitromo bid for the 130 BiLevel order wasy $352.3 Million.
Four States involved were California, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri.
88 cars for the Midwest, 42 cars for California
FRA grants for new locomotives and cars totaled $808 Million
BiLevel FRA grants totaled $551 Million
The remainder reserved for purchasing locomotives.
California’s share of locomotive and car ARRA grants totaled $168 Million, California also added $42 Million of its own money from Proposition 1B.
Source of all the facts
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/pas ... order.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, basically all of the Midwest order was funded by ARRA, and 80% of the California order was funded by ARRA.
Math = 168 /(168 + 42) x 100 = 168 / 210 x 100 = 80%
Of the total for all four states, around 95% was funded by ARRA.
Math = 808 / (808 + 42) x 100 = 808 / 850 x 100 = 95+%

I can’t explain the difference between Sumitromo’s bid of $352+ Million and FRA Bilevel grants for $551 Million.
There seems to be a discrepancy around $199 Million. Can anyone else explain that difference?

I heard that the ARRA grants for these cars were to expire on Sep 30th, but I haven't heard anything on the expiration of the funding. Did they expire on that date, or was a funding deadline extension granted?

I posted this earlier:

Because the current Amtrak and AASHTO contract is in place until 9-30-17, and the current sub-contractor contracts are also in place until 9-30-17, no action is necessary right now. Amtrak and AASHTO have a process in place to extend the Amtrak/AASHTO contract in sync with the grant and effective 10-1-17 through 9-30-19. The subcontractors/sub consultants currently in place will be extended at the same time - effective 10-1-17 through 9-30-19 as anticipated in the new grant agreement SOW and budget.
On 5-3-17, a motion and a second were offered to reaffirm the intent to renew the contract between Amtrak and AASHTO as well as the current sub consultant’s contracts for the remainder of the current grant agreement – through 9-30-19. The motion (below) was transmitted to the FASC members for a vote and, on 5-31-17 it was approved and sent on to the Executive Board for its approval.
“As was intended in past NGEC budget approvals and to ensure compliance with the Audit of Grant Agreement of March 27, 2013, and the NGEC’s updated Procedure of Establishing Contract Support adopted August 6, 2013, the NGEC authorizes Amtrak to contract with AASHTO for administrative support services as well as subsequent sub-contracts per the statement of work for entities such as; with Hewitt Consulting for Manager of Support Services, and with SalciConsult for Specification Consultant services. In addition, with the Federal Railroad Administration’s June 8th, 2015, approval of the NGEC’s Supplemental Statement of Work and related budget extension through September 30, 2017, and its subsequent approval of the Statement of Work and Budget included in the Grant Agreement executed on October 26, 2016 for the period beginning October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2019 , Amtrak is authorized to extend its agreement with AASHTO and AASHTO’s sub-consultants in accordance with the Statement of Work.”
On 6-6-17, the NGEC Executive Board approved the motion as presented and asked AASHTO and Amtrak to finalize their contract in accordance with the motion, and AASHTO was tasked with doing the same with the sub-consultant contracts.

On 6-28-17, Darrell Smith reported that a lot of work is being done internally at Amtrak to make sure the contract extension with AASHTO is compliant with the grant agreement. Darrell does not expect much to change for AASHTO at all, but with the new language applying to DBE’s there may need to be an updated goal. Amtrak grants is going through the requirements with a fine-tooth comb to make sure all is done properly. Darrell will report each month on the status until the contract with AASHTO is done.

Does that apply to the HSIRP grants as well?

Nothing earth-shattering, but something worth noting, just the same.

While checking out the NGEC Monthly Activities Report from September 30, 2017, which can be found here - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 30-17.docx, I ran across this bit of info-

The "several entities" could possibly be Caltrans, IDOT, and Siemens (and Sumitomo), as they are still in negotiations regarding substituting single-level cars for Sumitomo's bi-level debacle. But as there wasn't much there, I just decided to leave it alone, in hopes of finding something that could confirm my suspicions.

Then, looking at the minutes of the 305 Executive Board from October 24, 2017, which can be found here - http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 0DRAFT.doc, I found the following

Caltrans made a document change request to alter the weight requirements of the 305-003 single-level specifications. One of the biggest sticking points regarding the Siemens substitution has been that the Brightline Viaggio Comfort and the low-floor Viaggio Light were both far too heavy to comply with 305-003 specs.

As F-Line has already mentioned in this thread, changes in specifications generally tend to be minutia, often consisting of things like the rewording of a sentence for purposes of clarification. But the Caltrans weight change request seems like it might be a case of tailoring the specs to fit the product.

For the purpose of completeness, I'm also including another portion of the Executive Board meeting minutes, in which the NGEC plans to reconvene the Single-Level Car Specification Review Panel, in order to get all proposed changes to the specs approved or denied, and to issue Revision B of the single-level specs.

"Tammy Krause reported that Caltrans has submitted a DCR on weight change and that it has been distributed to the NGEC Technical subcommittee. Comments have been coming in – some are favorable to the change, and one or two are not. One person commented that the specs should never be changed, and that is contrary to the intent of the NGEC specifications which are living documents. "

Most are happy and a few are not.

Interesting. They're willing to entertain a weight change on single level cars.

Why not entertain a weight change on the bi-levels?... Given an extra ton or two, the N-S cars could probably pass a crush test.

Isn’t it time to start the BiLevel bidding process all over again?
Just admit the original winner failed at delivering the product, and that contract is now null and void.
The vendor that failed at delivery should be placed on the naughty list of vendors, which should affect future RFP matrixes.
They will not like it, but our government should stop accepting poor performance from manufacturers as business as usual. The failure to deliver a product on time and on budget should create a black mark for that manufacturer. Likewise, the ability of a manufacturer to deliver products on time and on budget should be rewarded with positive reviews.

What is very interesting is in one of the posted minutes one person on the committee did not want to change the weight specification. Now who ? Could it have been a back door way to sabotage the whole expansion of SD passenger rail ? Who ever: was that the person who initially proposed the weight specification ? A deep background investigation is warranted .

What is most disturbing is the extended "radio silence" after the crash test failure where everyone seemed to bury their head in the sand. A new bidding process could have begun then. I have also read nothing about how they will enforce penalties against Sumitomo. I'm guessing Sumitomo doesn't have enough assets to pay the fines?

If they want to substitute Siemens coaches they would be a lot better off negotiating directly with Siemens and taking Sumitomo to the courtroom.

I just figured it out. This is a cynical scheme to hold on to the feddybucks at any cost. If they cancel the contract the federal grants probably evaporate. They are getting something for "free", who cares if it isn't what they need.

BandA wrote:What is most disturbing is the extended "radio silence" after the crash test failure where everyone seemed to bury their head in the sand. A new bidding process could have begun then.

Not likely as the crash test failure likely wouldn't have caused Sumitomo to default on the contract.

If you had started a new bidding process back then, and if Sumitomo had been able to fix the design and deliver the product, then the relevant states would have been on the hook for twice as many cars as they wanted / needed / could afford.

There are 2 big questions that (at least so far) there are no answers to.

1) what caused the test failure, and most importantly why wasn't the design fixable?

2) when did Sumitomo either admit they couldn't deliver as signed, or reached a point in the contract where the lack of progress meant the states could institute a default.

What is undeniable at this point is there are no good solutions or options.

Any major changes, like replacing Sumitomo, likely means losing the federal money.

Restarting the process adds in significant time delays to delivery of product, which creates a whole set of problems.

There currently is no viable replacement (as in fully designed and tested) that fully meets the original contract available from anyone, which means choosing between cost / availability / compromise.

eolesen wrote:Interesting. They're willing to entertain a weight change on single level cars.

Why not entertain a weight change on the bi-levels?... Given an extra ton or two, the N-S cars could probably pass a crush test.

There were rumors that some of the Midwest state(s) preferred a switch to single-level cars regardless.

The objection over any change to the specifications is potentially interesting, as the (unconfirmed) whole reason for Nippon-Sharyo's failure is neither the single nor bi-level car designs are achievable under the current specifications.

Not true. Siemens long ago released Brightline-to-PRIAA build scenarios that would square the weight differential for the East Coast procurement. The problem is that it skimps on amenities Amtrak's going to want/need in the cars...hence the need for future negotiation and developments between RFI and RFP. They're not off by enough to really put that in doubt.

The Midwest/Cali contract is a whole other ball of wax, though. The Viaggio Light is the only Siemens single-level design adaptable to 8-inch boarding, and it's too much heavier than the Viaggio Comfort the Brightlines were derived from to work with the specs. And it doesn't miss the weight target by a small margin, either...it's a substantial difference too big for small touches to meaningfully make up. So if ADA is going to force 8-inch compatibility and not let them recycle 48-inch East Coast specs verbatim...yes, they've still got a major problem here.


A weight spec change makes more logical sense if they were giving Siemens an opening to import their Viaggio Twin bi-levels. But I'm not sure there's much to read into that request other than they're grasping at straws trying to keep this thing alive under Sumitromo and not having to revert to a full-on rebid with all its associated risks of coughing up those committed fed funds.

The really sad aspect about funds dedicate to this RFP (purchase) is that they are ARRA funds, supposedly to be used quickly to kick start a bear economy and provide jobs for Americans when they needed it most. Rail funds had a later spend by date than highway, seaway, and airway funds. And here we are 10 years later, when the rail funding is suppose to expire, and there's still no railcars built and no blue collar jobs created to build these cars.

Remember the catch phrase constantly used with the ARRA program, Shovel Ready?
What a great way to kick start a failing economy and get more jobs for Americans quickly.....NOT. These cars were not, and are still not Shovel Ready.

The Viaggio Twin seems to be a non starter since it looks to be a commuter type car. If the states wanted commuter cars, they could have ordered gallery cars.