They better have. Because if it's a stock 48-inch boarding Brightline, cue the ADA lawsuits in 3...2...1...
Double-barrel suits, at that: federal challenge over PRIAA being federal law explicitly specifying 18-inch floor to 8-inch platform level boarding, but also state-level suits in California for the outright accessibility regression there. The technical reassurances from Sumitromo will have to come very quickly, or else the legal inquiries are going to immediately start dragging out the timetable for project starts...starting with a flurry of FOIA's about exactly what got negotiated here. The accessibility argument that simply having some/any cars sooner for service increases ends up an acceptable overall improvement in aggregate accessibility is going to be a weak argument in court for upholding Sumitromo when the not-currently-level boarding Midwest corridors and the longstanding-level boarding Cali corridors have to be joined at the hip in one contract. Announcement or no announcement, this saga isn't close to over until Sumitromo produces some proof that Siemens will supply level boarding cars.
The potential ADA challenges, unfortunately, are pretty legally strong the way this procurement was pursued via PRIAA law and have significant potential to...at minimum...drag out the schedule by a frustrating additional number of years regardless of one's overall technical comfort level with Siemens. This is still, after all, being run by the same shambolic Sumitromo-Caltrans/IDOT-PRIAA joint that got us into this mess in the first place and hasn't begun to provide explanation as to how/why this show has been run like such a rhymes-with-blusterduck from Day 1.
Also need to see if any of the losing RFP bidders feel bold enough to challenge the mulligan being granted Sumitromo on the project, on grounds that granting them a white-out pen on the specs circumvents fair bidding. While motivation for that challenge would absolutely be as a business vector against Siemens steamrolling their way to U.S. market dominance, it's legally compartmentalized to go square at the government's relationship with gimpy Sumitromo and thus doesn't have to be about Siemens at all. Personally, I think they avoid this anti-competitive vector if the design substitute does satisfy all the primary ADA concerns, because the government would have a much stronger counter-argument for getting this show on the road. But if there are separate ADA challenges being filed the RFP bidders could see obvious tactical advantage in piling onto the fray "Operation Chaos"-style. The other bidders would be able to count on the ADA challenges nullifying much of Sumitromo's supposed schedule advantage in changing the specs vs. fixing the bi-level design because of legal "Chaos" re: accessibility setting back the schedule almost to par with a re-bid scenario. So we'll also have to see if they can nip the potential for anti-competitive challenge in the bud with a strong enough reassurance on the primary accessibility question.