|
March 4, 1997
1. Executive Summary
The first major phase for double tracking of the South Florida Rail Corridor to accommodate enhanced operations by Tri-Rail has resulted in new procedures being developed to avoid project delays and cost increases.
One of the key factors common to these problems is the relationship between the owner of the right-of-way, Florida DOT, and the transit agency, Tri-Rail. At the outset of the Phase I Double Tracking project, reporting relationships, review and approval authority, and contract administration procedures were not fully defined. The project was further complicated due to existing agreements with the operating railroad, CSXT, which has dispatching responsibility as well as some of the construction responsibilities.
New starts that involve more than one agency with responsibility for project delivery must develop a coordinated management team that is responsive to the needs of each party. This is particularly true where one agency is responsible for the design and construction while a second agency is the operator. The impacts during construction of a design that does not adequately address constructability and operational issues can lead to project delays and change orders.
2. Background
In 1988, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) purchased 81 miles of the CSX Transportation Corporation (CSXT) rail corridor in South Florida. Tri-Rail commenced commuter rail operations in the corridor in 1989, with CSXT and AMTRAK continuing to provide rail service in the rail corridor. An important aspect of the purchase agreement provides CSXT with the right to undertake all improvements in the corridor on a force account basis. Under a separate agreement with FDOT (OMAPA), CSXT also maintains responsibility for dispatching trains in the corridor. FDOT administers the FDOT/CSXT agreements and also the work done by the private contractors in the corridor.
As the majority of the corridor is single track and has antiquated signal equipment, Tri-Rail and FDOT initiated a program to upgrade the signal system and double track the line with the intent of providing more reliable service and the ability to run more frequent service.
The first phase of the Double Track Program is nearing completion and several important lessons have been learned by the project participants during the progress of the work. Significant impacts on operations resulted and numerous changes to the contract occurred. Tri-Rail and FDOT are now advancing designs for subsequent phases and have instituted new procedures to address these concerns.
3. The Lessons
- Observation: The design of the project was conducted by a consultant under contract to FDOT. At the time of the design, Tri-Rail had limited engineering expertise in-house and input by operations staff was not seen as a critical part of the design process. In this case, the agency (and owner, FDOT) responsible for effective development of the corridor's physical infrastructure made most of the design decisions, despite the fact that most of the FDOT staff involved did not have significant experience in the design and construction of rail infrastructure. The agency with the right to undertake the work (CSXT) essentially gained little direct benefit from the project and as a result, evaluation of the impacts on commuter rail operations was not a priority. The agency responsible for operations of the commuter rail system (Tri-Rail) did not the ability to control and provide input to the design process. The net result of the manner in which the design was managed is that the design did not adequately address staging issues that would minimize delays to rail traffic and ultimately required changes to the construction contracts to add operational flexibility.
Lesson: The design of any change to an existing fixed guideway requires that operational considerations rank high when evaluating design concepts. When the project team is comprised of multiple agencies, this is even more critical as the effective input from operations staff must be able to reach responsible team members in other agencies, and carry sufficient weight so that it is not dismissed due to lack of understanding of operations issues. Tri-Rail and FDOT are evaluating these issues on a project by project basis to identify the best agency to handle specific assignments for future projects.
- Observation: Agreements with CSXT led to CSXT undertaking work on the signal system, existing tracks and all tie ins. The balance of the work, for new track and necessary bridge construction, was undertaken by a private contractor under a contract administered by FDOT. Since CSXT was undertaking the work under different contract terms than the private contractor, the opportunity for conflicts in priorities existed, concurrent slow orders at different points in the line developed and operations were impacted.
Lesson: The terms of the original agreement between CSXT and FDOT did not anticipate the level of detail required for coordination with other contractors. Weekly coordination meetings have helped to identify potential problems and develop solutions prior to implementation. The FDOT - CSXT agreement did not anticipate the need for definition of specific project requirements at time of project delivery. With force account as basis of payment, any changes in effort required to accommodate a chosen staging scenario can have a negative impact on project budget.
- Observation: CSXT conducts work on a force account basis. There is little impetus for CSXT to commit to and execute its work on schedule. The FDOT/CSXT agreements do not define any sanctions to be placed on CSXT for late performance. This has caused project delays with subsequent payment to other contractors for additional costs due to the delays
Lesson: Purchase agreements such as the FDOT - CSXT agreement must define a measure of performance when work is to be done on a force account basis and define consequences for failure to meet negotiated commitments.
- Observation: Preparations for major milestone events were inadequate resulting in major impacts on operations. Several factors combined to create this problem. The design did not adequately address staging. To accommodate cut-in of new sections of track, the temporary track configurations could not accommodate normal revenue operations. The time frame to complete several key activities was also underestimated which further impaired on time performance.
Lesson: Pre-event planning including preparation of a test plan is critical for any change in the operating plan. Tri-Rail now coordinates input with CSXT, FDOT and its contract operator, and conducts weekly reviews of the implementation plan prior to the change date. A "Go/No Go" decision point is identified that checks the status of critical activities.
- Observation: Fast-Track project delivery can impair the ability to evaluate operational impacts. The work of the private contractor was negotiated prior to all scope items being fully defined by FDOT. Several significant scope changes were made early in the project that extended the contract period and required revised staging of construction.
Lesson: Project delivery methods that do not adequately define the overall scope of the project at time of project initiation can result in significant changes to contracts and to existing operations. The number and size of changes also leads to a public perception that the project is poorly managed regardless of whether the original budget anticipated the final scope of work being undertaken through a change order process.
- Observation: Tri-Rail's contract operator has also undertaken the rail construction work on the project. This may have facilitated an early start to the project and offered the opportunity for the operator / contractor to resolve problems more effectively than two separate organizations. There is an inherent conflict between an operator whose performance is measured based on on-time performance and a contractor who wants to avoid production delays due to train operations. Unless the contract terms adequately address this conflict, there is the potential that claims will be made by the construction forces that are impacted by changes in operations while at the same time, on time performance suffers due to the contractor's desire to meet estimated production rates.
Lesson: Regardless of the entities engaged in a contract, the contract terms must adequately address the operator's responsibilities when operations are impacted by construction so that there is still incentive to meet the operating plan. Similarly, a construction contract must define the responsibility that must be accepted when operations are affected outside of specified allowances. These two criteria can be more effectively addressed with less threat of conflict of interest when the two parties are not the same contractual entity.
4. The Applicability
These lessons are applicable to any agency which has to maintain operations while conducting infrastructure upgrading. It is also applicable to those situations where the transit agency does not have complete control over the use of its right-of-way.
5. Contact
Mr. James Nadaskay, P.E.
Director, Engineering and Construction
Tri-Rail
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 728-8668.
|
