Competitive Bid: What is the public policy justification for sole-sourcing a $4,000,000,000+ design-build job of this type to any contractor, especially when

1. all of the funding is public money and there is no private investment, no public emergency, and no unique skill set required?
2. the Commonwealth has the unmitigated right under its current PPTA agreement to put the design-build work out for competitive bid for a likely termination penalty of $0 up to a maximum penalty of only $25-$35 million (less than 1% of the project)?
3. the FTA has allowed plenty of time to hold a proper competitive bid?

Competitive Offer: A fixed-price offer for the 3.4-mile Tysons segment of the Phase I project utilizing a single-bore tunnel has been made by a qualified international contractor to the project sponsor and funding partners at a price significantly less expensive and faster to build than DTP’s last publicly disclosed estimate for the aerial plan. Why aren’t public officials or funding partners seriously exploring this offer when it clearly serves the public’s interest?

Tunnel Cost and Timing: A “twin-bore” tunnel for Tysons was originally turned down in 2002 (when the aerial was selected) solely because it was said to be 28% more expensive than the aerial. This cost differential is no longer true with a single-bore tunnel. The single-bore tunnel (not considered in 2002) is now expected to be $200-$600 million less expensive and 6-12 months faster to build than the aerial based on independent engineers estimates and fixed-pricing from a qualified contractor. Why wouldn’t the project sponsor and funding partners give the most thorough consideration possible to the single-bore tunnel alternative that is overwhelmingly supported by the community, has significantly lower environmental impacts and business disruption, has twice the useful life, is less expensive to operate, and costs the taxpayer less money?

Other Economic Issues: The tunnel represents an enormous revenue differential to Fairfax County and the Commonwealth when compared to the aerial plan, i.e. higher productivity, reduced business disruption, and reduced congestion costs as well as higher commercial property, business, and sales tax revenues. Why aren’t these enormous economic benefits which favor the tunnel over the aerial being quantified and considered by local and state officials?

FTA Issues: On 2/5/07, the FTA did not advance the project into the “pending” or “proposed” FFGA category for the President’s FY08 budget despite the much touted project schedule which shows an FFGA in early FY08. Further, in response to the tunnel opportunity, the FTA has signaled a willingness to give the project additional time through May 2008 (15 months) to submit plans and pricing and qualify for the current funding cycle (though some debate the latitude of the offer). This is more than sufficient time to hold a proper competitive bid — further assuring cost-effectiveness. In addition, FTA recently created a new “PPP” program which could give the project even more flexibility and time — special status, expedited review, funding priority, innovative funding structures, and special consideration (without creating unwanted precedents). Why aren’t the additional time and new PPP program being aggressively and publicly pursued to competitively bid the job, protect the federal funding, and allow the tunnel to be considered?

Airport Issues: Why is a 1.5 to 2-mile tunnel under Dulles Airport being planned (using the more expensive “twin-bore” approach) when a less expensive 3.4-mile single-bore tunnel under Tysons Corner is being ignored, especially when:

1. A tunnel under Tysons Corner — the 12th largest central business district in America — has broader public benefits than a tunnel under Dulles Airport?
2. The Phase I tax district (mostly Tysons) is contributing more than two times (2x) the funding expected from MWAA — $400 million vs. approximately $200 million?
3. Tysons will generate more than three times (3x) the metro ridership compared to Dulles?
4. Tysons (1,700 acres) produces more property taxes compared to Dulles (11,800 acres)?
5. Tysons contends with more than five times (5x) the vehicle traffic compared to Dulles?
6. Tysons presents significantly higher surface coordination, congestion, cost control, and business disruption risk compared to Dulles?

Engineering and Environmental Review: 100% Preliminary Engineering for the tunnel has been completed by a world-class team of engineers in a fraction of the time and cost compared to the aerial — more than ten times (10x) less expensive. This work for the tunnel is done to the same level of detail as the aerial plans and is ready for competitive, design-build bidding. Also, an expert consulting team has prepared an environmental review of the tunnel confirming that the tunnel produces significantly lower environmental impacts compared to the aerial. Even the truck traffic associated with the tunnel muck removal is insignificant, representing 0.4%-1.6% of the peak volume on the Dulles Access Road. Also, a NEPA specialist at Akin Gump has said that a 3-6 month Environmental Assessment is appropriate for the tunnel review and a Supplemental EIS is not required. Why is this professional material not being utilized to advance the environmental review of the tunnel and allow for side-by-side competitive bidding of the tunnel?

Public Support: An unprecedented coalition of community associations, small businesses, environmental groups, landowners, civic groups, homeowner associations, major corporations, and private citizens have come together calling for competitive bidding of the design-build work and side-by-side competitive bidding of the tunnel and aerial options before a final decision is made. This coalition includes more than 57 public officials; more than 52 HOAs, civic associations, environmental groups, and citizens associations; more than 153 businesses (including Gannett, Capital One, and Mitre); as well as more than 16,000 (and growing) citizen petition signatures. A recent poll shows a tunnel to aerial preference of more than 8 to 1. Why is this kind of unprecedented public support for competitive bidding and full consideration of the tunnel being ignored?

Tysons “Bypass”: A Tysons “bypass” suggested by some has enormous problems not associated with the tunnel option. The Tysons “bypass” would require a Supplemental EIS since it was previously rejected in the current EIS for “greater impacts and lower ridership” (compared to the tunnel which was found to have “lower impacts and the same ridership”), would not qualify for Fairfax County Phase I Tax District funding ($400 million), would not qualify for federal funding because of dramatically reduced cost-effectiveness ($900 million), has no engineering work even started (compared to the tunnel which is finished), has no pricing developed, and has no public support. How will this plan be funded without Phase I Tax District or federal money? Why is a Tysons “bypass” even mentioned when the tunnel plan is already engineered, has no inherent federal or county funding problems, and has overwhelming public support?

Moral and Ethical Obligation to Taxpayers: Given all of the issues outlined above, project officials and funding partners have a moral and ethical obligation to the taxpayer 1) to open the design-build work to public competitive bidding and 2) to give the single-bore tunnel proper environmental review and full consideration in a side-by-side competitive bid with the aerial before a final selection is made.

back to top