california high-speed rail: operations report · the california high -speed rail authority ......

California High-Speed Rail: Operations Report

FY14-15, FY15-16, FY16-17, FY17-18 and Program Metrics

October 2017

Finance & Audit Committee Meeting

Agenda

2

Operations Report Metrics

– Executive Summary

– Right-of-Way (ROW)

– Project Development

– Third Party Agreements

– Contract Management

– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk

F&A Committee Meeting – October 2017

Executive Summary

3

ROW Acquisition

The current report presents ROW acquisition progress relative to CP1 thru CP4 through August 31, 2017. As of that date, the Authority has secured legal possession of 1,212 parcels with 1,170 delivered to the Design-Builder (DB). There was 1 parcel delivered in CP1ABC, 1 parcel delivered in CP1D, 3 parcels delivered in CP2-3 and 5 parcels delivered in CP4 for a total delivery of 10 parcels during the month of August. The total parcels and percentage delivered to date are as follows:

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues to focus on delivery of key early construction parcels through utilization of the Settlement Teams and partnering with the DB. Partnering efforts continue to identify key parcels needed for meaningful construction. There was 1 critical parcels delivered in August.

The Authority has established a new baseline CP2-3 and CP4 schedules that reflects all the changed contractual delivery dates due to ATC revisions and design changes. These rebaseline schedules have not yet been agreed to by the Design-Builders.

Approximately 40% of the original parcels in CP2-3 have had design changes that have required different ROW acquisitions and similarly 70% of the parcels in CP4. Delivery dates for the affected parcels have been reestablished based upon the contract terms for parcels requiring changed ROW requirements.

Section Delivered to DB # of Parcels % Delivered to DB

CP1ABC 645 782 82%

CP1D 82 108 76%

CP2-3 377 678 56%

CP4A 66 174 38%

Total 1,170 1,742 67%


Executive Summary

4

Project Development1

The environmental reports with schedule information will remain the same until the program is re-baselined and approved. Once this occurs, the approved environmental schedules will be updated and reflected in the reports.

Moving ahead to resolve programmatic decisions on which the FRA and Authority need to reach agreement to help accelerate delivery of the environmental documents. We have added two additional issues so we have 32 issues, and 23 of them have now been resolved. This weekly coordination effort will continue.

Coordinating with the FRA to increase its staffing capacity for accelerating document review through the Volpe Center, a federal transportation agency.

Continued work on NEPA Assignment that would allow the Authority to assume most FRA responsibilities for environmental reviews and approvals. Held several coordination calls with FRA staff and had meetings with Caltrans staff to take advantage of their NEPA Delegation experience and advice.

Refining program-wide schedules to identify and prioritize HSR and FRA reviews.

Hosting monthly regional regulatory agency meetings to address project-related issues and early review of environmental documents and begin localizing the notion of NEPA Assignment with them.

1 Text identified in red indicate change from previous month.


Executive Summary Cont.

5

Project Development1

Advanced our responses to FRA comments on the Merced to Fresno Central Valley Wye Biological Assessment.

Organized responses to FRA comments on the Merced to Fresno Central Valley Wye Checkpoint C Summary Report and the preliminary Compensatory Mitigation Plan.

Received comments from the cooperating agencies on the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

Working among the Authority, FRA, US Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other resource agencies on a statewide regional conservation approach to meet future permitting requirements.

Confirming the project footprints and preparing technical reports needed for the EIR/EISs for the San Jose to Merced, San Francisco to San Jose, Bakersfield to Palmdale, Palmdale to Burbank, Burbank to Los Angeles, and Los Angeles to Anaheim project sections.

Updating re-examination guidance to reflect field changes necessary to revise the Environmental Construction Compliance Manual.

Advancing work to compile the results of environmental re-examinations completed for the CP1, CP2-3 and CP 4 construction packages in the Central Valley. We are up to 60 completed re-exams.

Continued implementation of a new software package called Relativity, a program designed to speed the collecting and sorting of reference material needed for preparing the administrative record for each EIR/EIS document. HSR coordinated the software selection with the Attorney General’s office.

1 Text identified in red indicate change from previous month.


Executive Summary

6

Third Party Agreement Execution

The current report presents Third Party Agreement execution progress relative to the Valley to Valley and agreement execution progress relative to the Central Valley, North and South through August 31, 2017.

The plan for agreement execution within the Valley to Valley section is based on the respective environmental clearance and construction procurement schedules and is updated monthly to reflect changes in the respective schedule.


Executive Summary

7

Contract Management

CP1 - Construction activities continue to increase. TPZP continues to progress construction at fourteen (14) locations throughout the project. The following provides a summary of the major structure activities by location: Road 27 – Continuing construction of abutments; Fresno River Viaduct – Continuing with barrier work; Cottonwood Creek – Construction of barrier walls; Avenue12 – Constructing embankments and abutments; Avenue 10 Overhead – Completed clearing and grubbing, planning to start embankment construction; Avenue 8 – Work is on hold pending overcrossing redesign work; Avenue 7 – Continuing with foundation work; San Joaquin River Viaduct (SR-99 On-Ramp) – Continuing with foundation and column work, installing temporary formwork for the bridge superstructure; Fresno Trench – Continuing with support of excavation of trench and temporary shoring; State Route 180 – Continued installation of temporary shoring; Tuolumne Street Overcrossing – Continuing with utility work on local streets; Downtown Fresno Viaduct (North Avenue & SR-99) – Bridge superstructure is in progress; Muscat Avenue – Constructing abutments and installing temporary formwork for the bridge superstructure; American Avenue – Continuing with abutment foundation work.

CP 2-3 - Dragados/Flatiron continues to mobilize and plan the work, including developing and submitting various design and construction plans, and meeting with third parties to understand their design requirements. Field work continues with building demolition activities, clearing and grubbing, geotechnical exploration, and utility activities. Other construction activities are being planned for start within the next month, including rail embankment construction in the north area of the project and roadway embankment in Kings County at Kent and Kansas Avenues.

CP 4 – California Rail Builders continues to mobilize and plan the work, including continuing with structure and civil design activities, planning for environmental re-examinations, utility identification and design work, meeting with third parties and acquiring right-of-way. Field work includes ongoing environmental surveys, geotechnical investigations, potholing for utilities and building demolition activities.

SR-99 Realignment – Caltrans is continuing with the Main Package work. This includes retaining walls at Ashlan Ave, Structure construction at Clinton and Ashlan overcrossings and Fresno Yard Overhead, Relocation of utilities, grading and paving on State Route 99 mainline. Clinton Ave has been closed for the construction of the two structures and is progressing well. It is anticipated to be completed by the end of October.


Executive Summary

8

Finance

FY2017-18 capital outlay expenditures were $70.7M for August 31, 2017 as reported in the Capital Outlay and Expenditures Report for October 2017, compared to $132.6M for October 2016. The decrease year over year was due mostly to the reduction of expenditures in Real Property Acquisition ($63M). The majority of the remaining Right-of-Way parcels are in the eminent domain process and/or are complex relocations, which require additional time to deliver.

The FY2017-18 budget of $1.639B supports activities reflected within the 2016 Business Plan and is based on a prioritization of executed contracts necessary for Central Valley development and construction, Silicon Valley to Central Valley segment planning, and Bookend Corridor project construction. In addition, the F20Y17-18 budget prioritizes work related to completing Phase I Record of Decision and activities within the scope of the ARRA and FY10 grants.

In August-17, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded the Authority and coalition partners LOSSAN and Metro a $600K Assessment Grant under the EPA Brownfields program. The grant funds community outreach, environmental site assessments, and clean-up plans for Brownfields sites adjacent to LA Union Station and is included in the FY2017-18 budget.

As a result of Real Property Acquisition credits totaling $31.9K, ARRA expenditures total $2.553B or 99.9% of the $2.553B grant. These credits are being processed to maintain full utilization of the ARRA grant.


Agenda

9







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


ROW Metrics - Context

10

The following slides track parcels delivered to design-builder (DB), which is the last step of the ROW process – Four metrics related to “delivered to DB” are tracked:

• Plan: For CP1, the negotiated schedule of parcel delivery as of December 2014 plus additional public parcels and design changes; for CP2-3 and CP4, a rebaselining has been implemented to reflect “contractual delivery dates” for each parcel resulting from design changes.

• Actual: Actual parcels delivered each month. • Early Forecast: Refined every month based on future expected delivery. • Alternative Forecast (CP1 only): Forecast that anticipates additional delays for elements outside the

control of the Authority and reflects rates more in line with historic delivery. Forecast is locked as of September 2015, except when new parcels are added due to design changes.

Forecasts are based on inputs from the ROW Consultants and the Authority.

The total number of parcels needed for delivery has changed over time for two main reasons: – The number of public property parcels was based upon 15% designs; as the ROW Transfer Agreements

were completed with the local agencies, the number of parcels has been refined. – As the DB refines the design, the ROW needs may also be changed. The number of parcels to be acquired

can fluctuate up or down. In some cases, additional ROW may be required from previously completed acquisitions.

For ROW expenditure analysis, this report presents: – Actual expenditures: reported each month. – Forecast: adjusted quarterly based on the Funding Contribution Plan.

ROW


Notes: 1. “Plan”: Negotiated schedule as of December 2014 plus public parcels, design changes and new parcels. Addition of new parcels extends full Plan delivery to later date. 2. “Early Forecast” and “Alternative Forecast”: Early forecast is continually refined based on expected delivery schedule. The Alternative Forecast reflects potential delays. 3. CP1ABC total parcels are continually updated as design changes are approved. 4. “Addendum 9” refers to original contract schedule. The “Plan” superseded Addendum 9, thus it has not been updated to reflect the additional public parcels 5. Does not include CP1D (North Extension) parcels.

ROW – CP1ABC Parcels Delivered to DB by Month Plan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

11

758 782782782

523

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

J M Jan 2018

D

Parcels Delivered (monthly)

Parcels Delivered (cumulative)

J N S A J A M F D N O S A M Jan 2015

D O A A Pre-FY14-

15

M M A F J J

645

A S A N D F M O O J J O M Jan 2016

N S J Jan 2017

J F D N S A J M

Plan - Cumulative Alternative Forecast

Plan

Alternative Forecast - Cumulative

Addendum 9 Early Forecast - Cumulative

Actual Early Forecast

Actual - Cumulative Addendum 9 - Cumulative

CP1ABC - Delivered to DB (number of parcels)

CP1ABC ROW

Source: September 1, 2017 ROW Weekly Report

Data through August 31, 2017

Monthly bars tie to left axis Cumulative lines tie to right axis


Notes: 1. “Plan”: Negotiated schedule as of December 2014 2. Design changes and lag in data entry can cause slight changes to plan and actual counts

ROW – CP1ABC Historic Performance

12

11348

86129181514913 43

16

316

68

0

20

40

60

80

Aug 2017

2

Nov 2016

6

May 2017

Dec 2016

Mar 2017

Jul 2017

5 1

Jun 2017

Aug 2016

1

Apr 2017

Oct 2016

0

Feb 2017

Jan 2017

Sep 2016

Actual Plan

CP1ABC Performance (in number of parcels)

68

7

7

99

131416

1312

14

13

13

4

8

86

129

181514

9

13

0

5

10

15

20

1

Oct 2016

Apr 2017

Jun 2017

Mar 2017

May 2017

Nov 2016

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Jan 2017

Dec 2016

Feb 2017

Sep 2016

Aug 2016

Actual

3-Month Rolling Avg (3-month average)

CP1ABC ROW

3

Actual parcels delivered compared to planned (positive) Actual parcels delivered compared to planned (negative) # #

12 7 14 -53


13


11 5 5 -8 1 7 -3


2222

00

2

00

211

211

0

2

4

6

Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In

0

5

23

0

3

000011

0

22

0

2

4

6


ROW – CP1ABC Pipeline by Process (1 out of 4 pages) Volume of Activity by Process (Flow) - Pipeline

13

CP1ABC ROW

Appraisal

Just Compensation

Completion

800

400

0 Total

782

To Date

770

0

400

800

Total

782

To Date

770

PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

• Parcels in pipeline are a function of pending design refinement submittals, reviews and approvals.

• Parcels in pipeline pending DGS setting Just Compensation.

Note: Lag in data entry and parcel count changes due to design refinements may create month-to-month variances in the parcel flow pipeline Source: September 1, 2017 ROW Weekly Report

April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017


14324

15

20

1114

73

18

52

0

10

20

30



14

CP1ABC ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

8

026

006

20

823

712

0

10

20

30


First Written Offer

800

400

0 Total

782

To Date

761

Negotiation Acquisition 0

400

800

Total

782

To Date

485

Completion

• Pipeline consists of railroad parcels and non-railroad parcels.

• Pipeline consists of signed agreements being processed through escrow, pending offers at property owners’ decision to sign or enter condemnation and pending revised First Written Offer (FWO).

Note: Lag in data entry and parcel count changes due to design refinements may create month-to-month variances in the parcel flow pipeline




423330

6134

004

100

10

20

30

Pipeline Out In Out Pipeline Pipeline In Out Pipeline In In Out Out In Pipeline

12

12

11

10

1214

0

26

30

29

41

0

10

20

30

In In Pipeline Out In Out Pipeline Out In In Out Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Out


15

CP1ABC ROW

Condemnation

Eminent Domain

200

0

400

Total

231

To Date

200

0

400

Total To Date

115


Completion

• Pipeline comprised of Resolution of Necessities (RONs) being processed by the Authority and ROW consultants and awaiting adoption by the Public Works Board (PWB). Also includes parcels being prepared by the Authority to transfer to Caltrans Legal.

• Pipeline illustrates total number of parcels in the Eminent Domain process with Caltrans legal with lawsuits filed. An Order of Possession (OP) is the next step if a settlement is not reached.

1

1

Notes: 1. Total number of parcels that may take the condemnation route is unknown 2. Lag in data entry and parcel count changes due to design refinements may create

month-to-month variances in the parcel flow pipeline




0

400

800

To Date

173

Total


16

CP1ABC ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

75

00

75

00

75

00

75

10

76

100

50

100

Out In Pipeline Out In Out In Pipeline Pipeline Out Out Pipeline In In Pipeline

Public Agency / Railroad

1311

13131

25

420

98611860

50

100

Out In In Pipeline In Out Pipeline Pipeline Out Out Pipeline Pipeline Out In In

Delivery

800

400

0 Total

645

To Date

782

Completion

• Comprised of railroad parcels and public parcels. Public parcels are being processed with Master Agreements before proceeding to individual utility relocations and acquisitions. Most railroad parcels are dependent on the DB completing designs so the railroad issues a construction and maintenance agreement.

• Pipeline consists of parcels requiring relocation and parcels available to be transferred to DB.

1

1

Notes: 1. Total number of pubic parcels to be identified 2. Lag in data entry and parcel count changes due to design refinements may create





ROW – CP1D Parcels Delivered to DB by Month Plan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

17

1268108815

4221 5123

43

40

82

108

54

108

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Feb Dec Nov Mar Jan 2018

Oct Sep



Nov Dec Sep

6

Aug

6

Jul Oct Jun

6

Jul Aug

47

Apr Feb May Mar Jan 2017

2

May Apr Apr Jun May

1

Jan 2016

Feb Mar

CP1D - Delivered to DB (in number of parcels)

Notes: 1. The “Plan” numbers have been developed as a placeholder until acquisition plan with DB is finalized. 2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery. 3. Total number of parcels will be updated as design changes are approved.

CP1D ROW


Actual - Cumulative

Actual Forecast

Forecast - Cumulative

Plan - Cumulative

Plan




Notes: 1. Per contract, “planned” to be rebaselined. 2. Contract executed in June 2015; 31 parcels delivered after contract execution 3. Design changes and lag in data entry can cause slight changes to plan and actual counts.

ROW – CP1D Historic Performance

18

2681088

154266 1

47

6

000

1020304050

Nov 2016

Jul 2017

0

Aug 2017

0

Apr 2017

Mar 2017

0

Jan 2017

Dec 2016

Sep 2016

0

Aug 2016

0

Feb 2017

0 2

May 2017

0

Oct 2016

0

Jun 2017

0

Actual Plan

CP1D Performance (in number of parcels)

23589

9

109

745

68

10

88

15

66

05

101520

4

Sep 2016

Oct 2016

Nov 2016

2 3 4

Aug 2016

Feb 2017

May 2017

1 2

Aug 2017

Jan 2017

Dec 2016

Jul 2017

2

Jun 2017

Apr 2017

Mar 2017

CP1D ROW

Actual



6 2 4 15 8 8 10 8 6 -4 6 -45 1




100

110

23

1

4

0

3

1000

2

4

6

Out In Out Pipeline In Out Out Pipeline Pipeline Out Pipeline In In Pipeline In

01

01

3

1

3

0

3

01

01

000

2

4

6

In Out In Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Out Pipeline In Pipeline Out Out In Out In

ROW – CP1D Pipeline by Process (1 out of 4 pages) Volume of Activity by Process (Flow) - Pipeline

19

CP1D ROW

Appraisal

Just Compensation

200

0

100

Total

108

To Date

100

200

0

100 108 100

To Date Total


Completion

• Parcels in pipeline a function of pending design refinement submittals, reviews and approvals.






100110276

3324500

10

20

30

In Pipeline Pipeline Out In Pipeline Pipeline Out Out In In Pipeline Out In Out


20

CP1D ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

501

40

315

06

015

000

10

20

30

In Out Pipeline In Pipeline Pipeline Out In Pipeline In Out Out In Pipeline Out

First Written Offer

95

0

100

200

Total

108

To Date

Negotiation Acquisition

82

200

100

0 Total

108

To Date

Completion







0000000101001110

10

20

30

In Out In Pipeline In Out In In Pipeline Out Pipeline Out Pipeline Out Pipeline

500

530

8

21

9

20

11

110

10

20

30

Pipeline In Out In Out In Out Out In In Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Out


21

CP1D ROW

Condemnation

Eminent Domain

230

20

40

Total To Date

0

20

40

Total To Date

2


Completion

• Pipeline comprised of RONs being processed by the Authority and ROW consultants and awaiting adoption by PWB.

• Pipeline comprised of suits (parcels) at Caltrans legal pending filing with the courts seeking Court Orders of Possession.

1

1






200

100

0 1

Total To Date


22

CP1D ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

500

500

50

50000000

10

20

30

Out Pipeline Pipeline In Out In Out Pipeline Out Out In Pipeline In In Pipeline


11022132236

36

85

0

10

20

30

Out Pipeline Out In In Pipeline Out Pipeline Pipeline Out In Out In Pipeline In

Delivery 81

0

100

200

Total

108

To Date

Completion

• Current parcel count only includes public parcels with APNs and value. Public Roadway parcels will be defined to add to the total number of distinct parcels.


1






ROW – CP2-3 Parcels Delivered to DB by Month Plan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

23

536

377

678

429

678

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

J D



A J A Jan 2018

J O N M N M F D O S A S J Jan 2017

J A N A O N A M M M D A F Jan 2016

J S O J D M S F Pre-FY15-

16

CP2-3 - Delivered to DB (in number of parcels)

Notes: 1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with the “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on design changes. 2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery. 3. Total number of parcels will be updated as design changes are approved.

CP2-3 ROW


Rebaseline - Cumulative ROW ACQ Plan ROW ACQ Plan - Cumulative

Forecast - Cumulative Actual - Cumulative

Rebaseline

Forecast Actual




Notes: 1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with the “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on design changes. 2. Contract executed in June 2015; 31 parcels delivered after contract execution 3. Design changes and lag in data entry can cause slight changes to plan and actual counts.

ROW – CP2-3 Historic Performance

24

15848

134

175

2316

8

7226

12000

40

20

10

0

Aug 2017

May 2017

1

Jul 2017

Nov 2016

Mar 2017

Dec 2016

Jan 2017

Oct 2016

Feb 2017

23

Sep 2016

Apr 2017

0 0

31

Aug 2016

Jun 2017

3

Actual Rebaseline

CP2-3 Performance (in number of parcels)

9

97

8811

915

1721

169

10

158

8

1317

2323

8

16

0

10

20

30

Aug 2016

Sep 2016

Apr 2017

Jan 2017

4

Mar 2017

5

Oct 2016

Feb 2017

Dec 2016

Nov 2016

4

May 2017

Jul 2017

Jun 2017

3

Aug 2017

CP2-3 ROW


Actual

17


6 16 23 -8 5 4 11 6 3 7 8 -3




1521

3

33

78

32

165

43

813

38

1021

0

20

40

60

Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline

121220

4673672

12861210

0

20

40

60

Pipeline In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Out

ROW – CP2-3 Pipeline by Process (1 out of 4 pages) Volume of Activity by Process (Flow) - Pipeline

25

CP2-3 ROW

Appraisal

Just Compensation

800

400

0 Total

678

To Date

604

800

400

0 To Date Total

590 678


Completion







22

84

2617

7

3624

7

53

85

56

1825

0

20

40

60



26

CP2-3 ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

31

41619

76

2076

21

28

15129

0

20

40

60


First Written Offer

400

0

800

Total

678

To Date

563


400

0

800

Total

678

To Date

388

Completion







1725

5

37

32

38

4

192312

6

29

520

20

40

60

Pipeline Out In Pipeline In Pipeline Out Pipeline In Out Out Pipeline In In Out

60

5

22

43

83

48

105

53

48

49

910

20

40

60

Pipeline Out Out In Out In Pipeline Pipeline Out In Pipeline Pipeline Out In In


27

CP2-3 ROW

Condemnation

Eminent Domain

400

0

200 275

Total To Date

400

200

0 To Date

114

Total


Completion



1

1






400

800

0 10

Total To Date


28

CP2-3 ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

41

01

40

01

39

01

38

00

38

770

20

40

60

Out In In In Pipeline Pipeline Out Out Out In Pipeline Out Pipeline In Pipeline


21

33

211513

23

81417

4813

818

0

20

40

60

In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Out In Out Out In Out In Pipeline

Delivery 0

800

400

377

Total

678

To Date

Completion



1






ROW – CP4 Parcels Delivered to DB by Month Plan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

29

66

151

174174

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Oct May Apr Mar Sep Jul Jun


Aug Dec Jun Feb Mar Aug Feb Nov Apr Nov May Jul Oct Apr 2016

Jul Aug Dec Sep Jun Sep Oct May Jan 2018

Jan 2017


41

CP4 - Delivered to DB (in number of parcels)

CP4 ROW


Actual - Cumulative

Rebaseline

Forecast Forecast - Cumulative

ROW ACQ Plan - Cumulative ROW ACQ Plan

Actual

Rebaseline - Cumulative

Notes: 1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on design changes. 2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery. 3. Total number of parcels will be updated as design changes are approved.




Notes: 1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with the “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on design changes. 2. Design changes and lag in data entry can cause slight changes to plan and actual counts.

ROW – CP4 Historic Performance

30

5

105

113245010 4000000

5

19

0

5

10

15

20

May 2017

Jun 2017

2

Feb 2017

Sep 2016

Apr 2017

Mar 2017

Jul 2017

Aug 2016

Dec 2016

0

Jan 2017

1 0

Nov 2016

Oct 2016

3

Aug 2017

Actual Rebaseline

CP4 Performance (in number of parcels)

7223155

6 54

3 5

10

45

13

11

5

30

5

10

15

Jan 2017

Aug 2017

Jul 2017

May 2017

2

Apr 2017

1

Mar 2017

Jun 2017

1

Feb 2017

2

Dec 2016

2

Nov 2016

0

Oct 2016

Aug 2016

Sep 2016

CP4 ROW


Actual


-2 1 0 4 2 2 3 1 1 5 10 -19 1




6

00

6

00

6

0

6

0000000

2

4

6


01

01

01

0000

3

0

32

3

0

2

4

6

Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out Pipeline In

ROW – CP4 Pipeline by Process (1 out of 4 pages) Volume of Activity by Process (Flow) - Pipeline

31

CP4 ROW

Appraisal

Just Compensation

200

0

100

Total

174

To Date

161

200

0

100

Total

174

To Date

161


Completion







16

35

148

0

22

5

131416

3

2728

4

0

10

20

30



32

CP4 ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

300

300

330

60

33420

10

20

30


First Written Offer

200

100

0 Total

174

To Date

158


71

200

100

0 Total

174

To Date

Completion







1170

18

0711

29

3

37

45

36

7

24

0

20

40

60

Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out Pipeline Pipeline In In In Out Out

48

86

50

30

53

0

19

34

34

33

57

0

20

40

60

Pipeline Out Out Pipeline In Pipeline Out In Out In Pipeline In Pipeline Out In


33

CP4 ROW

Condemnation

Eminent Domain

8350

100

0 Total To Date

100

50

0

To Date

0

Total


Completion



1

1






0

100

200

To Date

1

Total


34

CP4 ROW PRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

8

00

8

00

8

00

8

00

8

000

10

20

30

Out In Pipeline In In Pipeline Pipeline Out In Pipeline Out In Out Out Pipeline


653810

3

15

54

16

1

89

15

0

10

20

30

Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline Out In In Pipeline Out In Out In In Out Pipeline Out

Delivery 66

100

0

200

174

To Date Total

Completion



1






300

200

600

600

400

700

0

500

100

800 1,100

1,000

800

300

500

100

400

200

700

900

0 4 3

S

4 4 3 5

J M

1,070

A

3 2

N

4

J M

3 8

M

14 3 17 3

Jan 2018

22

D

3

F

3

N

27

O

3 9

44

9

S

59

755

3 3 3

859

J M

23 32 59

J

13

A

13 21 21

9 27

Expenditure (monthly)

3

Expenditure (cumulative)

3 8

A

3 17 2

F O

3 5 28

D

11

76

435

J

23

A

76 59

Through Jun 2016

Jan 2019

11 23 34 23

774

8

S

12 10

Jan 2017

60 11 8

27 22 12

N

492

11

A

0 21

F M

27 34

20

60

O

22 11 11

D

2

803

31

Total ROW Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

35

June 2017 FCP Forecast - Cumulative June 2017 FCP Forecast

Original FCP Forecast (December 2012) Actual - Cumulative

December 2015 FCP Forecast - Cumulative December 2015 FCP Forecast

Actual

Total ROW Expenditure Schedule ($ in millions)

ROW

Notes: 1. Amounts represent monthly totals; not parcel-by-parcel forecast and actual expenditures. 2. $24M of ROW preliminary costs is not allocated to specific construction package (CP). 3. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan approved by the FRA in December 2012. 4. Total ROW budget in Original FCP is $774M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by June 2015. 5. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to track expenditure performance prior to the approval of March 2016 FCP. 6. March 2017 actual expenditure includes ROW Working Capital Allocation (WCA) reversal reallocation. 7. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 8. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.




Sources: 1. Capital Outlay Report, August 2017 2. Funding Contribution Plan, June 2017 3. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2015 4. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2012

36

400

450

200

400

500

250

100

50

200

600

300

700

300

350

0

150

100

0 0 0

M

4 3 23 25

1

D M

4 4 4

A

1

A

2

N

1 3

Jan 2018

4 1

O

6 16

J

14 1

319

A M

25 1 4

Jan 2017

2 2 1

29

1

D

29 3 7

12

338

17

N

20

Through Jun 2016

20 12 3

278

441

S

17

A

46

O

18

46

541

2 1

J

1 3


6 1

A

2 2 14

2

F F D

23

J

1 1

F

2 4 1

M

633

Jan 2019

3 2 1 1

347

S

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2


O S

1

J

2 1

J

22 1

M

22

336

2

N

Original FCP Forecast (December 2012)

December 2015 FCP Forecast - Cumulative

June 2017 FCP Forecast June 2017 FCP Forecast - Cumulative

Actual - Cumulative Actual

December 2015 FCP Forecast

Notes: 1. Amounts represent monthly totals; not parcel-by-parcel forecast and actual expenditures. 2. Does not include CP1D (North Extension) acquisition costs. 3. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan approved by the FRA in December 2012. 4. CP1 ROW budget in Original FCP is $441M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by June 2015. 5. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to track expenditure performance prior to the approval of March 2016 FCP. 6. March 2017 actual expenditure includes ROW Working Capital Allocation (WCA) reversal reallocation. 7. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 8. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.


ROW-CP1 Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

ROW-CP1 Expenditure Schedule ($ in millions)

CP1 ROW




ROW-CP2-3 Expenditure Schedule ($ in millions)

37

Actual

June 2017 FCP Forecast


June 2017 FCP Forecast - Cumulative

Actual - Cumulative




ROW-CP2-3 Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

CP2-3 ROW

Notes: 1. Amounts represent monthly totals; not parcel-by-parcel forecast and actual expenditures. 2. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan approved by the FRA in Dec-012. 3. CP2-3 ROW budget in Original FCP is $179M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by Jun-2015. 4. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to track expenditure performance prior to the approval of March 2016 FCP. 5. March 2017 actual expenditure includes ROW Working Capital Allocation (WCA) reversal reallocation. 6. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 7. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.

160 250

50

80

0

100

20

180

120

0

60

40

200

300

100

150

-20

140

31

J Through Jun 2016

122

5

179

34

O

5 3

116

6 6 5 5

31

229

9 3

N

5

S

6

O

2 2 6


N

2 2

S

2 2

290


2 3 2

D J

2

256

2

A J

2 2 2

M

2 1

A

2 2

M

2

F

3 2

J

9 9

N

25 24

2 7 2 9

2

232

D J

10 2 5 2

S M

6

A

3

0

2

A

2

M Jan 2018

4

O

0

-19

2

A F

10 4

-19

6 15

7 7

Jan 2017

4 6 5

D

5

27

6

27

186

9




38

40

0

140

60

80

0

160

140

100

180

120

180

60

20

100

20

120

40

80

160

7

63

123

O F

0 0



N

0

176

A S

1 0

Jan 2019

D

0

J J

3 1 1

A M

3 1

M

8 1

F

5 1 4 0 4 4

M

1 5 12

1

N D

12 3

A J O A

7 12

1

M

1

12 4 4 4

J F

1 2 4

Jan 2018

S

1 4 1 1 4 4 5 1

27

4 2 0

Jan 2017

4

D

3 3

N

2 2 4 7

O

4 4 4

S

2

24

A Through Jun 2016

14

46

2

27

0

24

3 0

16

J

14 3

166


Actual - Cumulative Actual


June 2017 FCP Forecast - Cumulative June 2017 FCP Forecast


Notes: 1. Amounts represent monthly totals; not parcel-by-parcel forecast and actual expenditures. 2. CP4 ROW parcel delivery data will be added to Operations Report once deliveries ramp-up 3. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan approved by the FRA in December 2012. 4. CP4 ROW budget in Original FCP is $46M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by June 2015. 5. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to track expenditure performance prior to the approval of March 16 FCP. 6. March 2017 actual expenditure includes ROW Working Capital Allocation (WCA) reversal reallocation. 7. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 8. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.

ROW-CP4 Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

ROW-CP4 Expenditure Schedule ($ in millions)

CP4 ROW





Agenda

39







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


Project Development Clearance Metrics - Context

40

The following slides track several metrics for each Project Development project section/project related to:

– Schedule and physical percent complete.

– Key milestones.

– Actual, planned and forecasted costs-to-completion dates:

• As of July 2015, cost projections were rebaselined.

• Starting in September 2015, forecasted costs were based on performance and trends, with planned costs remaining set.

• Actual costs come from invoices the Authority receives.

• Future costs to be revised to take into account more comprehensive Preliminary Engineering for Procurement (PE4P) and non-biological mitigation measures.

• Project Development Milestone Schedule (page 44) provides an overview of key upcoming milestones across all project sections and projects.

Project Development


Note: The Project Development budgets in this Operations Report include all funding sources (Prop 1A, ARRA, and Cap and Trade). This report differs from the Funding Contribution Plan (FCP) since it is limited to the scope of the ARRA grant and state match requirements.

41

Project Development Milestones Schedule (to ROD) Information through July 31, 20171,3


Project Development

Segment Progress to Date Next Steps

San Francisco to San Jose

Held bi-weekly FRA check-in meetings July 25. Continued consultation with stakeholders on station

planning for San Francisco (4th and King) and Millbrae. Met with Belmont City Council on July 11 regarding

passing tracks. Met with the North Oaks Community Council (an EJ

Community) on July 27.

Maintain stakeholder outreach. Lock down the project description; advance preliminary design (including

alignment, passing tracks, station improvements, and terminal/ storage facilities) and environmental technical studies.

San Jose to CV Wye

Coordinated with the FRA on the integration of the Central Valley Wye and the northern leg of the San Jose to Merced Project into the Draft EIR/EIS.

Participated in San Jose Community Working Group meeting on July 12 on alternatives evaluation process and evaluation of Monterey Road corridor.

Coordinated with Caltrans District 4 regarding environmental field studies.

Maintain stakeholder outreach. Advance preliminary design for established alignments. Continue to support northern California civil procurement packages. Advance evaluation of PG&E network upgrades required to support

distribution power interconnection at traction power substations. Advance environmental clearance for geotechnical investigations needed

post-ROD.

Central Valley Wye (M-F)

Responding to FRA comments on Checkpoint C Summary, the Biological Assessment (BA), and preliminary draft Compensatory Mitigation Plan.

Held FRA comment resolution workshop on additional Admin. Draft EIR/EIS chapters and sections.

Prepare publication plan for future release and public circulation of supplemental draft EIR/EIS.

Obtain Biological Opinion from the USFWS. Update CommentSense training for the regional consultant teams to

respond to comments on the draft EIR/EIS documents.

Central Valley Interconnections

Remaining Central Valley Interconnection work (Sites 6 and 7) are now in the Central Valley Wye Draft EIR/EIS

Continue to coordinate with PG&E on electrical interconnections and upgrades outside of the Central Valley Wye study area.

HMF Environmental clearance approach on hold. Environmental screening criteria and clearance approach

still under discussion.

Assess schedule performance once screening criteria and environmental clearance approach are finalized.

Locally- Generated Alternative (F-B)2

Received cooperating agency comments on the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

Provided comments on the Draft Biological Opinion on the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew and received the Final Biological Opinion.

Update CommentSense training for the regional consultant teams and FRA to respond to comments on the draft EIR/EIS documents.

Providing on-going assistance to design/build contractor and project construction manager on environmental and permitting issues.

1 Text identified in red indicate change from previous month. 2 Previously referred to as the Bakersfield F Street Station Alignment

3 Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

42

Project Development Milestones Schedule (to ROD) Information through July 31, 20171,2


Project Development

Segment Progress to Date Next Steps

Bakersfield to Palmdale

Continued preparing project description in conjunction with completing the final preliminary engineering for project definition.

Working on analysis to identified a preferred alternative. Continued to refine proposed Pacific Crest Trail alignment;

Presented noise analysis for the Chavez Center to the FRA and now responding to comments.

Continue coordination with the resource agencies, particularly under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

Work on remaining technical reports and EIR/EIS chapters and sections. Develop regional approach for biological mitigation. Plan to make presentation to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management to occur in August.

Palmdale to Burbank

Continued preparing project description in conjunction with completing the final preliminary engineering for project definition.

Revised Una Lake alternatives memo following legal review. Refined GIS analysis for Pacific Crest Trail; prepared

visibility analysis to identify an alignment option that would minimize visibility of HSR project and SR 14 freeway.

Continued to attend internal and external meetings regarding Section 7 compliance, species effects, and regional modeling.

Maintain coordination activities with the USFS and other resource agencies.

Submit Checkpoint B document to USACE and USEPA after receiving FRA comments.

Work on remaining technical reports and EIR/EIS chapters and sections. Develop regional approach for biological mitigation. Gather and respond to input from Tribal meetings.

Burbank to LA Continued preparing project description. Prepared and submitted the Preliminary Jurisdictional

Determination to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Reviewed Link US environmental documents for

consistency with HSR program. Refined proposed grade separations to minimize Section

4(f) and other impacts.

Hold additional public workshops to discuss proposed grade separations. Complete final preliminary engineering for project definition. Continue discussions with USEPA and USACE regarding permitting

strategy under the Clean Water Act. Evaluate parking strategies at LA Union Station. Coordinate with Metro and Metrolink on LA Union Station program. Prepare Supplemental Alternatives Analysis on Burbank Station.

LA to Anaheim Continued preparing project description. Prepared and submitted the Preliminary Jurisdictional

Determination to the US Army Corps of Engineers. Working to identify and evaluate Section 4(f) coordination

requirements with corridor stakeholders.

Complete final preliminary engineering for project definition. Continue discussions with USEPA and USACE regarding permitting

strategy under the Clean Water Act. Work on remaining technical reports and EIR/EIS chapters and sections. Kick-off Supplemental Alternatives Analysis on Metrolink Station

relocations.

1. Text identified in red indicate change from previous month. 2. Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

Global Project Development Budget includes activities involved in the scope at the program and segment levels

43

Program Mitigation

Costs

Global Budget

Internal, External

Legal Costs

Env. Agency Costs

Env. Services Division, Costs

Permitting, Project

Mitigation Costs

RDP Costs Regional Consultants

Cost Categories for Scope and Budget Definition Cost Categories

Regional consultants’ and Engineering and Environmental consultants’ costs include project management, outreach, planning, engineering and environmental activities.

RDP costs include management, coordination, and technical reviews.

Permitting and project mitigation costs include obtaining permits required for construction and implementing project-level mitigation commitments.

Authority costs reflect management and staff costs for overseeing project development program delivery.

Environmental agency costs are costs for agency staff to attend meetings, review technical reports, and provide technical guidance.

Legal costs are costs associated with in-house and outside legal reviews.

Program mitigation costs for costs associated with implementing EIR/EIS program-level mitigation commitments.

PRO

GR

AM

LEV

EL

SEG

MEN

T L

EVEL


Project Development

Program Level Budget (Non-Section Specific Costs)1, 3

44

60

75

35

40

65

50

20

45

30

2.0

55

25

15

10

5

0

3.5

3.0

2.5

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

70

A M F Jan 2017

D N O S J J M Jan 2018

$ in millions cumulative

M A M

$ in millions by month

F D N A O S A J D

66.9

73.8

N O S A J J J M

44.0

A M F Jan 2016

D N O S A J Pre-FY15-

16

Actual

Forecast

Budget

Actual - FY16/19 Cumulative

Budget - FY16/19 Cumulative

Forecast - FY16/19 Cumulative

Project Development

FY2015-16 FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19


Notes: 1) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the Authority environmental staff, in-house legal review and

resource agency agreements. 2) Original budget prepared mid-2015; figures require updating with ROD schedules extended into 2018. 3) Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.


Segment

Progress

Complete Purpose & Need Statement

Complete Alternatives Analysis

Board Concurrence of Preliminary Preferred

Alternative for Draft EIR/EIS

Publish Draft EIR/EIS

Publish Final EIR/EIS and Obtain ROD

Date EIR/EIS To Be Completed

Due Dates Last Month

Current Month

Last Month

Current Month

Last Month

Current Month

Last Month

Current Month

Last Month

Current Month

Original Target

Revised Target

Merced to Fresno Plan Forecast % Complete

- - -

Feb-11

- - -

Jun-11

- - -

N/A

- - -

Aug-11

- - -

Sep-12

- - -

Sep-12

Fresno to Bakersfield

Plan Forecast % Complete

- - -

Feb-11

- - -

Jun-11

- - -

N/A

- - -

Jul-12

- - -

Jun-14

- - -

Jun-14

CV Electrical Interconnections


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Jul-16 Aug-16

95%

Jul-16 Sep-16 100%

Nov-16 Nov-16

0%

Nov-16 Sep-16 100%

Oct-17 Oct-17

0%

Oct-17 Sep-16

100%

Oct-17

Sep-16

San Francisco to San Jose5


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Jul-16 Aug-17

55%

Jul-16 Aug-17

55%

Jan-17 Oct-17

40%

Jan-17 Oct-17

40%

Nov-17 Jul-18

0%

Nov-17 Jul-18

0%

Nov-17

Jul-18

San Jose to Merced


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Sep-16 Aug-17

58%

Sep-16 Aug-17 64%

Feb-17 Nov-17

50%

Feb-17 Nov-17

50%

Nov-17 Aug-18

0%

Nov-17 Aug-18

0%

Nov-17

Aug-18

Central Valley Wye (M–F) 2, 5


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Feb-16 Oct-17

60%

Feb-16 Oct-17

60%

Dec-16 Aug-18

0%

Dec-16 Aug-18

0%

Dec-16

Aug-18

Locally Generated Alternative (F–B)3,5


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Jul-16 Jun-17 99%

Jul-16 Jun-17 99%

Dec-16 Jan-18

0%

Dec-16 Jan-18

0%

Dec-16

Jan-18

Bakersfield to Palmdale5


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Jan-16 Mar-16

85%

Complete Complete

100%

Oct-16 Jun-17 75%

Oct-16 Jun-17 75%

Feb-17 Jul-17 40%

Feb-17 Jul-17 40%

Nov-17 Mar-18

0%

Nov-17 Mar-18

0%

Nov-17

Mar-18

Palmdale to Burbank5


Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Aug-16 Sep-17 55%

Aug-16 Sep-17 55%

Mar-17 Dec-17

25%

Mar-17 Dec-17

25%

Nov-17 Sep-18

0%

Nov-17 Sep-18

0%

Nov-17

Sep-18

Burbank to LA5 Plan Forecast % Complete

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Mar-17 Jun-17 45%

Mar-17 Jun-17 45%

Jun-17 Aug-17

25%

Jun-17 Aug-17

25%

Nov-17 May-18

0%

Nov-17 May-18

0%

Nov-17

May-18

LA to Anaheim5 Plan Forecast % Complete

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Mar-17 Jun-17 50%

Mar-17 Jun-17 50%

Jun-17 Sep-17 25%

Jun-17 Sep-17 25%

Nov-17 Jun-18

0%

Nov-17 Jun-18

0%

Nov-17

Jun-18

HMF4 Plan Forecast % Complete

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Complete Complete

100%

Apr-16 TBD 0%

Apr-16 TBD 0%

Sep-16 TBD 0%

Sep-16 TBD 0%

May-17 TBD 0%

May-17 TBD 0%

May-17

TBD

45

Project Development Schedule (to ROD)-Information through July 31, 20171, 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


11

12

Notes: 1. Dates identified in red indicate change from previous month. Green cells indicates that that the EIR/EIS has been completed. 2. Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Merced to Fresno EIR/EIS, completed in September 2012. 3. Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield EIR/EIS, completed in June 2014. 4. Environmental clearance approach on hold and under review 5. Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA. 6. Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Project Development Schedule (to ROD) - Information through July 31, 20172,4

11

12

1. Text identified in green indicates environmental document completed. 2. Text identified in red indicate change from previous month. 3. Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA. 4. Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

Segment Schedule Status and Mitigation Strategies

Merced to Fresno EIR certified and project approved May 2012; FRA ROD issued September 20121

Fresno to Bakersfield EIR certified and project approved May 2014; FRA ROD issued June 2014


Environmental Evaluation Has Been Completed Using an environmental re-examination process, it was determined that the electrical interconnection and network upgrades for PG&E sites 8 through 12 supporting the test track do not require preparation of a supplemental environmental document. As a result, the environmental review has been completed, shaving a year off the schedule.

San Francisco to San Jose3

Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

San Jose to Merced3

Dates for Draft and Final EIR/EIS and ROD have been updated to reflect the revised process schedule, agreed upon with the FRA. The schedule continues to be reviewed to identify opportunities for compressing activities and other efficiencies. We continue to hold schedule confirmation meetings with the FRA, given the Draft EIR/EIS review experience to-date.

Central Valley Wye (M–F) 3

Delay in Publishing Draft EIR/EIS. Rationale for schedule impact: the delay of four months is a result of additional time needed for completing FRA review and circulating the Administrative Draft EIR/EIS to the federal cooperating agencies. Consequence: Publication of the Final EIR/EIS is now August 2018. Mitigation: The schedule continues to be reviewed to identify opportunities for compressing activities and other efficiencies. We continue to hold schedule confirmation meetings with the FRA, given the Draft EIR/EIS review experience to-date.

Locally Generated Alternative (F–B) 3

Delay in Publishing Draft EIR/EIS. Rationale for schedule impact: the delay of four months is a result of additional time needed for completing FRA review and circulating the Administrative Draft EIR/EIS to the federal cooperating agencies. Consequence: Publication of the Final EIR/EIS is still forecast for January 2018. Mitigation: The schedule continues to be reviewed to identify opportunities for compressing activities and other efficiencies. We continue to hold schedule confirmation meetings with the FRA, given the Draft EIR/EIS review experience to-date.

Bakersfield to Palmdale3 Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

Palmdale to Burbank3 Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

Burbank to LA3 Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

LA to Anaheim3 Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

HMF Environmental clearance approach on hold and under review; dates are subject to change pending Authority decision regarding site screening criteria and type of environmental clearance documentation needed.

Central Valley Electrical Interconnections

47

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Resource Agency Mitigation

Environmental Re-Examination - complete

Preliminary Preferred Alternative - complete

Alternative Analysis – complete

Purpose and Need – complete


7/15/17

Project Development

2

1

0

2

5 6

5

4

3

4

3

1

0

M F Jan 2018

D N O S A J



M A M F Jan 2017

D J O S A J J J N M A D

3.7

3.8

N O S A J M A M F Jan 2016


16

1.1

Forecast

Budget

Actual Actual - FY16/19 Cumulative



3


5) Analysis of electrical interconnections is ongoing for PG&E sites 3 – 7 as part of San Jose to Merced and for the Central Valley Wye.

6) Pending update, refer to Executive Summary. Source: Based on actual costs and future estimates for the RC and RDP.

Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Environmental clearance approach under review. 3) Forecast includes RDP and RC costs December 2015 through December 2018. 4) At this time, no habitat or other mitigation assumed in estimate.

San Francisco to San Jose

48

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Resource Agency Mitigation 11/3/17 - 11/3/18

Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD - actual 1/4/17 – 7/31/18 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD - original 1/4/17 - 11/12/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - actual 1/1/16 – 10/31/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original 1/1/16 - 1/3/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual 12/27/15 -8/31/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original 1/1/16 - 7/4/16 Alternatives Analysis - complete Purpose and Need - complete San Francisco to San Jose

7/15/17

Project Development

100 20

15

10

5

40

20

0

80

60

0

M F Jan 2018

D


M M A M F Jan 2017


D

56.3

61.9

N O S A J J D N O S A J J M A M F Jan 2016

A N O S A J Pre-FY15-

16

D N O S A J J

54.2




Forecast

Budget

Actual

4


Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecast based on RDP November 2015 estimate through December 2018. 3) At this time, no habitat or other mitigation assumed in estimate. 4) Purpose and Need for Checkpoint A completed May 2016. 5) Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.

6) Original budget prepared mid-2015; figures require updating with ROD schedules extended into 2018. 7) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the EEC and RDP.

8) Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

San Jose to Merced

49

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12


Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD - actual 3/5/17 – 8/31/2018 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD - original 3/5/17 - 11/5/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - actual 8/13/16 -11/30/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original 8/13/16 - 2/28/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual 12/27/15 -8/31/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original 12/31/15 - 9/11/16 Alternative Analysis - complete Purpose and Need - complete San Jose to Central Valley Wye

7/15/17

Project Development

0

200

150

100

50

20

15

10

5

0

S A J J M A M F Jan 2017

D N O A J J M A M S Jan 2016

D N


O S F


A J Pre-FY15-

16

N O D

123.0

145.2

N O S A J J M A M F Jan 2018

D

87.2




Forecast

Budget

Actual

5


4) Original budget prepared mid-2015; figures require updating with ROD schedules extended into 2018. 5) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the EEC and RDP. 6) Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecast based on RDP November 2015 estimate through December 2018. 3) Habitat mitigation included; other mitigation costs are not.

Central Valley Wye (M-F)

50

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Resource Agency Mitigation - Actual Resource Agency Mitigation - Original 12/5/16 - 12/5/17

12/6/17 - 12/6/18

8/15/17

11/1/12– 10/31/17 Draft SEIR/SEIS – Public / Agency Review - actual 1/21/16 - 12/4/16 Final SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD - original

Central Valley Wye

12/4/16 – 8/31/18 Final SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD - actual

Purpose and Need – complete Alternative Analysis – complete Preliminary Preferred Alternative - complete

9/22/12 - 2/19/16 Draft SEIR/SEIS - Public / Agency Review - original

Project Development

4

6

2

0

8

80

60

40

20

0

10

J M A M F Jan 2018

D N O S A J J M A M F Jan 2017

N N O S A J J M A M F Jan 2016

D N O D A J Pre-FY15-

16

29.6

67.2


D

34.8

O S A


J S



Forecast


Budget

Actual

6


Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecast based on November 2015 estimate through December 2018. 3) Habitat mitigation included; other mitigation costs are not. 4) Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Merced to

Fresno EIR/EIS, completed in September 2012.

5) Original budget prepared mid-2015; figures require updating with ROD schedules extended into 2018. 6) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the RC and RDP.


Locally Generated Alternative (F-B)

51

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Draft SEIR/SEIS – Public / Agency Review - actual 7/1/15 - 6/30/17 Draft SEIR/SEIS - Public / Agency Review - original 7/1/15 - 7/12/16 Preliminary Preferred Alternative – complete Alternative Analysis – complete Purpose and Need – complete Bakersfield F Street Alignment

7/15/17

Resource Agency Mitigation - original 11/1/16 - 1/1/18

Final SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alt./ROD - actual 6/21/16 -1/31/18 Final SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alt./ROD - original 6/21/16 - 12/31/16

Project Development

0

15

10

100

80

60

40

20

0

5

30

25

20

16.7



D

85.7

74.3





16


Forecast - FY16/19 Cumulative Forecast


Budget

Actual

7


Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecasted includes RDP and RC costs through December 2018. 3) Habitat mitigation included; other mitigation costs are not. 4) Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield EIR/EIS,

completed in June 2014

5) Original budget prepared mid-2015; figures require updating with ROD schedules extended into 2018. 6) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the EEC and RDP.


Bakersfield to Palmdale

52

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12


Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative ROD - actual 3/1/17 – 3/31/18 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative ROD - original 3/1/17 - 11/16/17 Draft EIR/EIS – Public / Agency Review - actual 4/6/14 – 7/31/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original 5/6/14 - 2/28/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual 6/14/15 -6/30/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original 3/14/14 - 10/20/16 Alternative Analysis- complete Purpose and Need – complete Bakersfield to Palmdale

7/15/17

Project Development

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 0

15

10

5


D

107.0

98.7




D N


63.5

O S A J Pre-FY15-

16




Forecast

Budget

Actual

8


Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecast includes RDP and RC costs through December 2018. 3) Habitat mitigation included; other mitigation costs are not. 4) Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA.


Palmdale to Burbank

53

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02

Purpose and Need – complete Alternative Analysis – complete

7/1/15 - 8/31/16 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original 7/1/15 – 9/30/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual

2/2/16 - 3/17/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original

7/15/17

3/1/16 – 12/31/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - actual


Final EIR/EIS – Preferred Alternative/ROD - actual 3/18/17 – 9/30/18 Final EIR/EIS – Preferred Alternative/ROD - original 3/18/17 - 11/19/17

Palmdale to Burbank

Project Development

20 5

100

80

60

40 10

0 0

30

25

20

15



44.5

D

86.3

77.2





16




Forecast

Budget

Actual

9




Burbank to LA

54

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Burbank to LA

7/15/17


Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD - actual 5/1/17 – 5/31/18 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD - original 5/1/17 – 11/1/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - actual 4/1/16 – 8/31/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original 4/1/16 - 6/30/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual

7/1/15 - 3/31/17 7/1/15 - 6/30/17

Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original Alternative Analysis – complete Purpose and Need – complete

Project Development

50

5

40

30

20

10

0 0

30

25

20

15

10



D

36.2

33.8




17.0


16

Budget




Forecast

Actual

10




LA to Anaheim

55

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

11/19/17 - 11/19/18 Resource Agency Mitigation

2/22/17 - 11/18/17 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD – original 2/22/17 – 6/30/18 Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD – actual

Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - actual 1/1/16 – 9/30/17 Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review - original 1/1/16 - 6/30/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - actual 7/1/15 - 6/30/17 Preliminary Preferred Alternative - original 7/1/15 - 3/31/17 Alternative Analysis – complete Purpose and Need – complete LA to Anaheim

7/15/17

Project Development

80

0

10

5

120

100

60

40

20

0

15

F Jan 2018


D N O S J J J M A M F Jan 2016


16

D

82.5

77.1

N


O S A A J M A


M

60.7




Forecast

Budget

Actual

11


Notes: 1) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 2) Forecast includes RDP and RC costs through Dec. 2018. 3) Habitat mitigation included; other mitigation costs are not. 4) Schedule update pending further coordination with FRA. 5) Original date for identifying Preliminary Preferred Alt. corrected.


Heavy Maintenance Facility1

56

2015 2016 2017 2018 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

Resource Agency Mitigation Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD 9/16/16 -TBD Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review 11/2/15 -TBD Preliminary Preferred Alternative 8/1/15 -TBD Alternatives Analysis – complete Purpose and Need – complete Heavy Maintenance Facility

7/15/17

5/10/17 -TBD

Project Development

0

2

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

5

4

3


0.6

D

2.2

3.0



D N O S A


J M A M F Jan 2016

J N O S A J Pre-FY15-

16

D




Forecast

Budget

Actual

12


Notes: 1) Environmental clearance approach on hold and under review. 2) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change. 3) Forecast includes RDP and RC costs December 2015 through December 2018. 4) At this time, no habitat mitigation assumed in estimate.


Four-month look ahead - milestones and other key deliverables, all sections/projects: Information through July 31, 20171,2

57

Milestone Project Section Due Date % Completion Status

Footprint Validation San Jose to Merced May 2017 95% Pending verification with Record Set PEPD

Obtain Checkpoint B concurrence

San Francisco to San Jose June 2017 65% Delayed, received partial FRA comments

Obtain Checkpoint B Addendum concurrence

San Jose to Merced June 2017 95%

Delayed, revise and submit to USACE and USEPA for concurrence; completion expected September 2017

Recommendation of preliminary preferred alternative to Board

San Francisco to San Jose August 2017 55% Delayed because of stakeholder discussion regarding alignment options

Recommendation of preliminary preferred alternative to Board

San Jose to Merced August 2017 25% Delayed because of stakeholder discussion regarding alignment options

Publish Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for public review

Locally Generated Alternative (F-B)

April 2017 99% Delayed; administrative draft now under revision following cooperating agencies review

Publish Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for public review

Central Valley Wye June 2017 65% Delayed; lengthy review and revisions. Expect Draft EIR/ EIS circulation in early 2018

Complete record set of preliminary engineering for project definition

Bakersfield to Palmdale July 2017 98% Submitted and substantially complete

Prepare administrative draft EIR/EIS for FRA review

Bakersfield to Palmdale October 2017 82% Delayed because of review process and revisions

Project Development


Notes: 1 Text and dates identified in red indicate change from previous month. 2 Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

58

Milestone Segment Due Date % Completion Status

Complete record set of preliminary engineering for project definition

Palmdale to Burbank September 2017 75% On Target

Complete record set preliminary engineering for project definition

Burbank to Los Angeles September 2017 88% Delayed because of stakeholder discussion

Complete record set preliminary engineering for project definition

Los Angeles to Anaheim September 2017 85% Delayed because of stakeholder discussion

Receive preliminary approval from agencies on Nationwide Permit approach for Clean Water Act requirements

Burbank to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to Anaheim

September 2017 80% On Target

Project Development


Four-month look ahead - milestones and other key deliverables, all sections/projects: Information through July 31, 20171,2

Notes: 1 Text and dates identified in red indicate change from previous month. 2 Pending update, refer to Executive Summary.

Agenda

59







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


90

20

127

100

22

129

101

12 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Central Valley, North, South, and Valley to Valley Executed and Unexecuted Agreements

60

Third Party Agreements PRELIMINARY DATA – SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

90

North CV

10

South

32

17 17 24

Total V to V

Executed Count Prior Quarter (Ending June 2017)

Executed Count Current Quarter (Through August 2017)

Finalized Negotiations and/or Processing Count Current Quarter (Through August 2017)

Total Executed/Unexecuted Agreements (in number of agreements)


Notes: 1. Central Valley, North and South total counts include Master/Cooperative Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements for environmental coordination and

project development only. 2. V to V count is a subset of the agreements already represented. 3. The count for unexecuted agreements may change regularly due to changes in alignments; new information as investigations continue; agreements being

combined; mergers, acquisitions, spin-offs, and other transactions; identification of different legal entities as asset owners and operators; etc.

Actual data through August 31, 2017

Current Unexecuted Agreements in Negotiation or Not Yet Started (Total)

0

43

3

85

8

84

3 60

79

20 0 1 0 0

84

1 15 6

0 1

84

0 0 0

71

6

100100100 10087

9393

108

100

108 108 109 109110109

102

85 86

95 101 101108

109115

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Valley to Valley Agreements by Month Plan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

61

Dec 2017 Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Pre Dec 2016

84

V to V Agreements (excluding Railroads) (in number of agreements)

Third Party Agreements


Forecast - Cumulative

Planned - Cumulative

Actual - Cumulative

Forecast

Planned

Actual

PRELIMINARY DATA – SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE



Notes: 1. November 2016 Plan 2. Agreements that have been cancelled since November are not reflected in the plan, but are reflected in the forecast.

108

0 0 0 1

105.0

5.0

39.4

107.0

160.0

77.082.0

27.030.0

48.4

73.0

27.018.5

4.10.48.9

0.0

15.98.7

42.6

3.81.7

AT&T, PG&E, Level 3, & Railroads

62

160

80

100

120

140

$0

180

20

40

60

CP2-3: P. Sum

19.6

CP1: PG&E CP1: AT&T CP4: P. Sum CP1-4: BNSF CP1: P. Sum AT&T

CP1: P. Sum PG&E

CP1: SJVRR CP1: UPRR

Current Invoiced Amounts, Authorized/Committed Amounts, and February 2016 Board Authorized Amounts

($ in millions)

Third Party Agreements PRELIMINARY DATA – SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Authorized/Committed Invoiced Board Authorized Notes: 1. Third Party Agreements are agreements that enable the design and construction of the CA High‐Speed Rail System. These agreements are for the relocation, modification, reconstruction, and/or protection of utilities, irrigation facilities, and roadways that are in physical conflict with the proposed alignment. 2. Amounts shown for each Third Party agreement are inclusive of funds shown in both the project budget and Third Party budget line items. 3. Amounts expended by the DB’s for this work will be reported as received. 4. $5 million of SJVRR and BNSF agreements are both part of CEO delegated authority and not separate board items. 5. Authorized/Committed amounts for railroads are not provided at this time. 6. CP1 provisional sum change order amount pending adjustment to contingency amount.



3,6 5 4,5 4,5 3,6 3 3

18.9

Total Other Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

63

June 2017 FCP Forecast - Cumulative Actual June 2017 FCP Forecast

Total Other Expenditure Schedule ($ in millions)

Third Party Agreements

Notes: 1. Original FCP Forecast (December 2012) did not have task level detail for other expenditures. 2. Other costs include – utilities, railroads, local municipalities, irrigation districts and resource agency support. 3. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 4. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 5. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers are due to timing differences.

Sources: 1. Funding Contribution Plan, June 2017 2. Preliminary Funding Contribution Plan, August

2017


150

100

50

0

250

200

50

0

150

100

450

300

400

350 400

450

500

350

300

250

200

F

12

Jan 2019

15

D

16

N

16

O

16

S

16

A

16

J

16

J

18

M

19

A

19

J

19

F

18

Jan 2018

18

D

18

N

18

O

18

J

5

Expenditures (monthly)

S

17

A

1 17

1 17

M Through Jun 2017

36 36

M

5

Expenditures (cumulative)

A

5

M

5

Data through Aug 31, 2017 70

392

39

Agenda

64







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


Contract Management Metrics - Context

65

There are 2 contract management metrics included:

– Contingency Value

• This value is based on remaining contingency as a percentage of the remaining contract balance

– Expenditure Schedule

• Earned Value (EV) = Approved Invoices to Date

• Planned Value (PV) = Average Planned Values from the Original Approved Baseline Schedule

• Revised Planned Value = Average Planned Values from the most recent Approved Baseline Schedule

• Funding Contribution Plan (FCP) forecast value refers to forecasted Design-Build Contract expenditure in quarterly FCP

Contract management metrics for CP1, CP2-3, CP4, and SR-99 are included

– For the SR-99 realignment project contract the Authority is in an oversight role, with Caltrans directly managing the project

Updates to the report are made monthly

Contract Management


CP1 Contract Management – Contingency Value

66

CP1 – Contract Balance Remaining ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP1 - Contingency

CP1 – Contingency Balance Remaining ($ in millions)

(% of contract balance remaining)

Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sep 2017 Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$51 (6.1%)

End of FY-16-17 End of

FY2015-16

$46 (5.4%) $36

(4.4%)

$817

End of FY2015-

16

$851

Oct 2017 Sep 2017 Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$830

Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017

If remaining contingency against amount of contract / work left falls below 10%, corrective action may be necessary.

Notes: 1. Contract Balance Remaining = [Revised DB Contract Amount] – [Authority Approved Invoices to Date]. 2. Contract balance only accounts for invoices in determining contract balance, so this number may not reconcile with ”earned value”

in schedule performance index metric. 3. Reconciliation of change orders and provisional sums resulted in an increase in the contingency balance remaining.

Source: August 31, 2017 CP1 Performance Metric Report

End of FY2016-17

End of FY2016-17


1

3

CP1 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency Value

67

End of FY16-17

July 2017

Aug 2017

Sept 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

June 2018

Contract Balance Remaining

$851.1M $830.2M $816.9M

Contingency $152M $152M $152M

Change Orders (from contingency)

$106.0M ($5.0M) See Note 2

$15.0M

Contingency Balance Remaining

$46.0M $51.0M $36.0M

Contingency % 5.4% 6.1% 4.4%

CP1 – Contingency ($ in millions)


Note: 1. Contract Balance Remaining is the sum of the previous month’s Contract Balance Remaining less the monthly approved invoice amount plus change orders

(from contingency). 2. Reconciliation of change orders and provisional sums resulted in an increase in the contingency balance remaining.



1

CP1 Contract Management – Schedule Performance Index

68

CP1 Schedule – Total Planned Value of Contract Earned ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP1 - Schedule

1,500

1,000

0

500

Nov 2018

Sep 2017

Through 2016

$935

$ in millions

Jan 2018

Jan 2017

Feb 2017

Mar 2017

Jun 2018

Apr 2017

May 2017

Jun 2017

Jul 2017

$981

$688

$642

$526 122%

Aug 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

$1,023

$1,412

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jul 2018

Dec 2018

Aug 2018

Oct 2018

Sept 2018

Notes: 1. Full contract amount includes bid amount, provisional sums and executed change order amounts. 2. CP1 DB contract forecast expenditures from January 2016 to June 2017 will be 100% ARRA funded,

until full ARRA drawdown. 3. The Planned Value line shown above is shown for historical reference. The Revised Planned Value

line shown is from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the current approved baseline schedule.

Revised Planned Value Planned Value June 2017 FCP Forecast Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI)

Full contract amount: $1.459B Current completion date: August 2019

Sources: 1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, June - 2017 2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: August 31, 2017

CP1 Performance Metric Report 3. FCP Forecast will be updated based on quarterly Funding

Contribution Plan.


CP1 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule Performance Index

69

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018

June 2017 FCP Forecast Value

$616.5M $647.4M $688.4M

Earned Value/ Invoiced to Date See Note 1

$598.1M $614.1M $642.3M

Planned Value See Note 2

$482.1M $502.2M $526.4M

Schedule Performance Index

124% 122% 122%

FY2016-17 CP1 – Schedule ($ in millions)



Notes 1. This is the Earned Value taken from Performance Metric Reports 2. The Planned Values shown are from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the approved baseline

schedule.


CP2-3 Contract Management – Contingency Value

70

CP2-3 – Contract Balance Remaining ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Contingency

CP2-3 – Contingency Balance Remaining ($ in millions)


Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sep 2017

$236.2 (23.1%)

Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$236.2 (22.9%)

$236.7 (22.8%)

Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sep 2017 Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$1,032

End of FY-16-17

May 2018

$1,040

Jun 2018

$1,021


Source: August 31, 2017 CP2-3 Performance Metric Report

End of FY2016-17

End of FY2016-17

Notes: 1. Contract Balance Remaining = [Revised DB Contract Amount] – [Authority Approved Invoices to Date]. 2. Contract balance only accounts for invoices in determining contract balance, so this number may not reconcile with

”earned value” in schedule performance index metric.


1

CP2-3 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency Value

71

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$1,040M $1,032M $1,021M

Contingency $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M


$24.5M $0.5M $0.0M


$236.7M $236.2M $236.2M

Contingency % 22.8% 22.9% 23.1%

CP2-3 – Contingency ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Contingency

Note: 1. Contract Balance Remaining is the sum of the previous month’s Contract Balance Remaining less the

monthly approved invoice amount plus change orders (from contingency). Source: August 31, 2017 CP2-3 Performance Metric Report


1

CP2-3 Contract Management – Schedule Performance Index

72

CP2-3 Schedule – Total Planned Value of Contract Earned ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Schedule

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 Feb

2017 Jan

2017

$408

Nov 2018

Oct 2018

Sept 2018

Aug 2018

Jul 2018

Jun 2018

May 2018

Apr 2018

Mar 2018

Feb 2018

Jan 2018

Dec 2017

Nov 2017

Through 2016

$ in millions

Oct 2017

Sep 2017

Aug 2017

Jul 2017

Jun 2017

May 2017

Apr 2017

Dec 2018

$1,309

$1,286

Mar 2017

$369 (63%)

$586

Planned Value Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI) June 2017 FCP Forecast

Notes: 1. Full contract amount includes bid amount, provisional sums and executed change order amounts. 2. CP2-3 DB contract forecast expenditures from January 2016 to June 2017 will be 100% ARRA

funded, until full ARRA drawdown. 3. The Planned Values shown are from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the approved

baseline schedule. Reports prior to February 2017 showed a Planned Value curve from the early dates in the approved baseline schedule.

Full contract amount: $1.390B Current completion date: August 2019

Sources: 1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, June - 2017 2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: August 31, 2017

CP2-3 Performance Metric Report 3. FCP Forecast will be updated based on quarterly Funding

Contribution Plan.


CP2-3 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule Performance Index

73

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$346.4M $373.5M $407.5M


$350.0M $357.9M $369.2M


$501.2M $541.4M $586.2M


70% 66% 63%

FY2016-17 CP2-3 – Schedule ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Schedule

Source: August 31, 2017 CP2-3 Performance Metric Report

Notes 1. This is the Earned Value taken from Performance Metric Reports 2. The Planned Values shown are from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the approved baseline

schedule.


CP4 Contract Management – Contingency Value

74

CP4 – Contract Balance Remaining ($ in millions)


CP4 – Contingency Balance Remaining ($ in millions)


$59.2 (15.3%)

Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Nov 2017 Oct 2017 Sep 2017 Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$59.5 (15.3%)

$59.5 (15.1%)

Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018

$387

Nov 2017 Jun 2018 May 2018 Apr 2018 Mar 2018 Feb 2018 Jan 2018 Dec 2017 Oct 2017 Sep 2017 Aug 2017 Jul 2017

$390

End of FY-15-16

$395

End of FY2016-17


Source: August 31, 2017 CP4 Monthly Status Report

End of FY2016-17

Notes: 1. Contract Balance Remaining = [Revised DB Contract Amount] – [Authority Approved Invoices to Date]. 2. Contract balance only accounts for invoices in determining contract balance, so this number may not reconcile with ”earned value” in

schedule performance index metric.


1

CP4 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency Value

75

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$395.1M $390.0M $387.2M

Contingency $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M


$2.5M $0.0M $0.3M


$59.5M $59.5M $59.2M

Contingency % 15.1% 15.3% 15.3%

CP4 – Contingency ($ in millions)


Note: 1. Contract Balance Remaining is the sum of the previous month’s Contract Balance Remaining less the

monthly approved invoice amount plus change orders (from contingency).

Source: August 31, 2017 CP4 Monthly Status Report


1

CP4 Contract Management – Schedule Performance Index

76

CP4 Schedule – Total Planned Value of Contract Earned ($ in millions)


250

450

400

350

300

0

200

150

100

50

Dec 2018

$453

$400

Nov 2018

Oct 2018

$68 (42%)

$159

Sept 2018

Aug 2018

Jul 2018

Jun 2018

May 2018

Apr 2018

Mar 2018

Feb 2018

Jan 2018

Dec 2017

Nov 2017

Oct 2017

Sep 2017

Aug 2017

Jul 2017

Jun 2017

May 2017

Apr 2017

Mar 2017

Feb 2017

Jan 2017

Through FY

15/16

$ in millions

$72

Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI) June 2017 FCP Forecast Planned Value

Notes: 1. Full contract amount includes bid amount, provisional sums and executed change order amounts. 2. Total amount earned refers to progress on the schedule, not approved contract invoices. 3. CP4 DB contract forecast expenditures from April 2016 to June 2017 will be 100% ARRA funded,

until full ARRA drawdown. 4. The Planned Values shown are from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the approved

baseline schedule.

Full contract amount: $446.8M Current completion date: June 2019

Sources: 1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, June - 2017 2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: August 31, 2017 CP4

Monthly Status Report 3. FCP Forecast will be updated based on quarterly Funding

Contribution Plan.


CP4 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule Performance Index

77

End of FY2016

-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$59.9M $65.0M $71.7M


$61.9M $64.5M $67.7M


$133.3M $146.1M $159.4M


46% 44% 42%

FY2016-17 CP4 – Schedule ($ in millions)


Notes: 1. This is the Earned Value taken from Performance Metric Reports 2. The Planned Values shown are from the accepted mid-point Planned Value curve from the approved baseline schedule.

Source: August 31, 2017 CP4 Performance Metric Reports


SR-99 Contract Management – Contingency Value

78

SR-99 – Contract Balance Remaining ($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Contingency

SR-99 – Contingency Balance Remaining ($ in millions)



$7.3 (7.3%)

$7.3 (7.3%)

$7.3 (8.2%)


$100

End of FY2015-

16

$100 $88

End of FY2016-17


Source: August 31, 2017 SR-99 Performance Metric Report

The values shown are a sum of the Early Work Plan (EWP) and Main Package (MP) Contingencies.

End of FY2016-17


Notes: 1. Contract Balance Remaining = [Revised DB Contract Amount] – [Authority Approved Invoices to Date]. 2. Contract balance only accounts for invoices in determining contract balance, so this number may not reconcile with

”earned value” in schedule performance index metric.

1

SR-99 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency Value

79

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$100.3M $99.7M $88.5M

Contingency See Note 2

$9.5M $9.5M $9.5M


$2.2M $0.0M $0.0M

Contingency Balance Remaining See Note 2

$7.3M $7.3M $7.3M

Contingency % 7.3% 7.3% 8.2%

SR-99 – Contingency ($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Contingency


Notes: 1. Contract balance only accounts for invoices in determining contract balance, so this number may not reconcile

with ”earned value” in schedule performance index metric. 2. The contingency values shown through December 2016 are a combination of the EWP and MP contingency values.


SR-99 Contract Management – Schedule Performance Index

80

SR-99 Schedule – Total Planned Value of Contract Earned ($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Schedule

250

50

0

300

200

150

100

$171

Jun 2017

May 2017

Apr 2017

Mar 2017

Feb 2017

$151

Jan 2017

Through 2016

$166 (99%)

Dec 2018

$254

$261

Nov 2018

Oct 2018

Sept 2018

Aug 2018

$168

Jul 2018

Jun 2018

May 2018

$ in millions

Mar 2018

Feb 2018

Jan 2018

Dec 2017

Apr 2018

Oct 2017

Sep 2017

Aug 2017

Jul 2017

Nov 2017

Earned Value (SPI) June 2017 FCP Forecast Revised Planned Value Planned Value

Notes: 1. Total amount earned refers to progress on the schedule, not approved contract invoices. 2. SR-99 contract forecast expenditures from January 2016 to June 2017 will be 100% ARRA funded,

until full ARRA drawdown. 3. The Planned Value line shown above is shown for historical reference. The Revised Planned Value

line shown is from the current forecast.

Full contract amount: $260.9M Current completion date: December 2018

Sources: 1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, June - 2017 2. Earned Value: August 31, 2017 SR-99 Performance Metric

Report 3. FCP Forecast will be updated based on quarterly Funding

Contribution Plan.

Revised planned values are being confirmed


SR-99 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule Performance Index

81

End of FY2016-17

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

Sep 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

Jun 2018


$159.4M $165.0M $171.0M

Earned Value See Note 1

$154.9M $155.3M $166.3M

Planned Value $156.6M $161.7M $167.6M


99% 96% 99%

FY2016-17 SR-99 – Schedule ($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Schedule


Note: 1. SR-99 contract with Caltrans is not a Design-Build contract. Earned value is not necessarily equal to invoice to

data/actual cost amount.


Agenda

82







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


Finance/Budget Metrics – Context

83

Metrics organized by:

– Summary of current fiscal environment

– FY2017-18 finance/budget data, which includes ROW, planning, environmental and construction

For FY2017-18, this report presents:

– Budgeted expenditures based on the Capital Outlay budget.

– Actual expenditures incorporated each month based on invoices received, invoices pending, and accruals, including Work-in-Progress.

– Forecasts will shift each month and align with FY2017-18 forecast from the F&A Capital Outlay Report.

All data shown is at the end of each month:

– There is a one month lag to produce the F&A Capital Outlay Report

• For example, the October F&A Capital Outlay Report includes financial data through August 31, 2017.

Finance/Budget


TOTAL Planning Construction

Budget 1, 4 Expended Budget Expend to Date Budget Expend to Date

ARRA / Brownfields Grant 2, 3 $2.55 $2.55 $0.51 $0.48 $2.04 $2.07

FY10 Grant $0.93 $- $- $- $0.93 $-

PROP 1A $3.18 $0.51 $0.57 $0.36 $2.61 $0.15

Cap and Trade $1.90 $0.55 $0.24 $0.10 $1.66 $0.45

Local Assistance $1.10 $- $- $- $1.10 $-

Total $9.66 $3.61 $1.33 $0.93 $8.34 $2.68

84

Finance/Budget

As of August 31, 2017, the Authority has spent 10.3% of FY2017-18 budget, 99.9% of the Federal ARRA grant, and 95.4% of the FY2014-15 Cap and Trade appropriation

Total Expenditures to Date ($ billions) (Data as of August 31, 2017)

Notes: 1. Source: F&A Capital Outlay Report, Oct -17; balance subject to change due to pending approval of tapered match and federal reimbursements. 2. In Aug-17, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded the Authority and coalition partners LOSSAN and Metro a $600K Assessment Grant under the EPA Brownfields program.

The grant funds community outreach, environmental site assessments, and clean-up plans for Brownfields sites adjacent to LA Union Station and is included in the FY2017-18 budget. As a result of Real Property Acquisition credits totaling $31.9K, ARRA expenditures total $2.553B or 99.9% of the $2.553B grant. These credits are being processed to maintain full utilization of the ARRA grant.

3. A risk informed contingency analysis is being performed and indicates cost risk pressures to the current CP1 budget. These cost risk pressures are primarily driven by the ROW acquisition schedule, the cost of utilities, and the cost of agreements with third parties including the adjacent freight railroads. The Authority is aggressively mitigating these and other project risks and will provide updates to the analysis in future reports.

4. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 5. The FY2017-18 budget supports activities reflected within the 2016 Business Plan and is based on a prioritization of executed contracts necessary for Central Valley development and

construction, Silicon Valley to Central Valley segment planning, and Bookend Corridor project construction. In addition, the F20Y17-18 budget prioritizes work related to completing Phase I Record of Decision and activities within the scope of the ARRA and FY10 grants.

ARRA expenditures are 99.9% of federal ARRA grant funds and 26.4% of $9.66B total budget

FY2017-18 Expenditures to Date ($ billions) (Data as of August 31, 2017)

Total Appropriation

FY2017-18 Budget

FY Expenditures to Date Expenditures - % of Budget5

Jul-17 Aug-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Jul-17 Aug-17

$9.57 $1.64 $1.64 $0.10 $0.17 6% 10.3%


2,000

1,500

1,000

0

500

$585

$235

Aug 2017

$116 $116 $118 $120 $71 $116

Jul 2017

$354

$119

Sep 2017

$116

Oct 2017

$1,246

$98 $117 $117

Total FY2017-18

$116 $156

Nov 2017

$701

$1,170

Feb 2018

$156 $156 $156

$1,014

Jan 2018

$116 $156

$857

Dec 2017

$156 $156

$ millions

$1,568

Apr 2018

$156 $156 $118

Mar 2018

$1,400

$156 $156

$1,640

Jun 2018

$156

$1,639

May 2018

Finance/Budget – FY2017-18 Expenditures

Finance/Budget – FY2017-18

FY2017-18 Monthly and Cumulative Expenditures Budget, Forecast and Actual

Source: F&A Capital Outlay Reports (September 2015 – October 2017) 1. Forecast data may shift upon update of monthly actuals. 2. A risk informed contingency analysis is being performed and indicates cost risk pressures to the current CP1 budget. These cost risk pressures are primarily driven by the ROW acquisition

schedule, the cost of utilities, and the cost of agreements with third parties including the adjacent freight railroads. The Authority is aggressively mitigating these and other project risks and will provide updates to the analysis in future reports.

F&A Committee Meeting – October 2017 85

Actual Monthly Expenditure

Budget Monthly Expenditures

Actual Cumulative Expenditures

Budget Cumulative Expenditure

Monthly Forecast

Cumulative Forecast Aug-17

Finance/Budget Raw Data Capital Outlay Budget, Expenditures, and Forecast

86

July 2017

Aug 2017

Sept 2017

Oct 2017

Nov 2017

Dec 2017

Jan 2018

Feb 2018

Mar 2018

Apr 2018

May 2018

June 2018

Total FY Budget 2 $1.6B $1.6B

Expense to Date $98.5M $169M

Monthly expenditures $98.5M $70.7M

Total FY Forecast $1.6B $1.6B

FY2017-18 Raw Data

Finance/Budget – by Fiscal Year

Source: F&A Capital Outlay Reports (September 2015 – September 2017) 1 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 2 A risk informed contingency analysis is being performed and indicates cost risk pressures to the current CP1 budget. These cost risk pressures are primarily driven by the ROW acquisition schedule, the cost of utilities, and the cost of agreements with third parties including the adjacent freight railroads. The Authority is aggressively mitigating these and other project risks and will provide updates to the analysis in future reports.

July 2016

Aug 2016

Sept 2016

Oct 2016

Nov 2016

Dec 2016

Jan 2017

Feb 2017

Mar 2017

Apr 2017

May 2017

June 2017

Total FY Budget 2 $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $1.7B $2.2B $2.2B

Expense to Date $78.5M $211.1M $318.5M $403.8M $482.6M $623.6M $706.7M $813.6M $882.0M $977.2M $1.2B $1.2B

Monthly expenditures $78.5M $132.6M $107.4M $85.3M $78.8M $141.0M $83.2M $106.9M $68.4M $95.2M $190.1M $78.9M

Total FY Forecast $1.7B $1.7B $1.3B $1.3B $1.3B $1.3B $1.4B $1.4B $1.2B $1.2B $1.2B $1.2B

FY2016-17 Raw Data


Agenda

87







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


ARRA Schedule – Context

88

The following slide reflects the ARRA grant expenditure

As a result of Real Property Acquisition credits totaling $31.9K, ARRA expenditures total $2.553B or 99.9% of the $2.553B grant. These credits are being processed to maintain full utilization of the ARRA grant.

– The total amount of ARRA expenditures is net of amounts the Authority is in process of returning to FRA.

The ARRA grant is comprised of two expenditure types:

– Project Development: Environmental Review, Preliminary Engineering Design, Project Administration and other project development related costs

– Construction: Program Management, Project Construction Management, Right-of-Way, Design-Build Contracts, Third Party Agreements, Project Reserves and Contingencies

The ARRA schedule is based upon the Funding Contribution Plan. The schedule includes:

– Actual expenditures for FRA paid, approved, and pending invoices, invoices pending submittal to FRA, invoices received by HSRA, and Work-in-Progress

– Forecast expenditures

ARRA Schedule


2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

3,000

2,500

$ in millions

Sep 2017

Aug 2017

Jul 2017

0 0 0 0

Jun 2017

0 0 2 28

May 2017

66 66 95 71

Apr 2017

71 71 88 56

Mar 2017

66 66 104

65

Feb 2017

91 91 89 54

Jan 2017

29 29 99 50

Dec 2016

108 108 114

48

Nov 2016

77 77 84 42

Oct 2016

81 81 100 46

Sep 2016

106 106

79 111

Aug 2016

130 130 90

177

Jul 2016

77 77 123

75

1,805

Through Jun 2016

1,651 1,651

1,485 1,730

0 0 0 0

Label

ARRA Expenditure by Month Forecast vs. Actual

89

Actuals & Accruals through 9/5/2017

Actual - Cumulative Original FCP Forecast (December 2012) - Cumulative

Actual






ARRA Drawdown Schedule ($ in millions)

ARRA Schedule

Sources: 1. Preliminary Funding Contribution Plan, August

2017 2. Funding Contribution Plan, June 2017 3. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2015 4. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2012



2,553 2,553

2,553

Notes: 1. As a result of Real Property Acquisition credits totaling $31.9K, ARRA expenditures total $2.553B or 99.9% of the $2.553B grant. These credits are being

processed to maintain full utilization of the ARRA grant. 2. The program can frontload all of the ARRA funds to help spend those funds as early as possible. 3. State funds can be matched against federal funds and matched against ARRA funds already spent. 4. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan (FCP) approved by the FRA in December 2012. 5. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to initially track performance prior to the approval of the March 2016 FCP. 6. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the FRA, and is under review. 7. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 8. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences. 9. The Authority received approval to increase the Project Development appropriation limit on June 15. May ARRA expenditures were adjusted accordingly.

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

$ in millions

Sep 2017

Aug 2017

0 0 0 0

266

Jul 2017

4 0 0 0

266

Jun 2017

21 21 0 0

May 2017

8 8 0 0

Apr 2017

6 6 0 0

Mar 2017

10 10 0 0

Feb 2017

10 10 0 0

Dec 2016

13 13 0 0

Dec 2016

5 5 11 0

Nov 2016

8 8 0 0

Oct 2016

12 12 11 0

Sep 2016

1 1 0 0

298

Aug 2016

10 10 0 0

Jul 2016

14 14 11 0

Through Jun 2016

358 358

286 264

322

479 479


ARRA Schedule

90

ARRA-Project Development Drawdown Schedule ($ in millions)

Notes: 1. The program can frontload all of the ARRA funds to help spend those funds as early as possible. 2. State funds can be matched against federal funds and matched against ARRA funds already spent. 3. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan (FCP) approved by the FRA in December 2012. 4. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to initially track performance prior to the approval of the March 2016 FCP. 5. July 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 6. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 7. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences. 8. The Authority received approval to increase the Project Development appropriation limit on June 15. May ARRA expenditures were adjusted accordingly.



Sources: 1. Preliminary Funding Contribution Plan, August

2017 2. Funding Contribution Plan, July 2017 3. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2015 4. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2012






Original FCP Forecast (December 2012) - Cumulative

Actual & Accrual through 9/5/17

Actual

Actual - Cumulative

2,500

2,000

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

66 0

$ in millions

66 57

Apr 2017

57

-21

95 70

May 2017

-21 -4

2 28

Jun 2017

0 0 0 0

Sep 2017

Jul 2017

Aug 2017

0 0 69 48

Nov 2016

103 98

103 103

Dec 2016

50 89 16 16

Jan 2017

54 104

81 81

Feb 2017

65 88 56 56

Mar 2017

56 69 84

1,199 1,466

112 75

1,293

177

1,293

Through Jun 2016

90 63 110

63

Jul 2016

79 120

46 120

Aug 2016

89 105

42 105

Sep 2016

70 70

Oct 2016


91

ARRA Schedule

ARRA-Construction Drawdown Schedule ($ in millions)

Notes: 1. The program can frontload all of the ARRA funds to help spend those funds as early as possible. 2. State funds can be matched against federal funds and matched against ARRA funds already spent. 3. “Original FCP Forecast” refers to the first Funding Contribution Plan (FCP) approved by the FRA in December 2012. 4. December 2015 FCP was not approved, and was only used to initially track performance prior to the approval of the March 2016 FCP. 5. June 2017 FCP has been submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and is under review. 6. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 7. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences. 8. The Authority received approval to increase the Project Development appropriation limit on June 15. May ARRA expenditures were adjusted accordingly.



2,074

2,231

2,074

Sources: 1. Preliminary Funding Contribution Plan, August 2017 2. Funding Contribution Plan, June 2017 3. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2015 4. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2012

Actual - Cumulative





Original FCP Forecast (December 2012) - Cumulative


Actual

Actual & Accrual through 9/5/2017

Agenda

92







– Finance/Budget

– ARRA Schedule

– Risk


CP1 Contract - Contingency report

93

1. Right-of-way delay impacts through 12/31/2015 have been resolved with the Contractor in Change Order 00099, with the delay costs coming out of project contingency. The Remaining Contract Value has also increased due to added scope for the Northern Extension and previously excluded Third Party Utility relocations that are now delegated to the Contractor. Project contingency is being evaluated based on events to date and the work remaining.

2. A risk informed contingency analysis is being performed and indicates cost risk pressures to the current CP1 budget. These cost risk pressures are primarily driven by the ROW acquisition schedule, the cost of utilities, and the cost of agreements with third parties including the adjacent freight railroads. The Authority is aggressively mitigating these and other project risks and will provide updates to the analysis in future reports.

3. In the September 19, 2017 board meeting, the Board approved a transfer of $35 million to the CP 1 contract contingency to administer critical contract change orders and avoid delaying critical activities within the contractor’s schedule. Additional CP 1 contingency amounts above this transfer are currently being assessed using risk-based Monte Carlo process and will be updated in the future.

133

102

82

61

41

31

72

36 36

0 0 0 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

As of 31-Dec16 As of 31-Aug-17 50% Constr. 75% Constr. 90% Constr. Substantial Completion

Con

tinge

ncy

($ in

mill

ions

)

Contingency FloorActual To DateProjected Available Contingency

Risk – CP1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE


Contingency reassessment being performed2

CP2-3 Contract - Contingency report

94

Note: Content as of August 31, 2017. The project team is currently experiencing cost risk pressures resulting from right-of-way acquisition delays, and railroad and third party agreement requirements. The Authority is taking steps to mitigate these impacts, and is exploring other opportunities to reduce the cost risk pressures. This contingency drawdown curve will be revised following completion of the revised contingency level.

230

199

176

153

123

92

61 46

257

236

203

187

147 125

80 67

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

As of 30-Jun-2016 As of 31-Aug-2017

RFC Appr. (75%ROW Acq.)

10% Constr.(Crit. Util Relo)

20% Constr. (AllUtility Relo)

50% Constr.(Bridge & Via.

Foun.)

75% Constr. (3rdParty Constr.)

90% Constr (AllStrs.)

SubstantialCompletion

Con

tinge

ncy

($ in

mill

ions

)

Contingency Floor

Actual To Date

Projected Available Contingency

Risk – CP2-3

Reassessment Triggered

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE


CP4 Contract - Contingency report

95

Note: Content as of August 31, 2017. The project team is currently experiencing cost risk pressures resulting from right-of-way acquisition delays, and railroad and third party agreement requirements. The Authority is taking steps to mitigate these impacts, and is exploring other opportunities to reduce the cost risk pressures. This contingency drawdown curve will be revised following completion of the revised contingency level.

58 54

48

40

36

29

25

20

15 12

9

61 59 58

50

43 40

29 27

20

16 14

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

As of Aug 31,2016

As of Aug 31,2017

60% Des. 90% Des. RFC Appr. 10% Const. 20% Const. 50% Const. 75% Const. 90% Const. SubstantialCompletion

ProjectCompletion

Con

tinge

ncy

($ M

illio

ns)

Contingency Floor

Actual To Date

Projected Available Contingency

Risk – CP 4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE


california high-speed rail: operations report · the california high -speed rail authority ......

Documents