Contractor claims MTA staff skewed train line costs info.

A Metropolitan Transportation Authority contractor claims that MTA staff attempted to suppress information about a San Fernando Valley above-ground rail line alternative that could save taxpayers $550 million.

The contractor, Frederic R. Harris Inc., claims a recent study on the costs of bringing a rail system to the valley was unfairly skewed to make a subway alternative more attractive than an elevated rail line along the Ventura (101) Freeway.

This was all allegedly done on orders from MTA staff and to benefit a consortium that has a standing contract with the MTA to design subway tunnels and perform other consulting work.

But MTA Project Manager David Mieger said the MTA didn't have the time or the money to allow Frederic Harris to study all the alternatives it proposed in enough depth that they could be presented to the MTA board of directors as viable options.

Still, Mieger said, he plans to present the MTA board with information on all the alternatives discussed. He denied that the MTA staff purposely engineered the studies to make the subway alternative look preferable.

"We're trying to be neutral. I deny any bias," Mieger said.

The consortium that designs MTA subway tunnels -- Engineering Management Consultants -- was hired by the MTA to study ways to make the subway route in the valley (known as the Burbank-Chandler line) more cost efficient.

EMC, whose two principal partners are Daniel Mann Johnson & Mendenhall (DMJM) and Parsons-Brinckerhoff, was formed to do consulting work for the MTA.

Meanwhile, Frederic Harris, which was hired to study the alternate route along the center of the Ventura (101) Freeway, was required to sign an agreement promising not to even bid for design work on the rail project if the freeway alignment was chosen.

Jacobs Engineering Group was hired to double-check the calculations, and MTA staff compiled all the information into one report.

While earlier studies had shown the elevated rail to be less expensive, the final report released last month showed virtually no cost difference between the two alternatives, both of which were estimated to cost more than $2 billion. But Frederic Harris, at the request of L.A. County Supervisor/MTA Board Member Mike Antonovich, recently reviewed the completed study and concluded there was "a definite bias to the subway alternative."

Basically, Frederic Harris concluded that the subway cost estimates are too low, and complained that information its team uncovered and researched about a grade-level freeway alternative -- which could save the MTA $550 million -- was left out of the MTA staff report. Frederic Harris estimates that an at-grade rail system along the Ventura Freeway's median could be built for $1.39 billion, including the cost of freeway widening.

Mieger said Frederic Harris, which was paid $2.5 million $2.5 million to study the freeway route, wanted another $200,000 and three to four months to study the alternative of building the rail line at ground level along the freeway median, instead of along an elevated rail above the freeway.

But the MTA board had not approved the additional expense, and the MTA needs to get going soon on federal environmental studies of the line in order to qualify for federal funding, Mieger noted.

Frederic Harris Project Manager Joe LoBuono said actually it would cost about $500,000 to study the at-grade alternative to the degree necessary to meet California Department of Transportation standards. But he said enough information is already available to present the alternative side-by-side with cost-saving measures proposed by EMC, such as open-air subway stations and trench-like tunnels.

A hearing on the valley line has been scheduled for Oct. 13 before the MTA board's planning and programming committee, and the matter is scheduled to go before the full board on Oct. 26. Last week, representatives of Frederic Harris, Jacobs, EMC and MTA staff were meeting to work out their differences in time for the Oct. 13 committee meeting.

Other issues raised in Frederic Harris' Sept. 30 report include:

* The "agreed upon" MTA factor for figuring the cost of professional services for transit work was 34 percent of the total contract, but EMC used a factor of 22 percent.

EMC did not respond to a Business Journal written request for comment.

* EMC allowed for a 12 percent contingency fund for tunnel work, and a 17 percent contingency on stations, even though MTA subway building history shows much higher cost overruns on such projects.

"I think the contingencies were definitely appropriate," responded Bob Garrison, project director at Parsons. "We will stick by our guns."

* But Garrison agreed with Frederic Harris on its next point -- when figuring the cost for a two-phase project, EMC should have increased the price to allow for completing the project in two sections. Frederic Harris priced this increase at $47 million.

* Phase one of the freeway project could be shortened by two miles by moving a casting yard on to federal government property, cutting the cost of the first phase by $100 million.