TR Circular E-C058_9th LRT Conference_2003.pdf - Florida ...

544 Transportation Research Circular E-C058: 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference
selected based upon negotiations with local GSA representatives, the Chicago GSA put together
a team to provide the HPO with input for the design of the parking garage to be situated on their
property.
Before September 11, 2001 (9/11), the worst case of domestic terrorism was the bombing
of the Murrow Federal Building in Oklahoma City. For this reason, the design of the parking
garage became a topic of intense discussion. The Federal Protective Service in charge of
protecting the Whipple Federal Building was concerned about a similar event occurring in
Minneapolis. Working with the GSA design team, several unique features were added to the
parking garage to increase the security of the facility:
1. The upper levels of the garage had to be stepped back to allow for blast deflection.
2. Entry/exit ramps and stairs for the park-and-ride users had to be physically separate
from the portion if the parking structure was reserved for building employees.
3. Extensive security camera coverage and other security elements had to be included.
The parking ramp design criteria developed by GSA were included in the bid package
issued in early 2000 for the solicitation of design-build construction teams. Although the designbuild
package was bid on a lump sum basis, this garage was included as an add-alternate
allowing the reviewers of the proposals to know what this particular element was going to cost.
After the proposals were received, it was clear that the construction of a parking ramp was not
cost effective. The parking ramp concept was dropped and the park and ride moved to a surface
lot on nearby land.
Renewed negotiations with GSA focused on developing a concept design and design
criteria for the federal building parking lot, which was to be reconstructed to prevent rail users
from parking in the lot illegally. This process began in early 2001. A package of design criteria
was completed in May 2001 and forwarded to the design build contractor. The design criteria
completed by GSA with the assistance of HPO were very detailed. This detail was necessary to
ensure that the design met GSA’s needs. It also became valuable later to ensure that no
additional work was requested by GSA.
Design of the lot proceeded through the latter half of 2001, but the completion of a
property exchange agreement was not possible until a final design was presented to the GSA.
Design of the lot was complicated by the fact that the design build contractor was doing the
design in conjunction with the design of the rest of the project. GSA was forced to work within
the design review procedures established in the DB contract. This was difficult to coordinate and
required that GSA respond to plans that they were presented with within 10 days of receiving the
plans. To their credit, GSA always responded to the plan review in the time allotted.
But completing the agreement was also complicated by an underlying mistrust of HPO by
Chicago GSA. GSA wanted assurances that once they signed over an easement to the Council
that they would in fact receive the construction for which they had bargained. GSA requested a
performance bond, but the Council could not secure that type of instrument because the Council
was not the contractor doing the work. The contractor was under contract to MnDOT, so the
GSA did not have recourse to the contractor’s performance bond. Eventually, it was decided that
the Council would put into escrow an amount equal to the estimated cost of the work that was
being performed on GSA property.
The escrow agreement was executed simultaneously with the property exchange
agreement. At this time, an easement was granted to the Council for the property used to build