Public-Private Partnership Policy Casebook/Presidio - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Public-Private Partnership Policy Casebook/Presidio – Wikibooks, open books for an open world


The Presidio Parkway mission is often known as Doyle Drive Alternative mission. Doyle Drive is a 1.6 mile section of Route 101 in San Francisco that gives entry to the Golden Gate Bridge from the south; it connects Marin and San Francisco counties and hyperlinks the peninsula and North Bay Space counties. [1] The Presidio Parkway mission is split into two phases. Part I used to be delivered by the California Division of Transportation (Caltrans) by way of a standard design-bid-build course of. The Part I building started in late 2009 and was accomplished in April 2012. The Part II of this mission is delivered by way of a public-private partnership. This case research will look at the historical past, mission planning, proposal solicitation, concession settlement, financing, and threat allocation of this mission.

Presidio Parkway Overview

Annotated Listing of Actors[edit]

  • The Presidio Belief (Land Proprietor)
  • Nationwide Park Service (Land Proprietor)
  • California Division of Veterans Affairs (Land Proprietor)
  • U.S. Division of Transportation / Federal Freeway Administration
  • Environmental Safety Company (EIS/R)
  • Golden Gate Bridge Freeway Transportation District (Operates Golden Gate Bridge)
  • Metropolitan Transportation Fee (CA Gov Finance/Planning)
  • Transportation Authority of Marin (CA Gov Finance)
  • California Transportation Fee (Decides on P3 use)
  • Public Infrastructure Advisory Fee (Resolve on to Proceed with Mission)

Timeline of Occasions[edit]

  • December 2008: Handed the environmental evaluation
  • Late 2009-April 2012: Accomplished Presidio Parkway mission—Part I
  • February 2010: Issued RFQ; Submitted the mission proposal to the California Transportation Fee (CTC)
  • Could 2010: The California Transportation Fee accredited the proposal;Issued draft RFP
  • October 2010 : Three bidders shortlisted; Discover of intent to award
  • January 2011: Awarded contract to Golden Hyperlink Concessionaire
  • Spring 2012: Began Part II
  • June 2012: Monetary shut
  • 2016 : Mission anticipated to be accomplished

Map of Places[edit]

The Presidio Parkway Mission will exchange the present Doyle Drive Freeway, in Presidio of San Francisco, California. The 1.6 miles of Route 101, the south connection of the Golden Gate Bridge, can be changed with a six-lane roadway. The present roadway serves an growing common of 120,000 journeys per day.

Clear Identification of Coverage Points[edit]

P3 strategy. There was a debate about whether or not the Presidio Parkway mission is an efficient match for P3 strategy. As mentioned within the Part Narrative of the Case, the California Legislative Analyst’s Workplace (LAO) and the union imagine that the standard public sector procurement strategy is a greater possibility for this mission, whereas state officers assert that the state can profit considerably from the P3 association by transferring the development and upkeep dangers to the non-public sector developer.

Worth for Cash Evaluation (VfM). The LAO identified that outcomes of the VfM evaluation performed by Caltrans had been unreliable, because the evaluation relies on a lot of assumptions that favor the P3 strategy (see Part Proposal Evaluation). There are not any finest practices for conducting VfM evaluation, and it’s tough to provide a usually acceptable outcome.

Availability Fee Plan. Using availability cost is controversial. Below this mannequin, non-public buyers obtain a assured annual cost in the event that they meet the agreed upon efficiency measures and requirements. The aim of the Availability Fee mannequin is to supply a useful gizmo to draw non-public buyers; then again, availability funds come from authorities accounts, and governments retain vital demand/ income dangers.

Narrative of the Case[edit]

Financial and Political Context[edit]

California skilled a big finances disaster from 2008 to 2012. The state confronted approximate $42 billion greenback deficit in 2009 [2]. As the general public sources of cash had been restricted, public-private partnerships turned a possible various to help the state’s transportation and infrastructure improvement.

To encourage the usage of P3, Governor Schwarzenegger accredited the Senate Invoice Second Extraordinary Session Four in February, 2009. This new laws authorizes the California Division of Transportation (Caltrans) and regional transportation companies (RTA) to “enter into a limiteless variety of P3s and deleted the restrictions on the quantity and kind of tasks that could be undertaken.” [3] The legislation created the Public Infrastructure Advisory Fee to help Caltrans and RTAs in creating their P3 tasks and grants the California Transportation Fee the authority to pick and approve P3 tasks. The Presidio Parkway mission is the primary transportation P3 mission below this new legislation.

Planning, Proposal, and Solicitation[edit]

The aim of the Presidio Parkway mission is to “enhance the seismic, structural, and visitors security of the Doyle Drive.” [4] The Doyle Drive was initially constructed in 1936 and have become a state freeway in 1945. This street has served as a major visitors linkage within the San Francisco Bay Space and is now nearing the top of its helpful life.

Mission Proposal Historical past[edit]

The primary mission proposal request for adjustments to Doyle Drive was issued in 1955, solely 19 years after the street was opened. The unique request known as for a wider roadway to assist deal with growing congestion. A second extra particular request got here in 1962 for a eight-lane divided roadway, that was to be aside of the Golden Gate Freeway. This proposal was not pursued attributable to public objections.[5]

In 1970 two autos crashed head-on with one another, leading to ten deaths. This accident was attributable to there not being a median barrier on Doyle Drive.[6] Instantly after the Nationwide Transportation Security Board advisable the roadway be upgraded to present freeway design requirements, which features a roadway median. In 1973 a Draft Environmental Impression Assertion was accomplished for the reconstruction of Doyle Drive as an eight-lane freeway with a hard and fast median barrier. This proposal was objected to by the general public, and in 1974 the California State legislator handed a Invoice prohibited the widening of Doyle Drive to greater than six lanes with out the approval from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.[7]

It was not till 1985 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors advisable adjustments to Doyle drive to enhance security, with out widening the street for extra autos to make use of. Caltrans responded with two suggestions, a six-lane and an eight-lane roadway design. Nonetheless points surrounding these designs had been by no means resolved, and no answer was determined upon. It was not till 1991 when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors created the ‘Doyle Drive Activity Pressure’ to reevaluate street enchancment designs. The duty drive was comprised of representatives from native governments, in addition to native private and non-private organizations. They reviewed new design alternate options, and in 1993 agreed on a brand new six-lane parkway by way of Presidio.[8]

On October 1, 1994 Presidio was formally closed as an lively navy base, by way of the Protection Base Closure and Realignment Fee. Administration of Presidio was transferred to the Nationwide Park Service and the Presidio Belief, with the purpose to make Presidio financially self-sufficient by the 12 months 2013.[9]

Additionally in 1994 the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (the Authority) initiated the Doyle Drive Intermodal Research “to additional the event and supreme implementation of a practical and fundable substitute for Doyle Drive.”[10] The research’s outcomes had been launched in 1996 and supported the ‘Doyle Drive Activity Pressure’ suggestions for extra multi-modal and direct car entry by way of Presidio. The research additionally concluded that Doyle Drive must be redesigned as a parkway.[11]

Because of the Doyle Drive Intermodal Research an environmental evaluation started in 2000, and the Draft Environmental Impression Assertion/Report was subsequently launched in 2005. The Presidio Parkway was chosen by the San Francisco Transportation Authority’s Board of Commissioners on September 26, 2006, and the Ultimate Environmental Impression Assertion/ Report was licensed on December 16, 2008. The Presidio Parkway mission is split into two phases. Part I used to be delivered by the Caltrans by way of a standard design-bid-build course of, and the Part II of this mission is delivered by way of a public-private partnership.[12]

Part II Proposal[edit]

The Public Infrastructure Advisory Fee unanimously agreed to start the procurement possibility for the Presidio Parkway on January 21, 2010.[13] On February 2, 2010 the Caltrans and the Authority issued a request for personal corporations to submit {qualifications} for Part 2 of the Presidio Parkway mission. Caltrans and the Authority employed the Arup/PB Be part of Enterprise to conduct a assessment of the life-cycle prices of the Part II building and consider three service supply choices, together with the standard Design-Bid-Construct (DBB) possibility and two P3 choices—the Design-Construct-Finance (DBF) possibility and Design-Construct-Finance-Function-Preserve (DBFOM).

Worth for Cash Evaluation (VfM)[edit]

The DBB possibility is used because the Public Sector Comparator (PSC), towards which the DBF and DBFOM choices are assessed. Arup/PB issued a report Evaluation of Supply Choices for the Presidio Parkway Mission in February 2010, and this report concludes that DBFOM can be a greater possibility for the Presidio Parkway mission. Arup/PB’s evaluation is consisted of each qualitative and quantitative assessments.

  • Quantitative Evaluation. Arup/PB states within the report that its VfM evaluation follows worldwide VfM finest practices. The evaluation used a web current worth (NPV) strategy to check the life cycle prices of P3 choices (DBF and DBFOM) and the DBB strategy. The calculation was based mostly on a base low cost price of 8.5 %. Based on VfM evaluation, the DBFOM possibility seems to be a greater service supply methodology for this mission. The DBFOM strategy would price $147 million (23%) lower than the standard public sector strategy (DBB) and obtain higher VfM by way of the mission life cycle.

Desk 1 Internet Current Worth (NPV) 2009$, Million; 8.5% [14]

Oversight and transaction prices 77 50 32
Retained threat reserves 125 91 47
Development completion funds 369 113 113
Annual availability funds N/A 324 289
Tax adjustment 36 36 N/A
O&M and Alternative and Rehabilitation 28 28 7
Complete web current worth 635 642 488
  • Qualitative Evaluation. Some points usually are not simply expressed in financial phrases, and due to this fact, Arup/PB additionally performed qualitative evaluation of those three service supply choices. The qualitative evaluation targeted on 4 points—threat switch, building price and schedule certainty, use of public funds, and operations and upkeep service. The evaluation concludes that “the DBFOM possibility offers higher price, schedule, and funding certainty; integrates a life-cycle operations and upkeep (O&M) strategy and improves stage of service; and improves the State’s skill to fund extra statewide transportation tasks extra rapidly.”
Solicitation Course of[edit]

The Caltrans introduced three firms as being certified for the potential public-private partnership on April 14, 2010. These companies–Royal Presidio San Francisco Companions, Golden Hyperlink Companions, and Golden Entry Group–demonstrated profitable expertise on comparable sized tasks up to now.[15]

Caltrans and the Authority proposed the DBFOM strategy for the Part II of the Presidio Parkway mission to the California Transportation Fee (the Fee). This proposal features a 33-year contract between the federal government and a personal developer to design, construct, finance, function, and keep the Presidio Parkway. The Concessionaire would obtain a cost on the finish of the development part and availability funds for 30 years (The settlement can be described intimately in Part Concession Settlement). The Fee accredited the mission on Could 20, 2010 (regardless of the advice from its workers to reject the proposal). Caltrans and the Authority introduced their resolution to award the P3 mission to the Golden Hyperlink Companions in October 2010.

The proposed P3 strategy was controversial. The Skilled Engineers in California Authorities (PECG), a state-employed engineers union, strongly criticized the proposal and argued that 1) tolls and person charges are required by legislation for P3 transportation tasks; and a pair of) the proposed P3 mission doesn’t undergo the conventional procedures developed to make sure public funding accountability. State officers responded that the state legislation doesn’t prohibit the federal government from utilizing availability funds for P3 tasks and the state can profit from the P3 association by transferring dangers to the Concessionaire.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Workplace (LAO) reviewed the Caltrans’ P3 settlement and in addition advisable that the state not take the P3 strategy. LAO argues that the state wouldn’t obtain the all the advantages recognized within the settlement. Based on LAO, the state’s VfM evaluation result’s based mostly on some assumptions that favor the P3 possibility. The 8.5% low cost price utilized by Caltrans is simply too excessive, and a 5% low cost price is extra cheap. As well as, LAO states that this mission will not be an excellent match for a P3 service supply, as a result of “it’s already very far alongside in its schedule and it doesn’t depend on a toll or person price to fund the work.” [16] In response to LAO feedback, the Authority asserted that its VfM outcome was legitimate and the evaluation course of was sturdy. The VfM report had been reviewed and accredited by a lot of company stakeholders, together with Caltrans, the Authority, California legislature, FHWA, and so forth.

On November 2, 2010, the PECG filed a lawsuit to dam the federal government’s P3 deal and claimed that the method was unlawful. A Superior Courtroom Decide within the Alameda Nation granted a brief restraining order (TRO) to restrain Caltrans from awarding the contract on December 22, 2010. The TRO was lifted on January 3, 2011, and Caltrans and the Authority signed the P3 contract with the Golden Hyperlink Concessionaire for Part II of the Presidio Parkway mission.[17]

Concession Settlement[edit]

The proposed Public-Non-public partnership settlement is for 33 years, three years to assemble the parkway and 30 years of operation and administration. In the course of the time period of the concession settlement and handback on the finish of the partnership, the developer can be required to adapt to the Caltran’s upkeep schedules and requirements as outlined within the Division’s Upkeep Guide. Based mostly on this settlement the Presidio Parkway may have a considerably longer helpful life then the 33 12 months time period of the partnership. The Parkway pavement on the U.S. 101 hall is anticipated to have a 40 12 months helpful life, whereas the supporting buildings and tunnels may have a 75 12 months helpful life.[18]

Caltrans will assessment and monitor the developer’s upkeep for compliance. Any renewal work, which incorporates actions past routine upkeep, should meet the agreed upon efficiency measures and requirements, as outlined within the technical necessities of the mission. To make sure renewal work is completed the developer should fund a renewal work reserve account. Lastly, the developer should obtain handback necessities that guarantee the acknowledged infrastructure helpful life is completed.[19]


The estimated complete price to finish the Mission is $928.Eight million [20]

Funding Sources[edit]

The price of Part I is $486.9 million. This was obtain by way of $70.Eight million in Federal funds, $83.Three million from American Restoration and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant, $229.Zero million from state funds, and $103.9 million from native funds; native funding organizations included the Metropolitan Transportation Fee (MTC), the Golden Gate Bridge, Freeway and Transportation District (GGBHTD), the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and the Transportation Authority of Marin County (TAM). [21]

The price of Part II is $364.7 million. This was achieved by way of $166.6 million in financial institution loans, $89.Eight million from TIFIA Tranche A mortgage, $60.2 million from TIFIA Tranche B mortgage, $2.6 million from the mum or dad firm contribution, $43.Zero million from non-public fairness, and $2.5 million from TIFIA capitalized curiosity. [22]

Mission Contract Methodology[edit]

The mission companions in Part II embrace: [23]

  • Golden Hyperlink Companions, LLC
  • HOCHTIEFF PPP Options North America
  • Meridiam Infrastructure

Development Joint Enterprise (design-build members):

  • Flatiron West, Inc.
  • Kiewit Infrastructure West, Co.

The lenders had been banks and USDOT TIFIA.

Credit score help from TIFIA consisted of a direct mortgage of $150 million. This help is split into two parts in an effort to set aside the 2 totally different sources of reimbursement and state and native funding limitations. Tranche A is an $89.Eight million mortgage to be repaid absolutely after vital completion within the type of a milestone cost. Tranche B is a $60.2 million long-term mortgage to be repaid utilizing non-Federal portion of the quarterly availability funds to GLC throughout a 28-year interval.

The credit score settlement (TIFIA) was executed on June 14, 2012. The primary curiosity cost is due on June 2016. Principal repayments are to start in December 2018. Stage debt service funds are scheduled to start in 2019. The maturity mortgage date is December 2045.

This was California’s first P3 transaction below the brand new laws handed in 2009. This mission was additionally the primary availability cost contract for transportation infrastructure. First TIFIA mortgage to be repaid partly with a milestone cost following substantial completion. [24]

Threat Allocation[edit]

In an effort to switch threat, the DBFOM possibility was chosen to permit the perfect accomplice to tackle sure dangers. As mentioned beforehand, this selection, when in comparison with conventional procurement strategies, Design-Bid-Construct, and in comparison with different P3 choices equivalent to Design-Construct-Finance confirmed the best Worth-for Cash outcomes. The DBFOM possibility provided a method of appropriately transferring extra threat to the non-public sector and permitting the general public sector to handle some dangers as properly. [25]

  • Design and Development Dangers: these embrace interface between design and building, strategies of design and building, high quality management and assurance, unknown utility strains, administration of archeological, cultural sources, hazardous supplies or endangered species, assume duty for beforehand accomplished parts (Contract Three and 4), visitors administration and operations. [26]
  • Operation and Upkeep Dangers: facility might require extra upkeep required than deliberate, greater working prices than deliberate.
  • Value: escalation assumption agreed upon by Caltrans and FHWA was 3.0% for the complete length of the mission. If the economic system adjustments drastically, or many massive building tasks begin attributable to Federal ARRA stimulus funding, unit costs might shift, and any delays may have a ripple impact on general mission schedule and value. [27]
  • Proper of method prices: estimated to be $135.9 million – as mission building continues, this quantity may change relying on price and scope adjustments as properly. [28]
  • Proposition Okay Funds: downturns within the economic system might trigger a lower within the San Francisco County gross sales tax assortment, in comparison with what was forecasted.[29]
  • Availability of Native Funding: a few of the native funding authorities didn’t commit their funding till the ultimate 12 months of building. If the schedule accelerates, these companies would have much less to find out the place to get the funds from and how one can allocate them.[30]

Development and Operation[edit]



  • Part I – Development to be accomplished late 2014/early 2015
  • Part II: the P3 settlement with Golden Hyperlink Concessionaire was signed on January 3, 2011. Pre-construction began in mid-2011. Monetary shut was on June 14, 2012. Discover to Proceed 3 (NTP3) was issued by Caltrans on November 6, 2012 which had circumstances to be met earlier than main building of the mission began. The anticipated completion date is October 2015 with a length of 30-years of concession. [31]

Development Contract Packages:[edit]

  • Part I: Caltrans was answerable for design, financing and building of Part I (Contracts 1-4), which was delivered by way of a standard design-bid-build course of. Part I consists of a bridge substitute on the Park Presidio Interchange, a brand new southbound Presidio Viaduct, the southbound Battery Tunnel, and a brief bypass east of the Predominant Put up, in an effort to assemble the Predominant publish Tunnels and roadways to Richardson Avenue. Actions for contracts 1 and a pair of started in 2009, which included the superior environmental mitigation, and utility relocation.

Part I Abstract: from Late 2009 to Spring 2012 – visitors on current roadway and building adjoining to current roadway. The primary purpose is to switch visitors on to the short-term detour. [32]

  • Part 2: Caltrans chosen a personal consortium, the Golden Hyperlink Concessionaire, to ship the second Part as a design, construct, finance, function, and keep (DBFOM) availability-pay concession. (Contracts 5-8) The P3 mission Settlement with GLC was executed on January 3, 2011. GLC is to obtain availability funds by way of the concession interval, based mostly on efficiency. Part II building consists of the development of northbound Battery Tunnel, northbound Excessive Viaduct, two Predominant Put up Tunnels, Predominant Put up Electrical Substation, Low Viaduct, and a brand new interchange to the Marina and the Presidio. Completion of those main mission parts is anticipated in late 2015, and remaining completion in 2016 together with landscaping. [33]

Part II Abstract: Spring 2012 to 2016 – visitors on new roadway and short-term detour, and building of recent roadway, demolition of current Doyle Drive. The primary purpose is to switch visitors onto the ultimate roadway. [34]

Operations and Upkeep:[edit]

The concessionaire is to make sure a secure, sturdy and applicable facility. There’s duty for operation and upkeep of all Mission amenities, together with these in each Part I and Part II of the Mission.[35] Preventative upkeep avoids the necessity to need to spend massive sums sooner or later for upkeep; together with operations and upkeep as a part of the method creates an incentive to correctly handle the operations and upkeep all through the complete interval of the contract in an effort to attain optimum ranges of service and applicable administration of the power.

Dialogue Questions[edit]

  • Is the Presidio Parkway mission an excellent match for the P3 strategy?
  • Would toll concession work higher for this mission?

Extra Readings[edit]


  1. FHWA Mission Profile: Presidio Parkway Mission.
  2. Los Angeles Occasions
  3. California Division of Transportation.Public Non-public Partnership Program Information
  4. San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Presidio Parkway (Doyle Drive Alternative)/Background
  5. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  6. “Changing Doyle Drive.” SPUR. Accessed November 1, 2014.
  7. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  8. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  9. “Put up to Park Transition.” Presidio of San Francisco, n.d.
  10. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  11. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  12. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  13. “Evaluation of Supply Choices for the Presidio Parkway Mission.” February 2010, n.d.
  14. Arup PB Joint Enterprise. Evaluation of Supply Choices for the Presidio Parkway Mission. February 2010.
  16. Legislative Analyst’s Workplace. Letter to Senator Alan Lowenthal. December 2010.
  17. Caltrans Awards P3 Contract for Presidio Parkway Second Part.
  18. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  19. “San Francisco County Transportation Authority Mission Proposal Report For the Presidio Parkway Public-Non-public Partnership Mission,” Could 4, 2010.
  20. USDOT Federal Freeway Administration, Mission Profiles: Presidio Parkway Accessed October 30, 2014
  21. Ibid
  22. Ibid
  23. Ibid
  24. Ibid
  25. Arup PB Joint Enterprise, Evaluation of Supply Choices for the Presidio Parkway Mission. February 2010.
  26. Taylor, Mac. Maximizing State Advantages From Public-Non-public Partnerships. November 8, 2012. Accessed October 30, 2014.
  27. Federal Freeway Administration, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, and California Division of Transportation. FHWA Preliminary Monetary Plan. Could 12, 2009. Accessed October 30, 2014
  28. Ibid
  29. Ibid
  30. Ibid
  31. USDOT Federal Freeway Administration Mission Profiles, Presidio Parkway. Accessed October 31, 2014.
  32. Presidio Parkway Mission Info Accessed October 31, 2014.
  33. Presidio Parkway Part II Development Look Forward, October 2012. Accessed October 30, 2014.
  34. Presidio Parkway Mission Info Accessed October 31, 2014
  35. California Division of Transportation, Presidio Parkway Mission. Presidio Parkway Mission Abstract of Public-Non-public Partnership Settlement. Accessed October 30, 2014

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *