Zero Emission Container Mover System

Transcription

1 Zero Emission Container Mover System Request for Concepts & Solutions June 3, 2009 Issued by: In Conjunction With

2 This page is left blank intentionally.

3 June 3, 2009 Dear Prospective Respondents, The Port of Long Beach (POLB) in conjunction with the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) (collectively, the Ports) and the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) is releasing a Request for Concepts/Solutions (RFCS) for a public private partnership (P3) to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain/manage (DBFOM) a Zero Emission Container Mover System (ZECMS), at no cost to the Ports or ACTA, linking the San Pedro Bay Ports and near dock intermodal facilities (Project). POLB welcomes all innovative ideas for developing the DBFOM ZECMS Project. Development and operation through a public private partnership is a critical component of the Project, and all responses should identify the anticipated partnership participants and potential funding types and sources available for their proposed Project. Responses to the RFCS will be evaluated to determine the viability of the Project using the technology proposed and whether the proposed system is constructible, financially self supporting and operationally reliable over the long term. If one or more systems meet(s) these criteria, the response(s) setting forth such systems, their capabilities and prospects for financing will shape a possible future Request for Proposals for the Project. The sole point of contact for the RFCS is Eric C. Shen (shen@polb.com), Port of Long Beach Director of Transportation Planning. A pre submittal conference will be held on July 9, 2009 (Thursday) at 10:00 am (Pacific Daylight Saving Time) in the Port of Long Beach Administration Building, and it is highly recommended that all persons interested in responding to the RFCS attend this meeting. Written questions seeking clarification of any points in the RFCS which may not have been clearly understood or seeking additional information should be submitted to Eric Shen via or fax. The last day to submit written questions is August 21, The POLB will continue posting responses to each question on the POLB website until September 4, Selected questions and answers may be issued as an addendum to and become part of this RFCS. If the POLB decides to revise any part of the RFCS before the response due date, addenda will be posted to the POLB website at under the RFCS document and will be deemed a part of the RFCS. It is the responsibility of the respondent to periodically check the website for any new information or addenda to the RFCS. RFCS Concept Documents are due on September 25, 2009.

4 June 3, 2009 DBFOM ZECMS Request for Concepts/Solutions Page 2 We look forward to your innovative concepts and solutions for moving containers with zero emissions. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert Kanter, Ph.D. Managing Director Bureau of Environmental Affairs and Planning EC: Honorable Mayor Bob Foster and the City Council, City of Long Beach Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Board of Directors Richard D. Steinke, Executive Director, POLB Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director, POLA John Doherty, Chief Executive Officer, ACTA

5 Table of Contents SECTION 1. Introduction... 1 SECTION 2. Goals & Objectives... 3 SECTION 3. Process for Participation and Disclaimers Description of General Process Submission Requirements and Formats for Concept Documents Schedule Rights of POLB Respecting Management / Control of the RFCS Communications Evaluation Process POLB Reserved Authority... 6 SECTION 4. Conceptual Service Area Service Area Prior Conceptual Analyses of Potential Alignments SECTION 5. Operational Characteristics Port Operations Parameters and Limitations Potential ZECMS Operating Scenarios SECTION 6. Technical and Financial Parameters Technology Application Strategy Financial Feasibility Business Plan Estimated Benefits SECTION 7. Response Format and Required Components Response Format Required Components Information Contained in Submission No Proprietary Information Accepted Changes in Respondent or Technology SECTION 8. Evaluation Process i

6 Attachment 1: Acronyms Attachments Attachment 2: Electric Container Mover System: An Overview of Current Activities in Southern California. Prepared by POLB, July 2008 Attachment 3: Alternative Container Transportation Technology Evaluation and Comparison. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics/URS, April 7, 2008 Attachment 4: ZECMS Preliminary Alignment Analysis by Psomas, May 1, 2009 Attachment 5: Supplemental Information on Supply Chain Operations Attachment 6: I 710 Alternative Goods Movement Technology Analysis, Initial Feasibility Study Report, Prepared by URS, January 6, 2009 Attachment 7: I 710 Alternatives Screening Analysis Final Report, Prepared by URS, May 29, 2009 Figures Figure 4.1 Conceptual ZECMS Service Area Page 10 Figure 4.2 Existing and Proposed Port Rail Map Page 12 Figure 5.1 Potential ZECMS Marine Terminal Stations Page 15 Tables Table 5.1 Near Dock Rail Capacity/Demand Scenarios Page 16 Table 5.2 Assumed Off/Near Dock Rail Demand Page 17 zecms_rfcs_vf.do cx ii

7 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION Over the past several years the POLB, in cooperation with the POLA (collectively, the Ports), have embarked on several green port initiatives to decrease emissions in the San Pedro Bay port area. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, reducing the emissions of port drayage trucks, marine terminal equipment and ocean vessels using clean fuel, cold ironing and other means. A portion of the inland transport includes draying containers by truck between the Ports terminals and near dock intermodal facilities, such as the existing near dock Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and possibly the proposed Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG). Port related trucks draying containers to and from local and regional destinations, including rail yards, adversely impact the air quality, traffic safety and congestion. The purpose of this RFCS is to (a) determine the viability of available ZECMS technologies submitted by each respondent to the RFCS (Respondent) and the feasibility of employing that technology for completion of the Project; (b) evaluate the capabilities of each Respondent s management teams to provide and present detailed design criteria and construction capability for a possible future RFQ/RFP for the Design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Maintain (DBFOM) of a ZECMS (the Project); and (c) assess the Respondent's current financial plan for funding the Project at no net cost to the Ports, including operating costs for a proposed long term leasehold initiative for the Project and Respondent management teams. Accordingly, this RFCS is the first step in a potential multi step program for the Project development, which includes a future Request for Qualifications (RFQ), and a future Request for Proposals (RFP) limited to pre qualified firms. Development of an RFQ/RFP is dependent upon this RFCS identifying viable technologies, design build capabilities, and potential private funding/financing resources. A brief summary of the intended process is included below. Release RFCS and identify feasible concepts/solutions Release RFQ based on feasible concepts/solutions derived from RFCS Release RFP only to pre qualified firms for DBFOM contract The following parameters/constraints apply to the Project: 1. The proposed system is intended to support only the necessary movement of containers between the Port terminals and existing and proposed near dock rail facilities. It is neither intended to diminish nor replace on dock rail loadings at the marine terminals. See Sections 5.2 and 5.3 for additional details. 2. The system will compete with trucking to the near/off dock facilities. The Respondents should assume that the Ports will not ban the use of trucks to these facilities. Page 1

8 3. The Respondents should assume that they will be responsible for the costs of all private ROW required for a proposal which are not presently identified in the preliminary alignment analyses developed for the Ports (see Attachment 4 to this RFCS), including any use of terminal leaseholds. Public owned ROW, with the exception of infrastructure modifications such as utility relocations, will be provided at no cost to the Respondent. 4. The Respondents should assume that this is a stand alone project, i.e. one that will be financed without contribution or subsidy by the Ports or ACTA except as specifically provided for in this RFCS. The Respondents may not assume, rely upon, or expect a future right to lease/use a ZECMS beyond the described conceptual service area in this RFCS (e.g., only inside the I 710 Corridor). 5. The Respondents cannot assume, rely upon, or expect any capital or operations and maintenance (O&M) funds from the Ports for the development or financing of their Project proposals. Implementation of any such systems must result in no net costs to the Ports or ACTA unless prescribed in this RFCS or otherwise agreed to in the future. zecms_rfcs_vf.do cx Page 2

9 SECTION 2. GOALS & OBJECTIVES The Ports and ACTA envision that a ZECMS transporting containers from marine container terminals at the Ports to near dock intermodal facilities will help advance the Ports green initiatives. The ZECMS must be completed at no net cost to the Ports. Thus, public private partnership opportunity for self funded DBFOM proposals for the ZECMS is a critical element of the responses solicited in this RFCS. Each DBFOM ZECMS Project concept should satisfy the following program goal and objectives: DBFOM ZECMS (The Project ) Goal: Moving containers between marine terminals and near dock intermodal facilities by an alternative mode of transport that generates zero emissions at no cost to the Ports and ACTA. Objectives: Developing an integrated system with innovative technologies and creative financing plans through the Private Public Partnership (P3) framework Reducing air pollution attributed to drayage trucks Reducing traffic congestion and improving traffic safety in and around harbor districts Maintaining or improving current cargo velocity and productivity Responses to the RFCS will help the Ports and ACTA to shape the development of system and functional requirements as part of a potential RFQ/RFP for the DBFOM ZECMS Project. Accordingly, Concept Documents should be prepared to satisfy the following RFCS goal and objectives: Request for Concepts/Solutions (RFCS) Goal: Soliciting innovative concepts from technology vendors and system integrators for preparing a Request for Proposals for DBFOM of the ZECMS. Objectives: Providing pertinent port specific operational parameters and framework from prospective Respondents to the Ports and ACTA Shaping the development of functional and system requirements based upon industry and market factors and considerations Page 3

10 SECTION 3. PROCESS FOR PARTICIPATION AND DISCLAIMERS 3.1. DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL PROCESS This RFCS is the first step in the process of (a) determining viable technologies for a fully integrated system which provides for each step of the transfer of containers from marine terminals to near dock rail facilities in a manner that satisfies the goals and objectives of the Project; and (b) assessing the available opportunities for the formation of a public private partnership for the DBFOM of the Project. In order to assess these matters, each Respondent's response to this RFCS must include both the details of the proposed technology, and the possible sources and structure of private financing necessary to fund, design, construct, operate and maintain the Project using such technology (collectively, the Concept Documents). The Ports and ACTA will use the responses as an integral component in determining the viability of the Project and possible subsequent preparation of technical specifications, design criteria and operational requirements for an RFQ/RFP for the Project. The information received in response to this RFCS will be evaluated to determine whether viable ZECMS technologies exist for the Project and whether entities exist that can demonstrate the financial, technical, and managerial wherewithal for DBFOM system(s) at no net cost to the Ports. If such technologies are identified and private financing resources appear reasonably available to fund the Project on a long term leasehold framework, then one or more of the proposed concepts, or a combination of concepts, may be selected to be incorporated into a potential detailed competitive Project RFQ/RFP. If the Ports and ACTA proceed with a pre qualification process (RFQ) for the RFP, that process will be open to all interested parties, and may be initiated based on a new submittal of team qualifications to identify entities deemed qualified to submit proposals on concept(s) identified in the proposed RFP. The RFQ process will not be limited to RFCS Respondents, or to those Respondents who originally proposed concepts identified in any future RFP process. Only those respondents to the RFQ that are found to be qualified may submit responses to the potential future Project RFP; and it is anticipated that, following submittals in response to a future Project RFP, selected RFP Respondent(s) will be required to assist in design development as part of the environmental process. After receipt of environmental clearance, negotiations with the selected Respondent(s) would take place before a final recommendation for award. It is presently anticipated that ACTA, and not the POLB, will manage preparation, issuance and oversight of any future Project RFQ/RFP processes. 3.2 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND FORMATS FOR CONCEPT DOCUMENTS Responses to this RFCS must comply with the instructions in this RFCS, including the technical and financial parameters set forth in Section 6, and comply with the requirements of Section 7. Any submittals that do not comply with these instructions may be rejected. Page 4

11 Respondents shall submit four sets; including a hard copy and a digital copy (i.e. CD, DVD, etc.) containing the Concept Documents (see detail description in Section 7.2), by 4:30 pm PDT on September 25, The POLB may refuse to accept any Concept Documents submitted after the submittal deadline and, may reject and return such submittals to the Respondent unopened. The delivery of Concept Documents to the POLB by the submittal deadline is the sole responsibility of the Respondent. Any Respondent may withdraw submitted Concept Documents prior to the submission due date by delivering a written withdrawal request to the address shown in Section 3.5. The POLB may, in its sole discretion, refuse to consider incomplete submissions or submissions containing proprietary or trade secret information (see Section 7.3 below). During the evaluation process, the POLB may ask any Respondent to supplement its responses; but such right of the POLB shall not relieve any Respondent of its obligation to make a fully responsive and complete submittal SCHEDULE June 3, 2009 Release of RFCS July 9, 2009 Pre submittal conference to be held at 10:00 am PDT at the Port of Long Beach Administration Building. Questions or comments submitted to the POLB by July 2, 2009 will be addressed at the Pre submittal conference. August 21, 2009 Last day to submit written questions to the POLB September 4, 2009 Last day for posting by POLB of answers to questions September 25, 2009 Concept Documents responding to RFCS must be delivered to POLB by 4:30 PDT December 11, 2009 (Tentative) Date for completion of preliminary evaluation Spring 2010 (Tentative) Date for potential release of a Project RFQ/RFP 3.4. RIGHTS OF POLB RESPECTING MANAGEMENT / CONTROL OF THE RFCS Prior to the due date of the Concept Documents, the POLB may issue addenda clarifying or modifying this RFCS. Such addenda will be numbered consecutively and posted on the POLB website. It is each Respondent's responsibility to review the POLB website and verify the number of addenda and obtain all addenda that have been issued prior to submitting the Concept. A Respondent's submittal of Concept Documents shall constitute confirmation that the Respondent has obtained and reviewed all addenda COMMUNICATIONS All communications between the POLB and any potential respondent may be shared with all Respondents. The single point of contact for the POLB with respect to this RFCS is: Page 5

12 Eric C. Shen, P.E., PTP Director of Transportation Planning Port of Long Beach 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA Telephone: (562) ; Facsimile: (562) E Mail: shen@polb.com The Respondents are prohibited from communicating with marine terminal operators and railroad operators, and from ex parte communication with POLB/POLA commissioners, ACTA Board members, and POLB/POLA/ACTA employees in this matter. Any questions pertaining to terminal operations or rail operations should be submitted, in writing, to Eric Shen, and written responses will be provided as detailed above EVALUATION PROCESS Responses to this RFCS as presented in the Concept Documents provided by each Respondent will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee pursuant to the Evaluation Process set forth in Section 8. Concepts may be evaluated to determine both overall viability and the viability/sufficiency of individual component concepts. The POLB reserves the right, but not obligation, to seek written clarifications, at its sole discretion, from any of the Respondents in order to fully understand the nature of each of the submittals and to fully evaluate the Respondents and their Concept Documents. Further, upon receipt and review of the Respondents Concept Documents, the POLB reserves the right, at its option, to conduct (or to permit the Evaluation Committee to conduct) interviews with all such Respondents. The timing for evaluating responses and scheduling interviews will depend on the quantity and quality of responses received. No aspect of these interviews is intended to provide any particular Respondent with access to information that is not similarly available to every other Respondent. The POLB also reserves the right, at its option, to issue a possible Project RFQ/RFP, in the future, based upon the responses obtained through this RFCS process. The POLB, with advice and input from its Evaluation Committee, shall have the sole and final authority to evaluate all Concept Documents submitted to determine the viability of each Respondent's entire proposal and to prepare design criteria and specifications for a future Project RFQ/RFP process based in part upon the Concept Documents presented to and evaluated by the Evaluation Committee. 3.7 POLB RESERVED AUTHORITY The POLB reserves the right to supplement, amend, or otherwise modify this RFCS and to waive minor irregularities and omissions in the information contained in the responses submitted, to make all final determinations, and to determine at any time that these RFCS procedures will or will not be utilized for development of a specific future public works project. Page 6

13 The POLB reserves the right not to proceed to a Project RFQ/RFP or to terminate the RFCS process for any reason whatsoever at anytime by posting notice on the POLB website. The POLB reserves the right to change or alter the schedule of events associated with this process by posting notice on the POLB website. The POLB reserves the right to modify or amend the scope of the Project, including adding or limiting collection and distribution points, restricting or expanding available alignments or limiting the volume available to be processed through the system or the fees that may be charged for the use of the system. The POLB may refuse to consider any technology or proposal where the requested information and materials are either not provided in full, or not provided by the date specified above. There is no appeal from a POLB refusal to accept a proposed submittal, or from a POLB determination that a submittal is incomplete or untimely. The final date and time for acceptance of submittals will not be changed in order to accommodate supplementation of incomplete submissions, or for late submissions. All Concept Documents shall become the property of the POLB and will not be returned to Respondents, except for submittals that are not timely received which may be rejected and returned unopened to the Respondents. The POLB, and ACTA and the POLA hereby reserve the right to incorporate information included in any Concept Documents submittal, or gathered from the pre submittal meeting, the evaluative interviews, or any other source of information collected as a result of this RFCS process in a future ZECMS Project RFQ/RFP; and, by submitting Concept Documents, each Respondent grants the POLB, POLA and ACTA the right to use any such information in connection with a future ZECMS Project RFQ/RFP. The POLB may refuse to incorporate into any future Project RFQ/RFP those specifications or components presented by, or deemed necessary for the proposal of a particular Respondent or necessary to that Respondent's proposed systems for a ZECMS concept as presented by/in its Concept Documents. There is no appeal from a refusal to incorporate such particular specifications or components as a result of the RFCS evaluative process. The POLB reserves the right to investigate any of the Respondents submitting responses to the RFCS by interviewing references or representatives, evaluating the performance and outcomes of prior projects, or researching any other public information related to the Respondents. Neither the POLB/POLA/ACTA, their staff, representatives, consultants or agents will be liable for any claims or damages resulting from the solicitation, collection, review, or evaluation of documents or submittals related to this RFCS, or for the incorporation of such documents or submittals, or elements thereof, into a potential future Project RFQ/RFP process. Page 7

14 The POLB accepts no liability for any costs or expenses incurred by the Respondents in development of its responses to this RFCS. Subsequent negotiations or dialogue related to the RFCS Concept Documents, and any other or potential subsequent activities associated with this procurement process. Respondents shall prepare the required submittals at their own expense and with the understanding that neither the POLB, POLA, nor ACTA shall provide reimbursement for any associated costs and expenses. Page 8

15 SECTION 4. CONCEPTUAL SERVICE AREA In 1907 and 1911, the port tidelands were granted to the City of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach, respectively, in trust for the people of the State. Because the public lands trust is held for all the citizens of California, the Ports' tidelands must be operated to serve statewide public interest as opposed to purely local purposes. Accordingly, the trust restricts not only the actual uses of the tidelands but also the income and revenue generated from businesses and activities conducted on the tidelands. The revenues must be used for improving or maintaining harbor commerce and navigation, or for marine recreation or fisheries. The State Lands Commission has oversight over all granted lands. With few exceptions, the Ports are not required to obtain approval from the Commission prior to expending revenues generated from these lands; but the Commission may, and occasionally has, objected to expenditures once they are made. The Ports are recognized as important economic engines for the region and state, are encouraged to develop facilities within their boundaries to avoid the development of new ports, are encouraged to develop rail infrastructure to service the Ports' operations, and are required to develop and gain approval of a master plan to guide the Ports development. On the other hand, the Ports, as a part of either the City of Long Beach or the City of Los Angeles, are restricted in their authority to approve or implement projects outside the Harbor District and are further restricted by the Tidelands Trust. 4.1 SERVICE AREA Conceptually the ZECMS could serve areas within the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, including fifteen marine container terminals located on 10,700 acres, the existing and proposed near dock railyards, and the public right of ways connecting the Ports' marine terminals to the near dock railyards located three to five miles north of the marine container terminals (see Figure 4.1). The Ports have recently performed an evaluation of potential primary corridor alignments for ZECMS systems and have identified four potential primary public corridors (SR 47, the Dominguez Channel, Alameda Street, and the rail corridors) for linking the Ports marine container terminals with the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and the future Southern California International Gateway (SCIG). These potential alignments are not limited to one specific technological solution, that is, fixed guideway, rail, or others. Page 9

16 4.1.1 Alameda Corridor Figure 4.1: Conceptual ZECMS Service Area Image Source: The Alameda Corridor is a 20 mile long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street improvements that separate freight trains from street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportation network. The Alameda Corridor began operations in April Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) The ICTF is a near dock, international shipping facility serving multiple shipping lines. The ICTF is located approximately five miles from the ports at the terminus of State Highway 103, known as the Terminal Island Freeway. The ICTF operational core is located on 148 acres of Port of Los Angeles property within the City of Los Angeles and covers a narrow area between East Sepulveda Boulevard and East 233rd Street, just south of the I 405 freeway. The ICTF operates in conjunction with the Union Pacific s (UP) Dolores Rail yard, located west of the ICTF within the City of Carson. For more background on the ICTF, Respondents may review the information available at jpa.org. However, the POLB does not guarantee the accuracy of such information. 1 Page 10

17 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the environmental analysis of the proposed ICTF Modernization was released in January The proposed modernization would more than double the throughput capacity of the ICTF from 750,000 to 1.5 million containers per year while incorporating a number of environmental improvements, such as the use of electric overhead cranes, cleaner hostling tractors, and ultra low emissions locomotives Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) The proposed Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) facility intends to improve the efficiency of cargo transfer from the Ports to customers and allow shippers to take advantage of more efficient truck rail transportation. The proposed SCIG is located in an area that currently supports a significant amount of portrelated industrial activities. The central site area is referred to as the Primary Project Area, and would be utilized for train loading and unloading, overall site management and administrative support activities. This area includes approximately 96 acres of Port of Los Angeles property and approximately 57 acres of adjacent property outside of the Los Angeles Harbor District for a total of 153 acres. At present, the Primary Project Area is generally used for cross docking, warehousing, and container and/or trailer maintenance servicing and storage. Cross docking includes cargo transfer from one mode of transportation to another mode, such as from a container to a trailer. The primary SCIG project area is generally bounded by Sepulveda Boulevard to the north, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, the Dominguez Channel to the west, and the Terminal Island Freeway to the east. The Notice of Preparation for the SCIG can be found at: Marine Terminals The POLB has seven major container terminals with six existing and one proposed port rail yards. The POLA has eight major container terminals with four existing and two proposed port rail yards. Additional information on the terminal uses at the POLB or POLA can be found in its respective website. Figure 4.2 illustrates the existing and proposed rail yards in the Ports. 2 California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Preparation released by the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) Joint Powers Authority on January 8, 2009 for the Union Pacific Railroad Company s ICTF Modernization and Expansion Project; jpa.org/document_library/environmental_impact_report/ictf%20nop IS.pdf Page 11

18 Figure 4.2: Existing and Proposed Port Rail Map Source: PRIOR CONCEPTUAL ANALYSES OF POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS The Ports recently completed two studies, including a technology review and an analysis of potential alignments based on some operating parameters of potential technologies. The data collection for the technology review occurred in Additionally, an alternative technology report prepared for the I 710 Project was recently completed. These studies and reports are included as Attachments 3, 4, 6, and 7, as listed below: Attachment 3: Alternative Container Transport Technology Evaluation and Comparison, Prepared by URS Corporation and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., April 7, 2008 Attachment 4: Zero Emissions Container Movement System Concept Study, Prepared by Psomas, May 1, 2009 Attachment 6: Alternative Goods Movement Technology Analysis, Initial Feasibility Study Report, Prepared by URS, January 6, 2009 Attachment 7: I 710 Alternatives Screening Analysis Final Report, Prepared by URS, May 29, 2009 zecms_rfcs_vf.do cx Page 12

19 SECTION 5. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 5.1 PORT OPERATIONS International cargo is moved by a chain of businesses and individuals that stretches from the manufacturer or supplier to the consumer (which may be a manufacturer). Attachment 5 provides a brief outline of this supply chain and the various participants involved in moving goods from the supplier to the consumer including a basic explanation of port operations and the components required to move containers off of vessels through the Ports and out through rail facilities, such as labor agreements, hours of operations, and security screening. An understanding of these operating constraints is required to develop a viable Concept; therefore, it is strongly recommended that Respondents review and use this information in developing and presenting Concept Documents for response to this RFCS. 5.2 PARAMETERS AND LIMITATIONS The following parameters/constraints apply to the future Project: 1. The proposed system is intended to support only the necessary movement of containers between the Port terminals and existing and proposed near dock rail facilities. It is neither intended to diminish nor replace on dock rail loadings at the marine terminals. Demand allocated to maximum on dock rail volume was excluded from the potential market segment information contained in Section 5.3. In addition, Section 5.3 represents the volume of containers projected to move to/from the near/off dock railyards. 2. The system will compete with trucking to the near/off dock facilities. The Respondents should assume that the Ports will not ban the use of trucks to these facilities. 3. The Respondents should assume that they will be responsible for the costs of all private ROW required for a proposal which are not presently identified in the preliminary alignment analyses developed for the Ports (see Attachment 4 to this RFCS), including any use of terminal leaseholds. Public owned ROW, with the exception of infrastructure modifications such as utility relocations, will be provided at no cost to the Respondent. 4. The Respondents should assume that this is a stand alone project, i.e. one that will be financed without contribution or subsidy by the Ports or ACTA except as specifically provided for in this RFCS. The Respondents may not assume, rely upon, or expect a future right to lease/use a ZECMS beyond the described conceptual service area in this RFCS (e.g., only inside the I 710 Corridor). 5. The Respondents cannot assume, rely upon, or expect any capital or operations and maintenance (O&M) funds from the Ports for the development or financing of their Page 13

20 Project proposals. Implementation of any such systems must result in no net costs to the Ports or ACTA unless prescribed in this RFCS or otherwise agreed to in the future. 5.3 POTENTIAL ZECMS OPERATING SCENARIOS The Respondent is to analyze the commercial feasibility of its proposed system for each of four (4) potential capacity scenarios for the near dock rail facilities using the following information. The four scenarios are shown in Table 5.1. The currently existing ICTF near dock rail facility is operated exclusively by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). It has a limited capacity as shown (Scenario 1). A proposed modification to the ICTF would double its current capacity (Scenario 2), and its use would still be limited to the UPRR. The SCIG near dock facility, proposed just south of the ICTF, would be operated solely by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). If built, SCIG would result in either capacity Scenario 3 when combined with the existing ICTF capacity, or Scenario 4 when combined with the modified ICTF. There is no assurance at this time that any increased capacity might occur. The nature, extent, and commercial viability of the ZECMS system might likely differ for each scenario. Figure 5.1 depicts seven (7) potential consolidated marine terminal stations as proposed collection points for the fifteen container terminals at the Ports. In addition, Table 5.2 shows the projected demand between 2012 and 2035 at each of these stations for use of off/neardock rail facilities regardless of the capacity of the near dock facilities. After 2035, the demand is assumed to remain constant. The Respondent is to match these railroad specific demand numbers to the four railroad specific near dock capacity scenarios in order to assess how many of these stations would have to be served under each scenario for commercial success. In making this calculation, the Respondent must assume that the demand numbers shown in Table 5.2 must be allocated 50/50 between UPRR and BNSF, which may require a portion of the demand to be transported off dock outside the scope of the Project. To the extent that neardock capacity is not available to maintain the 50/50 split (as in Scenarios 1 3) or the Respondent proposes a Concept that does not serve (or fully serve) one of the near dock facilities, the full Table 5.2 demand numbers will not be available to the Project due to the demand required to be allocated to an off dock rail facility or other transport means in order to maintain this split (e.g. under Scenario 1 (no BNSF near dock rail facility) Respondent should assume that 50% of the Table 5.2 demand will be transported to a BNSF off dock facility outside the scope of the Project and will not be demand available to the Project). The Respondent should pay careful attention to these splits in developing its business plans and should demonstrate that its determination of required volume provides for 50% of the demand to be served by UPRR and 50% of the demand to be served by BNSF. Where it is determined that one or more of the four scenarios is not commercially feasible, the Respondent should include information in its submittal as to why it is not feasible and what volume would be necessary for viability. Page 14

21 Figure Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach Container Terminals ZECMS Marine Terminal Stations Los Angeles River A C Port of Long Beach D Cerritos Channel T S 47 E F J G J J J ZECMS Marine Terminal Stations POLB POLA Port of Los Angeles 1 Pier S & T 2 Pier G & J 5 Pier 300 & Berths 206 to Pier C, D, E & F 7 Berths 100 to Pier A version

22 Table 5.1 Near-Dock Rail Capacity / Demand Scenarios Scenario Description Railroad Capacity (in lifts) Capacity (in TEUs) 2012 Demand (in TEUs) 2035 Demand (in TEUs) 1 Existing ICTF Only UPRR 750,000 1,388, ,000 2,220,000 2 Proposed Modified ICTF UPRR 1,500,000 2,775, ,000 2,220,000 3 Existing ICTF + Proposed SCIG UPRR + BNSF UPRR 750,000 BNSF 1,500,000 Total 2,250,000 UPRR 1,388,000 BNSF 2,775,000 Total 4,163,000 UPRR 825,000 BNSF 825,000 Total 1,650,000 UPRR 2,220,000 BNSF 2,220,000 Total 4,440,000 4 Proposed Modified ICTF + Proposed SCIG UPRR + BNSF UPRR 1,500,000 BNSF 1,500,000 Total 3,000,000 UPRR 2,775,000 BNSF 2,775,000 Total 5,550,000 UPRR 825,000 BNSF 825,000 Total 1,650,000 UPRR 2,220,000 BNSF 2,220,000 Total 4,440, version

23 Table 5.2 Assumed Off/Near-Dock Rail Demand * (in TEUs x 1,000) Piers S/T G/J C/D/E/F A 300/ Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Total Port Total Off/Near Dock % ,649 13, % ,571 14, % ,493 15, % ,415 16, % ,337 17, % ,531 17, % ,725 18, % ,919 19, % ,113 21, % ,117 22, % ,121 23, % ,125 24, % ,318 25, % ,511 26, % ,704 28, % ,897 29, % ,090 30, % ,283 32, % ,476 33, % ,669 35, % ,862 36, % ,055 38, % ,248 40, % ,441 43, % * Figures are combined amounts for both UPRR and BNSF, assume 50% share for each railroad version

24 SECTION 6. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL PARAMETERS Respondents shall provide a detailed description of their approach to developing, financing, building, operating and maintaining their proposed ZECMS. The description should include all assumptions regarding the division of labor at the transfer stations at the rail facilities and port terminals served. Sufficient detail should be provided to determine whether the system as described will be constructible, financially self supporting and operationally reliable over the long term, but, as further set forth in Section 7.3 of this RFCS, proprietary and trade secret information should not be included. Respondents should clearly and thoroughly discuss the following key items in their Concept Documents: Technology Application Strategy Financial Feasibility Business Plan System Benefits 6.1 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION STRATEGY Each Respondent shall define the application strategy for their proposed system. This strategy should include the identification of key infrastructure, an operating plan, and equipment requirements needed to successfully develop, operate and maintain the proposed ZECMS. To effectively describe the proposed ZECMS, the following information is needed: Description of equipment and operations requirements, including any required predevelopment efforts such as testing or proof of concept Estimated pre development and development costs Infrastructure requirements and capital costs at the marine terminal(s), along the corridor and at near dock intermodal facilities Equipment costs Operating and maintenance costs, including loading and unloading containers at interfaces assuming existing labor contracts Alignment and property requirements Rate Structure and return on investment Productivity Measures o Loading/unloading rates o Travel speeds Page 18

25 o System capacity o Annual throughput capacity o Equipment quantity/needs Identify any physical impediments or limitations that significantly impact the constructability or cost of the Project and what would be necessary to remove these impediments and limitations. This application strategy should be applied to the primary components of the ZECMS (a) marine container terminal interface, (b) corridors and (c) near dock rail terminus interface (e.g. ICTF/SCIG). Marine Container Terminals: Prior to developing infrastructure, operating and equipment characteristics for the ZECMS, the location of the marine terminal interfaces or multi marine terminal collection points that match the proposed technology and the business strategy must be identified. The selection of these locations should be driven by the ability to capture the required cargo volumes needed to develop and operate the proposed system in a financially independent manner. Respondents may consider strategic collection points that may serve multiple terminals. These marine terminal locations should also be used to identify the number and location of corridor alignments that link the terminals to the ICTF and include the possibility of connecting to the proposed future SCIG. Corridors: Each Respondent should include a preliminary description of the ZECMS corridor requirements, including alignments, connections and links to the ICTF and the proposed future SCIG. Respondents should use one of these primary alignments along with their suggested recommended inter marine container terminal network to identify the ZECMS corridors that work best with their technology. ICTF: Once the marine container terminals and corridor alignments are identified and defined, the interface location for the ICTF should be described. This interface should be identified while considering the existing operations at the ICTF and the UP s future planned terminal enhancements as described in Section of this RFCS. Similar to the interface at the marine container terminals and collection points, the ICTF interface should consider the ability to maximize the amount of cargo volume to be handled on the ZECMS. SCIG: In addition to addressing interface at the ICTF, Respondents should attempt to describe the interface with the possible proposed SCIG. For purposes of this RFCS, Respondents should consider the SCIG to be operationally similar to the ICTF. Page 19

26 6.2 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Respondents shall include information (independent financial/business prospectus, technology performance evaluation, capital and operating expenditure estimates) to support the financial assumptions used, as well as a conceptual business plan, as described in Section 6.3, identifying how the Project will be conducted as a financially self sufficient enterprise. Any financial support required for implementation should be clearly defined and described to demonstrate that the Project is financially independent and viable. Respondents are encouraged to demonstrate their comprehensive understanding of costs, regulations, and constraints associated with current and future intermodal operations. Particularly, the financial feasibility should reflect the Respondent's understanding of current and future drayage rate structures by mode and an estimate of the cargo volumes necessary to make their systems financially independent and viable. Any assumed financing strategies should be described in enough detail to verify those assumptions. Key elements of the financial feasibility statement shall include: Length of lease or other arrangement necessary to recoup costs and generate an appropriate rate of return. Demonstrated ability to finance the construction and operation of the Project including sufficient supporting documentation. Estimated costs of the development and operation of the Project, including all capital expenditures and operating expenditures that would be part of the proposed business plan. All assumptions underlying the costs should be provided and should include: o A projection of cash flows for the life of the Project. o Costs should be shown on a yearly basis as they are incurred, and should also reflect any phasing assumptions. Costs should be expressed in real and nominal dollars, and assumptions about inflation should be clearly identified. o Any underlying infrastructure costs or operational costs that are proposed, and that would be the financial responsibility of others should be identified, quantified, and justified. o Related labor costs. Revenue streams and underlying assumptions about container volumes or other demand related revenue sources should be outlined: Page 20

27 o Anticipated revenues should be shown on a yearly basis, and should be expressed in real and nominal dollars. Inflation or rate increase assumptions should be noted. o Rate structure assumptions (on a per TEU or other appropriate rate basis) should be identified and justified, including provisions for rate increases, if any, over time. The ZECMS will be in direct competition with truck dray rates (between the chosen marine container terminals and the ICTF and possible future SCIG). o Prepare a pro forma annual income statement. The first five years should be provided on a quarterly basis to show more detail during the Project development and implementation. Financial viability of the proposed business plan, including a clear summary of the assumed financing approach. At minimum, these financial metrics should include those commonly utilized in financial feasibility assessments, such as gross and net operating revenues; net operating income; earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA); debt service coverage ratio (defined as operating revenue plus interest income minus operating expense before depreciation and amortization summed up and divided by actual debt service) and other debt financing metrics. All debt and equity share assumptions should be clearly specified as well as the achievable credit level required to implement the Project. Identify the point at which the Project becomes self sufficient (identified by volume of cargo). Identify if any of the four operating scenarios in Table 5.1 are not commercially feasible, why those scenarios are not commercially feasible, and what would be required to make them commercially feasible. 6.3 BUSINESS PLAN In conjunction with the Financial Plan, the Respondent should provide a description of how it plans to operate and manage the Project under a Business Plan based on the supply and demand for off/near dock rail services. Key elements of the Business Plan should include: Enterprise structure and annual sources of financing and the amount for each source. Construction and procurement options should be specified (e.g. DBFOM). ZECMS Operating Plan Description of management/operations, labor requirements, equipment requirements, and maintenance requirements. Financial statement(s), if any, for any similar projects that have been completed by the Respondent. Page 21

28 If future financing is required, a statement of how the Project will cover the risk that assumed financing rates will be available. Justification that assumed credit and feasibility for the Project will be 100% available at financial close, allowing the Project to commence. Financing commitments if required for the system implementation or operation. For example, if commercial debt will be involved, state the terms and stability for the guaranteed time period. Financial feasibility statements and the Business Plan must be accompanied by reasonable documentation of the critical assumptions. 6.4 ESTIMATED BENEFITS Respondents are encouraged to review the Ports environmental policies. Annual and daily estimates of the following should be provided: Criteria pollutants and Green House Gas Emissions Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by traditional drayage trucks Electric power consumption Use of renewable fuels Noise Emissions zecms_rfcs_vf.do cx Page 22

29 SECTION 7. RESPONSE FORMAT AND REQUIRED COMPONENTS Responses to this RFCS should include all of the information requested in Sections 6 and 7. POLB reserves the right to ask any Respondent to supplement the data in its submittal, but expects each submission to be complete. 7.1 RESPONSE FORMAT Written responses to the RFCS shall be converted into unprotected Portable Document Format (PDF), readable by Adobe Acrobat Reader, and combined in one single file. The narrative portion of the response package (addressing Sections through Section below) should not exceed 30 pages in length, excluding supporting tables, figures, or appendices. Documentation supporting the narrative portion may also be provided, but should be limited to relevant information. When possible, website links to supporting documentation should be provided rather than copies of these materials. Respondents shall submit four sets; including a hard copy (double sided printing) and a digital copy (i.e. CD, DVD, etc.) containing the Concept Documents by 4:30 pm PDT on September 25, Any submittals that do not comply with the instructions may be rejected. 7.2 REQUIRED COMPONENTS The Concept Documents should be presented in nine sections, plus attachments, separated by tabs as follows: Transmittal Letter The Concept Documents must include a cover letter containing the name, title, address, telephone number, fax number, and e mail address of the Respondent and the principal contact person Table of Contents A table of contents shall be included in the Concept Documents, itemizing the contents of the Respondent's submission Introduction to Scope of Services An overview of the Concept proposed by the Respondent should be provided including a brief explanation of technology and methods for the development and operation of a fully integrated (marine terminal to near dock facility), viable ZECMS which functions within the constraints of the physical environment and achieves the prescribed goals contained in this RFCS, including demonstrated financial capabilities, Project development viability, long term operation and Page 23