California High-Speed Rail: Operations Report 849 437 51% 412 92 14 43 CP4A 172 125 73% 47 5 19 9 Total 1911 1334 70% 577 100 54 127 3 Executive Summary F&A Committee Meeting –August

California High-Speed Rail:

Operations Report

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

August 2018

Finance & Audit Committee Meeting

Agenda

Operations Report Metrics

– Executive Summary

– Right-of-Way (ROW)

– Project Development

– Third Party Agreements

– Contract Management

– Finance/Budget

– ARRA State Match Schedule

– Risk

F&A Committee Meeting – August 2018 2

Executive Summary

ROW Acquisition

Priority Parcels by Construction Package

– CP1ABC priority parcel acquisition forecast is driven by pending design changes, legal settlements/agreements, and timing and

complexity of relocations.

– CP1D forecast has one priority parcel with offer pending owner acceptance.

– CP2-3 forecast depends on phase in acquisition process (such as hearing scheduled, suit filed, DGS contract approval, or

parcels certified for delivery) or status of the design process.

– CP4 forecast is driven by factors such as design refinement, owner suit, and phase in the acquisition process (OP

hearing/settlement, DGS contract approval, or certification for delivery).

The current report presents ROW acquisition progress relative to CP1 thru CP4 through June 30, 2018. As of that date, the

Authority has secured legal possession of 1,360 parcels with 1,334 delivered to the Design-Builders (DB). There were three

parcels delivered in CP1ABC, one parcel delivered in CP1D, one parcel delivered in CP2-3, and zero parcels delivered in CP4, for a

total delivery of five parcels during the month of June. The total percent of parcels delivered to the DB remained at 70%.The total

parcels and percentage delivered to date are as follows:

F&A Committee Meeting – August 2018

Section # of ParcelsDelivered to

DB

% Delivered to

DB

Remaining

Parcels

Remaining

Parcels on

DB Hold

Remaining

DB Identified

Critical

Parcels

Remaining

Railroad

Parcels

CP1ABC 795 684 86% 111 2 20 72

CP1D 95 88 93% 7 1 1 3

CP2-3 849 437 51% 412 92 14 43

CP4A 172 125 73% 47 5 19 9

Total 1911 1334 70% 577 100 54 127

3

Executive Summary


ROW Acquisition

With the remaining parcels, the ROW/Third Party division executes all parcels necessary for the delivery of the Program with urgency. For

the purposes of this summary, “DB Critical Parcels” are parcels which have been identified by the DB as having precedence over any other

DB acquisition request but have not been verified by the Authority. “Priority Parcels” are parcels which have been identified by the

ROW/Third Party division as acquisitions requiring long lead construction, relocations, and/or acquisitions for the purposes of workload

management. “DB hold” are parcels which have been placed on a temporary hold by the DB either due to design refinements, environmental

reviews, etc. Parcels which have been placed on “hold” by the DB are deemed inactive until the DB releases the hold. In accordance with the

DB contract, a “Critical Path” parcel is a parcel identified by the DB and approved by the Authority based on a resource loaded schedule. No

parcel has been identified by the DB as “Critical Path”.

Acquisition of ROW for Railroad parcels is contingent upon the completion of 100% design by the DB and approval by the railroads before

the Authority can commence the acquisition process (mapping, appraisals, etc.). As of the date of this report, design for railroad parcels is

pending.

In CP1, through partnering with the DB and use of settlement teams, the majority of the ROW acquisition is no longer on the critical path

except for remaining parcels for Avenue 10 and Jenson Trench. Partnering efforts continue to identify key parcels needed for meaningful

construction. Four priority parcels were delivered in June. There are 21 priority parcels remaining. 10 of the remaining priority parcels are

either public agency parcels or railroad parcels, one of the parcels require a long-lead time for relocation, and the other 10 parcels are private

parcels where three are heading toward condemnation, one pending certification, three with signed contracts pending approval and three

pending first written offers.

In CP2-3, 0 priority parcels were delivered in June. There are 14 priority parcels remaining. One parcel with signed contract pending, one

certified pending delivery and twelve are proceeding toward condemnation.

In CP4, approximately 70% of the parcels are impacted by DB requested design changes that have required different ROW acquisitions.

Delivery dates for the affected parcels have been reestablished based upon the contract terms for parcels requiring changed ROW

requirements. In June, no priority parcels were delivered. Eight of the remaining 19 priority parcels are either public agency parcels or

railroad parcels, seven have Orders of Possession with a future date for vacancy, two with signed Order of Possession pending legal

possession, and one is pending updated appraisal.

4

Executive SummaryProject Development – Key Issues1

For the Authority’s Baseline Delivery program, completed work to update project development schedules and costs to

complete through RODs and permitting. The Baseline program was adopted by the Board at its June meeting.

Resolved 54 of 62 programmatic decisions on which the FRA and Authority need to reach agreement to help achieve

delivery of the administrative draft Environmental Impact Reports/Environmental Impact Statements;

For the San Francisco to San Jose project section, received comments from Caltrain for the review of the Preliminary

Engineering for Project Definition (PEPD) engineering drawings. Developed a plan to distribute PEPD to cities and

municipalities;

Prepared revised draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment needed for geotechnical investigation activities between

Gilroy and the Pacheco Pass. The document is now undergoing Authority review;

FRA completed its back-check review of the Merced to Fresno, Central Valley Wye Administrative Draft Supplemental

EIR/EIS incorporating cooperating agencies’ comments;

Submitted Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative Draft Final Supplemental EIR/EIS to the FRA for review.

For the Bakersfield to Palmdale project section, continued follow-up activities regarding the National Chavez Center.

Held consultation meeting with Chavez Center Foundation and National Park Service staff on June 25, 2018;

For the Palmdale to Burbank project section, met with the US Forest Service on June 12 , 2018 to continue discussions

regarding biological and hydrogeological issues;

Advanced PEPD design work for the Burbank Station; and,

For the Burbank to Los Angeles and Los Angeles to Anaheim project sections, continued to review initial draft versions

of the administrative draft EIR/EIS. A fully compiled version of the Los Angeles to Anaheim Administrative Draft EIR/EIS

is to be submitted to the Authority July 10 , 2018.1 Text identified in red indicate change from previous month.


Executive Summary

Third Party Agreement Execution

The current report presents agreement execution progress relative to the Central Valley, North, South, and Valley to Valley through

June 30, 2018.

All Provisional Sum work has been released for design for CP1, CP2-3 and CP4.

16 of the 19 AT&T design packages have been approved for construction in CP1.

– 11 of the 16 approved design packages are in construction.

– 4 of the 16 approved design packages have completed the construction.

Provisional Sum work is progressing as planned for CP2-3 and CP4.

The team is continuously assessing lessons learned from all CPs for improvements in current construction, as well as improved

management practices for future construction.


Executive Summary

Contract Management

CP1 – The project consumed approximately 80.1% of the contract time through the end of June 2018. About 53.9% of the

current contract amount has been spent during that time for the Design Builder. The CP1 team is actively managing the few

remaining right-of-way approvals plus ongoing third party agreements and is also engaging with the contractor to mitigate delays.

Construction is well advanced on 17 work-fronts throughout the 32 mile long project and close to 200 construction activities are

currently being tracked. The primary focus to date has been on bridges with current activities ranging from planning & design

through to completion of construction. Review of design packages continues. Placement of beams for the San Joaquin River

Pergola was completed and work continues at several fronts for the San Joaquin River Viaduct. Precast girders have been set on

Avenue 11 OC and Avenue 12 OC. Work continues on the Downtown Fresno Viaduct which will include the start of work for the

arch bridge over SR 99. Caltrans State Route 99 Realignment project has completed the Clinton Overcrossing and work is

progressing on the Ashlan Overcrossing replacement. Excluded third party PG&E and AT&T work at multiple location throughout

the project are being progressed. Resolution of a few remaining ROW issues is well advanced and engagement with key

stakeholders and third parties is ongoing. Assessment of Change Orders and Task Orders continues.

CP2-3 - Based on the revised completion date of May 22, 2020, the project consumed approximately 60.7% of the contract time

through the end of June 2018. About 35.9% of the current contract amount has been spent during that time. Delays have

contributed to an extended design phase and it is anticipated that much of the design will complete by the end of 2018. The field

operations to date have included primarily clearing and grubbing, and earthwork, including embankment for the first 2.5 miles of

guideway, embankment for the overhead structures at Kent and Kansas Avenues, embankment for the guideway between Floral

and Nebraska Avenues, embankment for the guideway between Mountain View Avenue and Willow Avenue, and embankment for

the guideway between Davis Avenue and State Route 43. The Authority staff and DFJV are working collaboratively to resolve

issues that are associated with the commencement of construction for up to five overhead structures, which would make for

significant progress. DFJV submitted a revised baseline schedule, as required by the Change Order #45, however it has been

rejected by the Authority as the submittal did not meet the contract requirements. CHSRA is working with DFJV in establishing a

proposed revised schedule.


Executive Summary

Contract Management

CP4 – The project consumed approximately 70.4% of the contract time through the end of June 2018. About 20.24% of the

current contract amount has been spent during that time. The CP4 Design-Build contract contractual completion date currently

remains at the original contract date. There are several significant issues and identified potential changes that may affect the

contractual completion date or require contractor mitigation to achieve the contractual completion date. These issues include

challenges in third party coordination with both utilities and water districts, slow design progression by the Design-Builder which

directly impacts acquisition of right-of-way and environmental clearance, and the potential additional scope of work due to the

widening of SR-46 underpass. In addition to potential delays to project completion, a number of the identified issues also include

significant potential cost impacts, such as the potential additional scope of work at SR-46, and the impacts of Authority revisions to

Intrusion Protection Barrier (IPB) requirements. Neither the potential SR-46 additional scope nor the changes to IPB were

considered in the original determination of contingency amount for the CP4 contract.

SR-99 Realignment - The project consumed 91.4% of the contract time as of the end of June 2018 and 81% of the current

contract amount has been spent during that time. Caltrans continues to work on the Main Package, which includes; grading and

paving operations, construction of retaining walls, drainage systems, electrical work and demolition. Work is ongoing at the

Clinton Ave interchange; the northbound off-ramp is scheduled to open in August 2018. Structure construction is ongoing for the

new eastbound span of the Ashlan Ave OH. Work continues to progress on the construction of the ultimate northbound lanes

along the mainline.The switching of the Northbound traffic is scheduled for July 2018.


Executive Summary

Finance/Budget

FY2017-18 Capital Outlay expenditures totaled $150.7M for June 2018 compared to $94.8M for May 2018, a 59% increase. The

increase is primarily attributed to accruals for the close of FY2017-18.

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 FY2017-18 budget prioritizes work related to completing the scope

within the ARRA and FY10 grants.

The FY2017-18 expenditures ($1.144B) are less than budget ($1.638B) primarily due to updated schedules for Design-Build

Contract Work and Local Assistance.

The FY2017-18 budget remains $1.638B.

The Total Program budget remains $9.678B.

The Total Program forecast remains $9.750B.

As a result of the Authority’s focus on State Match to ARRA Grant funds, information on State Match expenditures are now in the

ARRA State Match Schedule section.

The FY2018-19 Capital Outlay Budget is $1.787B, a $149.2M or 9.1% increase over FY2017-18. Total Program Budget increased

from $9.678B to $13.665B due to higher budgets for some existing scope and the inclusion of additional scope (such as

communications and electric traction).


Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


ROW Metrics - Context

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 develops their 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.

The DB is responsible for design (hence Design-Build), and only as the DB develops their design does the need for additional right

of way become apparent.

For ROW expenditure analysis, this report presents:

– Actual expenditures: reported each month.

– Forecast: adjusted quarterly based on the Funding Contribution Plan.

ROW


ROW Metrics - Context

What are Critical Parcels?

– Critical Parcel: As stated in the contract, “the exact sequence and dates identified in the ROW Acquisition Plan will be

regularly revised and updated based on actual progress achieved in ROW acquisition.” DB Critcal parcels are determined:

• CP1

▪ TPZP holds weekly ROW meetings to discuss parcels of concern.

▪ TPZP and HSR communicate and work collaboratively to identify priority parcels.

▪ Task managers collaborate with TPZP staff at weekly ROW meetings and identify parcels needed to start

construction or continue construction at specific locations.

• CP2-3

▪ HSR staff identified priority parcels, primarily structure locations at road overcrossings.

• CP4

▪ PCM and HSR communicate and work collaboratively to identify priority parcels.

▪ HSR staff identified priority parcels, primarily structure locations at road overcrossings.

ROW


Notes:

1. “Plan”: Negotiated schedule as of December 2014 plus public parcels, and new parcels added for design developments and utility relocations. Addition of new parcels

extends full Plan delivery to later date.

2. “Forecast” and “Alternative Forecast”: 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 MonthPlan vs. Actual vs. Forecast

769 795

684

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0

150

50

100

300

J FNA AF OA

Parcels Delivered

(cumulative)

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

FPre-

FY14

-15

J S MON DJan

2015

Jan

2018

OA JJan

2016

O AM J S D JAM DM J MJan

2017

J A S O N MMF S N

524

M SJ J A N DJan

2019

FD A M J J A S O NA M

Alternative Forecast

Plan

Actual Forecast

Addendum 9 Actual - Cumulative

Plan - Cumulative

Forecast - Cumulative

Alternative Forecast - Cumulative

Addendum 9 - Cumulative

CP1ABC - Delivered to DB

(number of parcels)

CP1ABC ROW

Source: July 6, 2018 ROW Weekly Report

Data through June 30, 2018

Monthly bars tie to left axis

Cumulative lines tie to right axis


ROW – CP1ABC Priority Parcels Delivered to Design-Build by

MonthPlanned vs. Actual vs. Forecast

88

108104

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pre

June-

15

A A

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

J

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

AFO DJ JS AA N D FJan

2016

M M J NMS Jan

2019

OJO N Jan

2017

AM J S O N D AJan

2018

F M SA FM J J D M

CP1ABC –Delivered to DB

(in number of parcels)

Notes:


extend Plan full delivery to later date.

2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery (driven by pending design changes, legal settlements/agreements, and timing and complexity of relocations).

3. Total number of parcels will be updated as priority parcels are approved.

CP1ABC ROW





PlanActual

Forecast Actual - Cumulative


Plan - Cumulative


Notes:

1. “Plan”: Negotiated schedule as of December 2014.

2. Design developments and lag in data entry can cause slight changes to plan and actual counts.

ROW – CP1ABC Historic Performance

4

1

6

35

4

9

2

6

0

3

2

64

11

7

10

2

0 0

4

0

3

11

10

0

15

5

Jul

2017

Nov

2017

Aug

2018

Jun

2017

May

2018

13

Aug

2017

Sep

2017

Mar

2018

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

Apr

2018

3

Jun

2018

Jul

2018

00

Sep

2018

1

Oct

2017

Actual Plan Forecast

CP1ABC Performance


33

65

53

3

5

3

7

68

7

3

0

6

2

9

4

53

61

13

4

0

5

10

15

Jun

2018

Jun

2017

Jul

2017

Apr

2018

Aug

2017

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

Nov

2017

1

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

Mar

2018

May

2018

3-Month Rolling Avg (3-month average)

Actual

CP1ABC ROW

Actual parcels delivered compared to planned (positive)

Actual parcels delivered compared to planned (negative)#

#



77 -3 5 22 -2 4 2


0 6 0 2

15

100

110

2

011

6

5

2

000

2

4

6

PipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutIn

1

0

1

0

11

0

1

0

1

5

6

0

3

00

2

4

6


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

CP1ABC ROW

Appraisal

Just

Compensation

Completion

800

400

0Total

795

To Date

783

0

400

800

Total

795

To Date

783

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 developments may create

month-to-month variances in the parcel flow pipeline.

April 2018 May 2018February 2018 March 2018 June 2018



88

2

14

31

16

02

14

68

12

25

0

10

20

30



CP1ABC ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

8

20

10

11

10

11

107

5

12

03

0

10

20

30


First Written

Offer

800

400

0Total

795

To Date

775

Negotiation

Acquisition 0

400

800

Total

795

To Date

504

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 developments may create

month-to-month variances in the parcel flow pipeline. Source: July 6, 2018 ROW Weekly Report



17

50

50

31210

300

300

0

10

20

30

PipelineOutInOut PipelinePipeline InOut PipelineIn In OutOut InPipeline

0000000000101100

10

20

30

InIn PipelineOutInOutPipelineOutIn In OutPipeline PipelinePipelineOut


CP1ABC ROW

Condemnation

Eminent

Domain

200

0

400

Total

232

To Date

200

0

400

TotalTo Date

120


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 developments may create




18

0

400

800

To Date

182

Total


CP1ABC ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

73

02

71

00

71

00

71

00

71

000

50

100

OutIn PipelineOutInOutIn PipelinePipelineOutOut Pipeline InInPipeline

Public Agency

/ Railroad

230503260

826492

0

50

100

OutIn InPipelineIn OutPipeline PipelineOutOut PipelinePipeline OutInIn

Delivery

800

400

0Total

684

To Date

795

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 public parcels to be identified.





19

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

8895 95

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

DNOSAJJMAMFJan

2018

DNOSAJJMAMFJan

2017

DNOSAJJMay

2016

CP1D - Delivered to DB


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 developments are approved.

CP1D ROW






Plan - Cumulative

Actual - Cumulative

Forecast

Plan

Actual


ROW – CP1D Priority Parcels Delivered to Design-Build by


18 1919

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

J OS M

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

JJ

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

May

2016

JOA N MD Jan

2017

DF M A M A S FO N SD Jan

2018

AA J NJ

CP1D – Delivered to DB


Notes:


extend Plan full delivery to later date.

2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery. Status of two total CP2-3 Priority Parcels: one is pending final design, the other is pending legal settlement.


CP1D ROW



Forecast - CumulativeActual

Plan - CumulativeForecast

Plan

Actual - Cumulative




Notes:

1. Per contract, “planned” to be rebaselined.

2. Contract executed in June 2015; 31 parcels delivered after contract execution.


ROW – CP1D Historic Performance

2 2

1 2

00 1

1 11

1

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 2 0

0

45

50

40

5

Jun

2017

47

6

Aug

2018

Jul

2017

Aug

2017

0

Sep

2017

39

Oct

2017

Nov

2017

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Sep

2018

Jun

2018

Apr

2018

0

May

2018

0

Feb

2018

Jul

2018

0

Mar

2018

0 0

ForecastActual Plan

CP1D Performance


5 32

21 1

0 0 0 1

1

1 0 01

0 01 1

10

10

20

Jul

2017

Apr

2018

22

Jun

2017

Aug

2017

May

2018

2

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

Nov

2017

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

Mar

2018

Jun

2018

CP1D ROW


Actual



#



0 0-45 1 2 -39-4 -1 00


1 1 1

22

0000000000000000

2

4

6

OutIn OutPipeline In OutOutPipelinePipelineOut PipelineInIn PipelineIn

0000000000000000

2

4

6

InOutInPipeline Pipeline PipelineOutPipeline InPipelineOut OutIn OutIn

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

CP1D ROW

Appraisal

Just

Compensation

95 95

200

0

100

TotalTo Date

95 95

200

0

100

To Date Total


Completion

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

approvals.






23

033

0000110101000

10

20

30

InPipelinePipeline OutIn PipelinePipelineOut OutInInPipelineOutIn Out


CP1D ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

120

300

300

310

400

0

10

20

30

In Out PipelineInPipelinePipelineOutInPipelineInOut OutIn Pipeline Out

First Written

Offer

93 95

0

100

200

TotalTo Date

Negotiation

Acquisition

87 95

200

100

0TotalTo Date

Completion








24

0000000000000000

10

20

30

In Out In PipelineInOut InInPipeline Out Pipeline OutPipeline Out Pipeline

2103

003

10

410

5

000

10

20

30

PipelineIn OutInOutInOut OutIn InPipeline Pipeline PipelinePipelineOut


CP1D ROW

Condemnation

Eminent

Domain

23

0

20

40

TotalTo Date

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

TotalTo Date


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

Notes:






25

0

2

4

6

1

TotalTo Date


CP1D ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

3

0

2

1

00

1

00

1

00

1

000

1

2

3

OutPipelinePipelineOut InPipeline PipelineOutInInOutOut InPipelineIn

Public Agency

/ Railroad

0

11

0

1

0

1111

0

1

0000

2

4

6

PipelineIn InOut PipelineOutIn OutPipelinePipelineOut In OutPipelineIn

Delivery

88

200

0

100

TotalTo Date

95

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.


transferred to DB.

1

Notes:






26

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

117

526

437

849

697

849

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

MPre-

FY15

-16

DOJA M

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

J OAJN JS O Jan

2019

D Jan

2016

F M A DM A S O N SDJan

2017

F JM A J A MS Jan

2018

N MF A M J O JN D F A J A S N

CP2-3 - Delivered to DB


Notes:

1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with the “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on design developments.


3. Total number of parcels will be updated as new parcels added for design developments and utility relocations are approved.

CP2-3 ROW



ROW ACQ Plan

Actual Actual - Cumulative

Rebaseline ROW ACQ Plan - Cumulative

Forecast Forecast - Cumulative

Rebaseline - Cumulative




ROW – CP2-3 Priority Parcels Delivered to Design-Build by


26

4040

0

5

10

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

M A

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

SO

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

D MJan

2016

AF JM Jan

2019

J MJ A JS DO N Jan

2017

NF FM MA S D Jan

2018

MA NJ FJA D M A JO

CP2-3 - Delivered to DB


Notes:


2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery depending on phase in acquisition process (such as hearing scheduled, suit filed, DGS contract approval, or

parcels certified for delivery) or stage in the design process.


CP2-3 ROW



Actual

Forecast


Actual - Cumulative

Rebaseline





Notes:


2. Contract executed in June 2015; 31 parcels delivered after contract execution


ROW – CP2-3 Historic Performance

815

9 7 9 10 133 2

1

10 76

0 0

47

23

0

7

52

9 61

8

0

40

20

140

33

Oct

2017

Sep

2018

Mar

2018

Jul

2017

Jun

2017

1

Aug

2017

135

Aug

2018

Nov

2017

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

Apr

2018

Jul

2018

May

2018

Jun

2018

5 7

Sep

2017

Dec

2017

5 4

CP2-3 Performance


79

9

9

68 9

11

9

6

2 2

8

15

3

97

9 10

13

3 2

5

0

5

10

15

1

Jan

2018

Mar

2018

Jun

2017

Jul

2017

Nov

2017

Aug

2017

Oct

2017

Sep

2017

Dec

2017

Feb

2018

1

Apr

2018

3

May

2018

June

2018

CP2-3 ROW


Actual



#



-448 -3 9 78 -126 7 12 -21

Actual ForecastRebaseline


1 -2 -51

29

2619

0

45

55

45

61

50

176

61

920

0

20

40

60

80

InOutIn PipelinePipelineOut InPipelineOut PipelineOutIn InOut Pipeline

1211

20

3416

19

6

1910

20

91210

0

20

40

60

OutInOut PipelinePipelinePipelineInOut Out PipelinePipelineIn InOut In

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

CP2-3 ROW

Appraisal

Just

Compensation

800

0

400

1,200

849

Total

707

To Date

1,200

800

400

0

849694

TotalTo Date


Completion


approvals.






30

38

1016

3228

3

57

1722

52

84

56

2

12

0

20

40

60

OutPipelineOut In PipelineInPipeline OutOut InInIn PipelineOutPipeline


CP2-3 ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

3

181110

51

1422

1422

410

161112

0

20

40

60

In InPipelineOutInPipeline PipelineOut PipelineOut In Out PipelineOutIn

First Written

Offer

800

1,200

0

400 849

TotalTo Date

682

Negotiation

Acquisition

800

400

0

1,200

430849

To Date Total

Completion








31

35

58

32

514

231812

29

106

33

04

0

50

100

PipelinePipelineIn In OutInPipelineOutIn OutOut PipelinePipelineOutIn

74

03

71

44

71

02

69

78

68

000

50

100

InOutIn Pipeline Out In OutPipeline Out OutIn In PipelinePipeline Pipeline


CP2-3 ROW

Condemnation

Eminent

Domain

400

200

0To Date Total

315

400

200

0TotalTo Date

133


Completion

• Pipeline comprised of RONs being processed by the Authority and ROW

consultants and awaiting adoption by PWB.



1

1

Notes:






32

20

0

20

To Date Total


CP2-3 ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

42

04

38

00

38

00

38

00

38

100

20

40

60

Pipeline Out InPipeline PipelineOut InOutInIn Pipeline OutIn PipelineOut

Public Agency

/ Railroad

13

10

14

54

15

13

13

22

13

32

0

20

40

60

PipelineOutOut Pipeline InIn Out PipelinePipeline InPipelineOut OutIn In

Delivery

1,200

800

0

400

Total

437

To Date

849

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.


transferred to DB.

1

Notes:






33

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

152

125

172

110

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jan

2018

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

A

2016

A

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

FJ JM FJ A MS O SN D Jan

2017

AF M M JJ A OS N JD A MOM J N D Jan

2019

M A J

CP4 - Delivered to DB


CP4 ROW



Actual

ROW ACQ Plan Rebaseline

Forecast Actual - Cumulative

ROW ACQ Plan - Cumulative



Notes:

1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on new parcels added for

design developments and utility relocations.


3. Total number of parcels will be updated as new parcels added for design developments and utility relocations are approved.




ROW – CP4 Priority Parcels Delivered to Design-Build by


51

54

70

0

10

20

30

0

20

40

60

80

MJan

2017

M

Parcels Delivered

(Cumulative)

Parcels Delivered

(Monthly)

MA Jan

2019

OA

2016

JM AJ S O N D F A J J S N D SJan

2018

F M A M J J A O N D F M A

CP4 - Delivered to DB


CP4 ROW




Actual - CumulativeForecast

RebaselineActual

Rebaseline - CumulativeNotes:

1. The “Plan” schedule shown previously has been replaced with the “Rebaseline” schedule that reflects current contractual delivery schedule based on new parcels added

for design developments and utility relocations.

2. “Forecast”: Continually refined based on expected delivery which is driven by factors such as design developments, owner suit, and phase in the acquisition process

(OP hearing/settlement, DGS contract approval, or certification for delivery).


4. Planned delivery spike in delivery September 2017 is due to major design change (ATC 11).

5. Planned delivery spike in August 2018 is due to major change (Sunny Gem and Wasco Viaduct). Source: July 6, 2018 ROW Weekly Report



Notes:



ROW – CP4 Historic Performance

510

58 4

1

8 7 9

18

2 2

0

15

1 0

3

06

1

60

50

0

100

Sep

2018

0

Dec

2017

Aug

2017

Apr

2018

Jun

2017

Jul

2017

Mar

2018

4

42

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

30

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

May

2018

0

Jun

2018

7

Aug

2018

1

52

Nov

2017

1

Jul

2018

RebaselineActual Forecast

CP4 Performance


5

7 86

4

58

11

107

15

10

58

4

8 79

18

2 2

0

5

10

15

20

Jan

2018

Jun

2017

Aug

2017

2

Jul

2017

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

Feb

2018

1

Nov

2017

4

May

2018

Dec

2017

Mar

2018

Apr

2018

0

Jun

2018

CP4 ROW


Actual



#



65 10 1771 3-34 -14 1


2 2 0

36

0000000000000000

2

4

6

PipelineOutInPipelineOutIn PipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutIn

2

00

2

00

2

0

2

00

3

0

3 3

0

2

4

6

OutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOutInPipelineOut PipelineIn

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

CP4 ROW

Appraisal

Just

Compensation

200

0

100

Total

172

To Date

164

200

0

100

Total

172

To Date

164


Completion


approvals.






37

533

58

3

107

3

1416

5

25

139

0

10

20

30

PipelinePipelineOut Out PipelineIn PipelineOut InIn InOut OutPipelineIn


CP4 ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

03

03

0033

0

6

033

000

10

20

30

In Out OutPipeline InIn Out Pipeline InIn PipelinePipeline Out Out Pipeline

First Written

Offer 0

200

100

Total

172

To Date

164

Negotiation

Acquisition

200

0

100

To Date

135

Total

172

Completion








38

534400

40

40

70

730

0

20

40

60

Out InPipelinePipeline In InOutOut Out PipelinePipeline Out PipelineInIn

8

43

98

0

17

20

19

24

17

9

00

5

10

15

20

Pipeline In PipelineOutOutInInIn OutPipelineOut PipelineOut InPipeline


CP4 ROW

Condemnation

Eminent

Domain

98

100

50

0TotalTo Date

33

0

10

20

30

40

TotalTo Date


Completion

• Pipeline comprised of Resolution of Necessities (RONs) being processed by the

Authority and ROW consultants and awaiting adoption by Public Works Board

(PWB).



1

1

Notes:






39

0

2

4

6

TotalTo Date

1


CP4 ROWPRELIMINARY MODELING OUTPUTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

7

034

004

004

004

000

10

20

30

Pipeline In Out InOut PipelineIn PipelinePipelineOut PipelineIn OutInOut

Public Agency

/ Railroad

11

00

11

2

85

225

18

1310910

0

10

20

30

OutOut OutIn In Pipeline PipelineInOutPipelinePipelineIn In PipelineOut

Delivery

100

0

200

TotalTo Date

129172

Completion

• Current parcel count only includes public parcels with Accessors Panel Number

(APNs) and value. Public Roadway parcels will be defined to add to the total

number of distinct parcels.


transferred to DB.

1

Notes:






40

800

0

0

900

1,000

300

600

400

500

700

100

200

800

-100

200

400

600

1,200

1,400

Expenditure

(Cumulative)

26

O

35

Expenditure

(Monthly)

Through

Jun 2017

J

15

FA S

103

D Jan

2018

789

DM M

1,107

J A

3

S

3

Jan

2019

JO

12

N

31540

44

M M

1,286840

2313

774

708

840

1325

2512

3

15

3

4448

335

3

4829 83

4714 822

42

4 3 3

A-58

15 3 3 22 223 21 3 21 16 10 10 8

FN JA

803

3

Total ROW Expenditure by MonthForecast vs. 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 a 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. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.

7. The forecast source is now the Capital Outlay report which captures all funding. The FCP only captured FRA (ARRA) eligible costs.




Sources:

1. Capital Outlay Report, August 2018

2. Funding Contribution Plan, December 2015


Original FCP Forecast (December 2012)

December 2015 FCP Forecast

Actual

August 2018 Capital Outlay Forecast

December 2015 FCP Forecast - Cumulative

August 2018 Capital Outlay Forecast - Cumulative

Actual - Cumulative


0

600

300

500

0

800

700

300

500

400

600

100100

200

400

200

N

749

16

F MN

4

A M

Expenditure

(Cumulative)

342

2314

686

Expenditure

(Monthly)

Through

Jun 2017

AMJ

3

S O

565

1

JD

3

Jan

2018

A SJ J O

347

MD Jan

2019

F A

441

320

565

142

11 4 1

54 1

1020 41

201

13

2 1

13

2 1

13

3 1

15 301

64 1 6 115 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 6 6 6 4 46

Notes:


2. Does not include CP1D (North Extension) acquisition costs.


4. CP1 ROW budget in Original FCP is $441M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by June 2015.






ROW-CP1 Expenditure by MonthForecast vs. Actual

ROW-CP1 Expenditure Schedule

($ in millions)

CP1 ROW



Actual



Actual - Cumulative



Sources:





ROW-CP2-3 Expenditure Schedule

($ in millions)



ROW-CP2-3 Expenditure by MonthForecast vs. Actual

CP2-3 ROW

Notes:


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.


5. March 2017 actual expenditure includes ROW Working Capital Allocation (WCA) reversal reallocation.


200

200

50

0

150300

100

350

0

50

100

150

400

250

250

-100

-50

2 4

Expenditure

(Cumulative)

Jan

2019

A

Expenditure

(Monthly)

S

7

Jan

2018

226

179

19

MDThrough

Jun 2017

A

225

JO M

16

N D F

2

A

10

M

7

248

3

296

J S O

256

74

FN M

4

A

389226

8

283

4 2

57 2

15

4 2

13

2

24112

166 2 0 2 5 2

-61

8 2 11 22 212

2 11 2 11 4 4 4 4

JJ

11




Actual



Actual - Cumulative


Sources:





60

100

140

180

0

120

0 20

160

80

40

100

-20

20

40

60

80

120

140

160

Expenditure

(Cumulative)

701

Through

Jun 2017

A

Monthly

(Cumulative)

07

DJ A S

27

NJO

175

169

11

N MJan

2018

F M

1

126

J A S O

1

149

D

138

4949

5 5 1 5 1

37

2 1

10

1 1

14

1 1

10

176

19

0 1

-3

3 5 0 5 4 00 0 4 0

11

13 4 1

46

43 4

Notes:


2. CP4 ROW parcel delivery data will be added to Operations Report once deliveries ramp-up.


4. CP4 ROW budget in Original FCP is $46M, and was forecasted to be fully spent by June 2015.




ROW-CP4 Expenditure by MonthForecast vs. Actual

ROW-CP4 Expenditure Schedule

($ in millions)

CP4 ROW







Actual


Actual - Cumulative


Sources:





Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


Project Development Clearance Metrics - Context

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

– Schedule and physical percent complete.

– Key milestones.

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

• The report includes re-baselined program, regional consultant (RC), and

engineering and environmental consultant (EEC) cost forecasts, as of June

2018.

• Program, RC, and EEC budgets and schedules have been updated following

Board approval of the 2018 Business Plan and Program Baseline Delivery Plan.

• Forecasted costs are based on performance and trends, with planned costs

remaining set.

• Monthly actual costs come from RC and EEC invoices the Authority receives.

• Project Development Milestone Schedule page provides an overview of

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.


Project Development Milestones Schedule (to ROD)Information through June 30, 20181

Project Development

Segment Progress to Date Next Steps

San Francisco to

San Jose (F2J)

• Caltrain reviewed Draft Preliminary Engineering for Project

Definition (PEPD). Planning to distribute to cities and

municipalities in late July.

• Continued to confirm rail operating assumptions for baseline

alternative.

• The project team continued to evaluate passing track options

and operating characteristics for the corridor.

• Draft EIR/EIS Chapter 1 – Authority revised Purpose and Need

to incorporate program-wide direction from legal review.

• Continue to advance PEPD and develop an outreach strategy for discussing the

design with Caltrain and local municipalities.

• Move forward the development of selected technical reports and EIR/EIS sections

and chapters.

• Authority senior staff will continue to meet with Caltrain executive staff regarding

the 4th and King Station, passing track options and blended operations. Once a

strategy is agreed upon, the project team will conduct passing track workshops

with various stakeholder groups (e.g., community working groups, individual cities

potentially affected by passing tracks, and the Local Policy Makers Group) to allow

for more informed discussions.

San Jose to CV

Wye (J2Y)

• EEC continued to revise EIR/EIS administrative draft sections and

technical reports to incorporate HSR environmental back-check

comments.

• Conducted stakeholder outreach meetings to advance Romero

Ranch, other design refinements, and design of baseline.

alternative extending blended electrified passenger service within

the UPRR right-of-way to Gilroy.

• EEC to complete revision of EIR/EIS administrative draft sections and technical

reports to incorporate HSR environmental back-check comments.

• Reach stable project description that incorporates 2018 Business Plan baseline

alternative by 7/13/18.

• Gather input from stakeholder in-progress reviews of preliminary engineering of

new alternative and other changes identified in 2018 Business Plan to establish

project footprint for environmental analysis, and prepare Draft PEPD plan set.

• Advance field reconnaissance and environmental clearance for geotechnical

investigations needed for construction procurement in Santa Clara County (J2Y)

and Merced County (J2Y and CVY).

Central Valley

Wye (M-F)

• Completed HSR finishing team review of Administrative Draft

Supplemental EIR/EIS to address cooperating agency comments.

• Submitted Administrative Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS to FRA for

backcheck review, completed June 29.

• Revised Checkpoint C Summary Report to address minor

comments from USACE and USEPA.

• Circulate Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for internal approval and signature.

• Forward Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS to FRA for Administration review and

signature.

• Submit revised Checkpoint C Summary Report to USACE and USEPA for

concurrence.

• Prepare supporting materials for public release of Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

Locally- Generated

Alternative

(F-B)2

• Submitted the Administrative Draft Final Supplemental EIR/EIS to

the FRA for review.

• Completed review of the interim terminal station technical

appendix.

• Complete and submit the Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit application.

• Prepare the Administrative Final EIR/EIS materials to support stakeholder open

houses in advance of the October Board meeting.

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

1

2

3

4

1Program

Priority #


Project Development Milestones Schedule (to ROD)Information through June 30, 20181

Project Development

Segment Progress to Date Next Steps

LA to Anaheim • Incorporated comments from initial round of review on

administrative draft EIR/EIS.

• Scheduled review workshops for legal review of administrative

draft EIR/EIS and supporting technical reports.

• Provided review and back-check of various Link US draft

documents.

• Continued preparation of Outreach Plan updates and materials.

• Complete legal and finishing team reviews for the administrative draft EIR/EIS.

• Hold public workshops leading to Preliminary Preferred Alternative

recommendation.

• Continue coordination with Metro, Metrolink and other operators on LA Union

Station Program and shared corridor strategies.

Burbank to LA • Scheduled review/back-check workshops for review of

administrative draft EIR/EIS and supporting technical reports.

• Developed conceptual design (5%) on refined Burbank Airport

Station Option.

• Continued preparation of Outreach Plan updates and materials.

• Finalize preliminary design and initiate footprint delineation for refined Burbank

Station Option.

• Host coordination meetings with City of Burbank and Burbank Airport to rollout

refined Burbank Station Option.

• Hold public workshops leading to Preliminary Preferred Alternative

recommendation.

• Complete reviews for the administrative draft EIR/EIS.

Palmdale to

Burbank

• Completed consistency reviews and back-check and initiated legal

review for administrative draft chapters/sections.

• Updated project definition to be consistent with 2018 baseline.

• Prepared Checkpoint B document for submittal to agencies.

• Compile the Administrative Draft EIR/EIS and submit for remaining legal review

• Update documents to incorporate changes in project definition.

• Plan to submit Checkpoint B document to USACE and USEPA after resolving FRA

and legal comments.

Bakersfield to

Palmdale

• Held consultation meeting to discuss potential minimization

design option near Cesar Chavez National Center with consulting

parties, including with the National Park Service.

• Updated project definition to incorporate this design option.

• Completed consistency reviews and back check of the

administrative draft chapters/sections.

• Prepare the Administrative Draft EIR/EIS legal and FRA review.

• Continue coordination with the resource agencies.

• Continue consultation with the Cesar Chavez National Center (CCNC).

• Update PEPD and Administrative Draft sections to incorporate CCNC design

option.

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.

1. Text identified in red indicate change from previous month.

6

7

8

1Program

Priority #

5


Global Project Development Budget includes activities

involved in the scope at the program and segment levels

Global BudgetEnv. Agency

Costs

Internal,

External Legal

Costs

Env. Services

Division,

Costs

RDP CostsRegional

Consultants

Cost Categories for Scope and Budget DefinitionCost Categories

▪ Regional consultants’ and Engineering

and Environmental consultants’ costs

include project management, outreach,

planning, engineering and environmental

activities.

▪ RDP costs include environmental

management, coordination, and technical

reviews.

▪ Environmental Services Division

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.

▪ Internal, External Legal costs are

costs associated with in-house and

outside legal reviews.

PR

OG

RA

M L

EV

EL

SEG

MEN

T LEV

EL

Project Development

Notes:1) November 2017 reporting update reflects the reallocation of costs to more clearly distinguish between Regional Consultants and Program Costs which include

categories identified in Gray.

2) Forecasts align with November 2017 Schedule ROD dates. These will be updated in the September 2018 report.

3) Program and Project Mitigation Budgets and Forecasts are included within the ROW Construction Budget (refer to Total ROW Expenditure by Month slide).


Program Level Budget (Non-Section Specific Costs)1

2.0

50

4.0

0.0

100

4.5

40

0

3.5

20

5.0

5.5

2.5

0.5

6.0

10

1.0

80

70

1.5

3.0

30

60

90

110

120

Jan

2018

A Jan

2019

$ in millions

cumulative

J AM

$ in millions

by month

Jan

2020

J O

77.2

A O F JPre-

FY16

-17

J S O N D SF M AJ A SM D A M N D

118.1

F MN J J A S O N D

57.1

M

Actual

Budget

Forecast

Actual - FY 16/17-19/20 Cumulative

Budget - FY 16/17-19/20 Cumulative

Forecast - FY 16/17-19/20 Cumulative

Project Development

FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21



Notes: 1) Based on actual costs and future estimates for the Authority environmental staff, RDP Environmental, in-house and external legal review and resource agency staffing agreements

and review.

2) Budget for RDP environmental work is only approved through August 2018.

3) Program forecasts have been updated for July 1, 2017 through January 2020 when the last project-level EIR/EIS is to be completed. These will be updated in the September 2018

report.


Segment ProgressComplete 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

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

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 Jose2

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Jan-09

Jan-09

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Dec-19

Dec-19

65%

Dec-19

Dec-19

52%

Mar-20

Mar-20

42%

Mar-20

Mar-20

30%

Mar-21

Mar-21

0%

Mar-21

Mar-21

0%

Mar-21 Mar-21

San Jose to

Merced

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Sep-19

Sep-19

69%

Sep-19

Sep-19

59%

Dec-19

Dec-19

27%

Dec-19

Dec-19

28%

Nov-20

Nov-20

0%

Nov-20

Nov-20

0%

Nov-20 Nov-20

Central Valley

Wye (M–F)

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Sep-18

Sep-18

90%

Sep-18

Sep-18

95%

Jul-19

Jul-19

0%

Jul-19

Jul-19

0%

Jul-19 Jul-19

Locally Generated

Alternative (F–B)

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Oct-18

Oct-18

70%

Oct-18

Oct-18

80%

Oct-18 Oct-18

LA to AnaheimPlan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Nov-18

Nov-18

80%

Nov-18

Nov-18

85%

Nov-18

Nov-18

60%

Nov-18

Nov-18

60%

Oct-19

Oct-19

0%

Oct-19

Oct-19

0%

Oct-19 Oct-19

Burbank to LAPlan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Nov-18

Nov-18

70%

Nov-18

Nov-18

75%

Sep-19

Sep-19

50%

Sep-19

Sep-19

50%

Jul-20

Jul-20

0%

Jul-20

Jul-20

0%

Jul-20 Jul-20

Palmdale to

Burbank

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Nov-18

Nov-18

70%

Nov-18

Nov-18

75%

Dec-19

Dec-19

45%

Dec-19

Dec-19

45%

Jan-21

Jan-21

0%

Jan-21

Jan-21

0%

Jan-21 Jan-21

Bakersfield to

Palmdale

Plan

Forecast

% Complete

Complete

Complete

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Jan-16

Mar-16

100%

Complete

Complete

100%

Oct-18

Oct-18

82%

Oct-18

Oct-18

85%

Jul-19

Jul-19

65%

Jul-19

Jul-19

65%

Jun-20

Jun-20

0%

Jun-20

Jun-20

0%

Jun-20 Jun-20

HMF3Plan

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

Project Development Schedule (to ROD)-Information through June 30, 20181

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Notes:

1. Dates identified in red indicate change from previous month. Green cells indicates that the EIR/EIS or other milestone has been completed.

2. Percent complete reduced to account for new scope added to align with 2018 Baseline.

3. Environmental clearance approach on hold and under review.1

Program

Priority #Completed

Document


1

2

3

4

Project Development Schedule (to ROD) - Information through June 30, 20181

1. Text identified in green indicates environmental document completed. Text identified in red indicate change from previous month.

Segment Schedule Status and Mitigation Strategies

Merced to FresnoEIR certified and project approved May 2012; FRA ROD issued September 2012

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

CV Electrical

Interconnections

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 Jose

Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in March 2021

San Jose to Merced Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in November 2020

Central Valley Wye (M–F) Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in July 2019

Locally Generated

Alternative (F–B)

Schedule re-baselined to achieve ROD in October 2018

Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS released for public review and comment November 9, 2017. The comment period concluded January 16, 2018.

LA to Anaheim Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in October 2019

Burbank to LA Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in July 2020

Palmdale to Burbank Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in January 2021

Bakersfield to Palmdale Schedule updated consistent with June 2018 Board-approved baseline to achieve ROD in June 2020

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.

5

6

7

8

1Program

Priority #

Completed

Document


San Francisco to San Jose

2018 2019 2020 2021

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 03 04 05 06

San Francisco to San Jose

9/1/18 - 3/31/20

Preliminary Preferred Alternative

7/15/18

7/1/17 - 12/31/19

Alternatives Analysis - complete

Purpose and Need - complete

Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review

Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD 1/25/19 - 3/31/21

Project Development

20

40

20

80

10

15

100

-5

0

5

60

0

59.0

Pre-

FY16

-17

$ in millions

by month

MJJ JMMOM AJ J

$ in millions

cumulative

AA S O N D OSJan

2018

F M AA J FNN

62.0

OFD Jan

2019

SA DS

75.5

Jan

2020

JA M N D

Actual

Forecast


Budget Budget - FY 16/17-19/20 Cumulative


1

Notes:

1) Schedule reflects new milestone dates included in the Project Delivery Baseline Report adopted by the Board in June 2018.

2) All estimates are preliminary and subject to change.

3) For financial estimates, actuals have been updated through June 2018. Forecast cost are through January 2020.

4) Cumulative actuals to-date and cumulative budget are aligned with Capital Outlay and Expenditure Report, August 2018.

5) Budget and Forecast have not been updated to reflect the revised ROD date changes. These revisions will appear in the September 2018 report.


San Jose to Merced

2018 2019 2020

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

6/1/18 - 12/31/19

Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative / ROD

Purpose and Need - complete

San Jose to Central Valley Wye

7/15/18



Alternative Analysis - complete

7/1/17 - 9/30/19

10/22/18 - 11/30/20

Project Development

050

-5

200

150

100

20

10

15

0

5

$ in millions

by month

M

95.6

A SJMOPre-

FY16

-17

OFO

$ in millions

cumulative

J JDA Jan

2018

S N D SF M J NJ Jan

2019

A NJS M

122.8

M A A O

134.4

D JJan

2020

F M A A N D

Actual

Budget

Forecast




2

Notes:



3) For financial estimates, actuals have been updated through June 2018. Forecast cost are through October 2020.




Central Valley Wye (M-F)

2018 2019 2020

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 SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD 3/6/18 - 7/31/19

Central Valley Wye

7/15/18

Preliminary Preferred Alternative - complete

Alternative Analysis – complete

Draft SEIR/SEIS - Public / Agency Review 7/1/17 – 9/30/18

Purpose and Need – complete

Project Development

2

10 80

0 0

440

6

20

860

AJan

2018

$ in millions

by month

N O

53.3

FD

$ in millions

cumulative

Pre-

FY16

-17

J OJA S MO N DD F M AA M J

29.4

AAJ S

49.7

Jan

2019

F M Jan

2020

JM S NO AN M J J S D

Actual - FY 16/17-19/20 CumulativeActual

Budget



Forecast

3

Notes:



3) Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Merced to Fresno EIR/EIS, completed in September 2012.

4) For financial estimates, actuals have been updated through June 2018. Forecast cost are through March 2019.




Locally Generated Alternative (F-B) 2018 2019 2020

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 SEIR/SEIS – Pref. Alt./ROD


Preliminary Preferred Alternative – complete

11/10/17 - 10/4/18

Draft SEIR/SEIS - Public / Agency Review - complete

7/15/18

Bakersfield F Street Alignment


Project Development

20

30

20

15

-5

10

0

5

25

5

15

10

30

0

25

-5

$ in millions

by month

M

27.7

J Jan

2019

O AM N

$ in millions

cumulative

SPre-

FY16

-17

J A J

25.0

O NN Jan

2018

D A M OJ A JS MD DMF A M J OAF N Jan

2020

F A J S DS

4

Notes:


2) Purpose and Need and the Alternatives Analysis were achieved as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield EIR/EIS, completed in June 2014.

3) Budget, actuals, and forecast re-set with approval by the Board, October 2016. No adjustments were made in June 2018.




Actual

Forecast

Budget Budget - FY16/17-19/20 Cumulative

Forecast - FY16/17-19/20 Cumulative

Actual - FY16/17-19/20 Cumulative

LA to Anaheim 2018 2019 2020

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

5/21/18 - 10/31/19




LA to Anaheim


Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative/ROD

7/15/18

7/1/17 - 11/30/18

3/15/18 - 11/30/18

Project Development

15

0

120

60

0

20

40

10

5

80

100

NAPre-

FY16

-17

$ in millions

by month

MJan

2018

72.7

60.6

NS

$ in millions

cumulative

OJJ MA OS JO JN D F M A M SJ O N Jan

2019

D F A AJ A

87.6

D Jan

2020

F M M J A S D

Actual

Budget – FY 17/20 CumulativeBudget

Forecast

Actual – FY 17/20 Cumulative

Forecast – FY 17/20 Cumulative

5

Notes:







Burbank to LA 2018 2019 2020

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


7/15/18

Burbank to LA





7/1/17 - 11/30/18

3/15/18 - 9/30/19

5/31/18 - 7/31/20

Project Development

15

40

20

0

10

0

30

25

20

50

5

10

30

NOS

$ in millions

by month

JFA OD

$ in millions

cumulative

Pre-

FY16

-17

SJ Jan

2020

A S Jan

2018

O N FF M M

11.7

JJ DAJ A MN D

21.1

D Jan

2019

M AM JJ A

30.9

O N SM A

Budget – FY 17/20 Cumulative

Actual Actual – FY 17/20 Cumulative

Budget

Forecast – FY 17/20 CumulativeForecast

6

Notes:







Palmdale to Burbank

2018 2019 2020 2021

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 03

4/12/18 - 12/31/19

Palmdale to Burbank


7/15/18


10/23/18 - 1/31/21Final EIR/EIS – Preferred Alternative/ROD


Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review 7/1/17 - 11/30/18

Project Development

505

100

0

10

15025

15

200

20

0

30

NOOAJ M MAFPre-

FY16

-17

$ in millions

by month

M

154.1

136.2

N

$ in millions

cumulative

SA NS O N D Jan

2018

F M A

121.9

MSJ J O D Jan

2019

MJJ A D DJan

2020

F A J J A S

Actual


Forecast

Budget



7

Notes:



3) For financial estimates, actuals have been updated through June 2018. Forecast cost are through March 2020.




Bakersfield to Palmdale2018 2019 2020

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


Alternative Analysis- complete

7/1/17 - 10/31/18

Bakersfield to Palmdale

Final EIR/EIS – Pref. Alternative ROD


6/2/18 - 6/30/20

Draft EIR/EIS - Public / Agency Review 3/15/18 - 7/31/19

Project Development

$ in millions

by month

8

Notes:



3) For financial estimates, actuals have been updated through June 2018. Forecast cost are through September 2019.




7/15/18

560

40

0

10

0

100

15

120

140

80

20

A FJan

2020

Pre-

FY16

-17

$ in millions

by month

AA MDSAJ

$ in millions

cumulative

JA OS O N JD DJan

2018

61.5

F M

79.5

M J SA O N OFJan

2019

M M J A

90.6

N M J J S N D

Forecast

Actual

Budget




Heavy Maintenance Facility1

2017 2018 2019 2020

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


Heavy Maintenance Facility


7/15/18

Alternatives Analysis – complete



Project Development

0

4

0

2

1 1

3

5 5

4

2

3

Pre-

FY16

-17

N F

$ in millions

by month

JMA

$ in millions

cumulative

0.6

AJan

2020

J MS O N D OJan

2018

F OJan

2019

OA NM AJ JJJ A S FN

3.0

M

2.2

D M A S D M J A S D

Actual


Forecast

Budget



Notes:

1) Environmental clearance approach on hold and under review.




Dates to be Determined


Four-month look ahead - milestones and other key

deliverables, all sections/projects: Information through June 30, 20181

Milestone Project Section Due Date % Completion Status

Footprint Validation San Francisco to San Jose August 2018 90%

Date changed to reflect

addition of alternative and

other changes identified in

2018 Business Plan.

Footprint Validation San Jose to Merced October 2018 80%


addition of new alternative

and other changes identified

in 2018 Business Plan.

Publish Draft Supplemental

EIR/EIS for public review

Central Valley Wye

(M-F)September 2018 90%

FRA completed back-check

of Draft EIR/EIS on June 29,

2018.

Prepare administrative final

EIR/EIS for first FRA review

Locally Generated

Alternative (F-B)July 2018 85% On Target

Project Development

Notes:1 Text and dates identified in red indicate change from previous month.

1

2

3

4

5

1Program

Priority #


Prepare administrative draft

EIR/EIS for NEPA reviewLos Angeles to Anaheim August 2018 85%

Delayed because of preparation

and necessary review; draft

technical studies and chapters

under internal review.

5

Recommendation of

preferred alternative to

Board

Los Angeles to Anaheim November 2018 85%Date changed to reflect

changes in 2018 Baseline

Recommendation of


Board

Burbank to Los Angeles November 2018 75%


changes to project definition

in 2018 Baseline

Obtain Checkpoint B

concurrence Palmdale to Burbank September 2018 65%



in 2018 Baseline

6

7

62

Milestone Segment Due Date % Completion Status

Recommendation of


Board

Palmdale to Burbank November 2018 75%



in 2018 Baseline

Recommendation of


BoardBakersfield to Palmdale October 2018 85%



in 2018 Baseline

Project Development

Four-month look ahead - milestones and other key

deliverables, all sections/projects: Information through June 30, 20181

Notes: 1 Text and dates identified in red indicate change from previous month.

1Program

Priority #


7

8

63

Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


90

25

132

104

25

132

104

10 12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Central Valley, North, South, and Valley to Valley

Executed and Unexecuted Agreements

Third Party AgreementsPRELIMINARY DATA – SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

90

NorthCV

9

South

31

1717 16

Total V to V

Executed Count Prior Quarter (Ending March 2018)

Executed Count Current Quarter (Through June 2018)

Finalized Negotiations and/or Processing Count Current Quarter (Through June 2018)

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. Valley to Valley 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 June 30, 2018

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

0

36

2

76

9


010

6511

84

001002

9

104103103101

93

9387 100100 100 100 101 101 104103

110110110110 110 110

95

8685

102109 110109109108108

100108

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

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

Dec

2017NovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJanDecPre Dec

2016

84

V to V Agreements (excluding Railroads)

(in number of agreements)

Third Party Agreements



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.

3. Agreements have been ready for execution and have been on hold due to budgetary constraints of the program.

4. New baseline will be prepared for the 2018 Business Plan.

108

0 0 0 1

Jan4

00 0 01

101 102

Feb4

1 0

Mar4 Apr4 May4

0

June4

100

63

0

7


01 0

104

66

30.0 27.0

92.0

107.0

160.0

107.0

69.4

5.0

126.5

18.527.0

82.2 80.9

5.2 5.6

54.8

14.4

27.7

2.2

26.3

1.27.2

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

160

80

100

120

140

$0

180

20

40

60

CP2-3: P. Sum

30.8

CP1: PG&ECP1: AT&T CP4: P. Sum CP1-4: BNSFCP1: P.

Sum AT&T

CP1: P.

Sum PG&E

CP1: SJVRRCP1: UPRR

Current Invoiced Amounts, Authorized/Committed Amounts, and

Board Authorized Amounts

($ in millions)

Third Party AgreementsPRELIMINARY DATA – SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Authorized/Committed InvoicedBoard AuthorizedNotes:

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.


3 43 3 3

19.9

39.4

5.0

19

4


Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


Contract Management Metrics - Context

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

CP1 – Contract Balance Remaining

($ in millions)

Contract Management CP1 - Contingency

CP1 – Contingency Balance Remaining

($ in millions)

(% of contract balance remaining)

Oct 2017Sep 2017End of

FY-16-17

End of

FY2015-

16

Jan 2018

$51

(6.7%)

Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Nov 2017

$43

(6.3%)

Dec 2017 Feb 2018 Mar 2018

$46

(5.4%)

Apr 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018

$36

(4.4%)

$51

(6.1%)

$53

(6.8%)$51

(6.8%)$46

(6.5%)$44

(6.3%)

$59

(8.7%)$50

(7.0%)$49

(7.0%)$41

(5.9%)

Oct 2017 Jun 2018Sep 2017

$715

Jan 2018End of

FY2015

-16

Jul 2017

$703

Dec 2017 Apr 2018Aug 2017 Nov 2017 Feb 2018 Mar 2018 May 2018

$851 $830 $817 $777 $763 $749 $712 $702 $680 $674 $698

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.

4. As approved by the Board in September, $35 million was transferred from the Provisional Sums to the CP1 Contingency.

5. The Board approved $20m additional contingency (Resolution #HSRA 18-02) in Mar 2018.

6. The Board approved $40m additional third party provisional sum in April 2018.

End of

FY2016-17

End of

FY2016-17

1

3 4

Source: June 30, 2018

CP1 Monthly Status Report.

5


6

70

CP1 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency Value

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 $777.3M $763.5M $749.0M $712.2M $701.6M $679.5M $674.1M $714.6M $702.7M $698.2M

Contingency $152.0M $152.0M $152.0M $187.0MSee Note 3

$187.0M $187.0M $187.0M $187.0M $187.0M $207.0M $207.0M $207.0M $207.0M

Change Orders

(from

contingency)

$106.0M ($5.0M)See Note 2

$15.0M $17.9M $2.0M $0.3M $4.4M $2.5M $1.0M $4.0M $8.6M $1.4M $7.9M

Contingency

Balance

Remaining$46.0M $51.0M $36.0M

$53.1MSee Note 3

$51.1M $50.7M $46.4M $43.9M $42.9M $58.9M $50.3M $48.9 $41.1M

Contingency % 5.4% 6.1% 4.4% 6.8% 6.7% 6.8% 6.5% 6.3% 6.3% 8.7% 7.0% 7.0% 5.9%

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.

3. As approved by the Board in September, $35 million was transferred from the Provisional Sums to the CP1 Contingency.

Source: June 30, 2018 CP1 Monthly Status Report.

1


CP1 Contract Management – Schedule Performance

Index

CP1 Schedule –Total Planned Value of Contract Earned

($ in millions)

Contract Management CP1 - Schedule

600

0

1,400

1,000

200

400

1,200

800

May

2018

Feb

2018

Aug

2018

$933

$816

$ in millions

Through

2016

Jan

2017

Feb

2017

Mar

2017

Oct

2018

Dec

2017

Apr

2017

May

2017

Jun

2017

Jul

2017

Aug

2017

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

$1,048

Nov

2017

$1,023

Jan

2018

Mar

2018

Apr

2018

$777

75%

Jun

2018

Jul

2018

Sept

2018

Nov

2018

$1,352

Dec

2018

Notes:

1. Full contract amount includes bid amount, provisional sums and executed change order amounts.

2. 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.

3. This reflects the Board authorization to transfer $35 million remaining provisional sums to the

contingency. The current contract amount is reduced by $35 million and increased by $17.92million

for the executed change orders from the last period.

Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI)Planned Value March 2018 FCP Forecast Revised Planned Value

Full contract amount: $1.514B

Current completion date: August 2019

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, December –

2017.

2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: June 30, 2018

CP1 Performance Metric Report.

3. FCP Forecast will be updated based on quarterly Funding

Contribution Plan.


CP1 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule

Performance Index

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

FCP Forecast

Value$616.5M $647.4M $688.4M $732.5M $752.3M $814.5M $882.7M $831.3M $882.9M $936.9M $898.5M $975.4M $1,048M

Earned Value/

Invoiced to

DateSee Note 1

$598.1M $614.1M $642.3M$478.9M/

$664.9MSee Note 4

$484.8M/

$680.7MSee Note 4

$493.3M/

$695.4MSee Note 4

$526.9M/

$736.7M See Note 4

$535.6M/

$749.8MSee Note 4

$546.8M/

$772.8M See Note 4

$559.8M/

$782.2MSee Note 4

$564.6M/

$790.3MSee Note 4

$572.8M/

$803.6MSee Note 4

$581.4M/

$816.0MSee Note 4

Planned ValueSee Note 2

$482.1M $502.2M $526.4M $545.0M $567.7M $590.8M $613.9M $639.8M $662.7M $688.6M $715.5M $747.6M $777.3M

Schedule

Performance

Index124% 122% 122% 87%

See note 385% 84% 86% 84% 84% 81% 79% 77% 75%

FY2017-18 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.

3. From September, the methodology used to perform the SPI calculation was revised to more accurately reflect progress indicator in regards to the Contractor’s plan (planned

value). Previously, change orders executed after approval of the baseline schedule were skewing the calculation. This adjustment resulted in a reduction of the earned value

portion of the calculation, and correspondingly, a lower SPI. This SPI reflects schedule performance on the $1.033B of work included in the revised baseline.

4. Earned value shown here is reflective of only the scope included in the revised approved baseline.

Sources: 1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March 2018.

2. EV: June 30, 2018 CP1 Performance Metric Report.


CP2-3 Contract Management – Contingency Value

CP2-3 – Contract Balance Remaining

($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Contingency

CP2-3 – Contingency Balance Remaining

($ in millions)


Sep 2017

$180.7

(18.6%)

Jul 2017

$231.9

(23.3%)

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

$236.2

(23.1%)

$236.7

(22.8%)

$236.2

(22.9%)

$237.4

(23.6%)$231.9

(23.5%) $180.7

(18.5%)

$180.7

(18.6%)

$181.5

(18.9%)

$181.5

(19.2%)

$180.3

(19.3%)

$180.3

(19.6%)

Jan 2018 May 2018Aug 2017

$1,021

Jul 2017End of

FY-16-17

Mar 2018Sep 2017 Nov 2017

$1,006

Oct 2017 Dec 2017 Feb 2018 Apr 2018 Jun 2018

$1,040 $1,032 $959$995 $985 $978 $973 $969 $946 $936 $921




may be necessary.

End of

FY2016-17

End of

FY2016-17Notes:


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. The executed positive and negative change orders are a positive $3.6 million and a negative $4.8 million resulting in a

net decrease of $1.2 million in the current contract amount.

1

3


CP2-3 Monthly Status Report.


CP2-3 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency

Value

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

Contract

Balance

Remaining

$1,040M $1,032M $1,021M $1,006M $995.5M $985.0M $977.7M $973.1M $969.2M $958.7M $946.2M $935.6M $921.4M

Contingency $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M $261.2M

Change Orders

(from

contingency)$24.5M $0.5M $0.0M ($1.2M)

See note 2$5.5M $0.0M $51.2M $0.0M $0.0M ($0.8M)

See note 2$0.0M $1.2M $0.0M

Contingency

Balance

Remaining

$236.7M $236.2M $236.2M $237.4M $231.9M $231.9M $180.7M $180.7M $180.7M $181.5M $181.5M $180.3M $180.3M

Contingency % 22.8% 22.9% 23.1% 23.6% 23.3% 23.5% 18.5% 18.6% 18.6% 18.9% 19.2% 19.3% 19.6%

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).

2. The executed positive and negative change orders for the period result in a net decrease in the

current contract amount.

1


CP2-3 Monthly Status Report.


CP2-3 Contract Management – Schedule Performance

Index

CP2-3 Schedule –Total Planned Value of Contract Earned

($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Schedule

700

0

200

400

1,100

100

300

500

800

900

600

1,000

1,200

1,300$1,286

Mar

2018

Apr

2018

Nov

2017

Jul

2017

Feb

2018

$ in millions

Nov

2018

Apr

2017

Through

2016

Jan

2017

Feb

2017

Mar

2017

May

2017

Jun

2017

Aug

2017

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

Sept

2018

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

$515

(48%)

May

2018

$1,079

Jun

2018

Jul

2018

Aug

2018

Oct

2018

$1,210

Dec

2018

$810

Planned Value March 2018 FCP Forecast Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI)

Notes:


2. 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.

3. Revised planned values are being developed to align with the revised contract amount and

completion date.

Full contract amount: $1.437B

Current completion date: May 2020

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, December – 2017.

2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: June 30, 2018 CP2-3

Performance Metric Report.


Contribution Plan.


CP2-3 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule

Performance Index

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

FCP Forecast

Value$346.4M $373.5M $407.5M $451.2M $427.3M $479.4M $531.6M $533.9M $607.2M $679.4M $589.0M $700.0M $810.1M

Earned Value/

Invoiced to

DateSee Note 1

$350.0M $357.9M $369.2M $382.8M $394.3M $404.9M $463.3M $467.9M $471.8M $481.5M $489.9M $501.0M $515.3M


$501.2M $541.4M $586.2M $627.8M $672.8M $722.1M $771.6M $823.4M $869.8M $926.0M $981.7M $1,036M $1,079M

Schedule

Performance

Index

70% 66% 63% 61% 59% 56% 60% 57% 54% 52% 50% 48% 48%

FY2017-18 CP2-3 – Schedule ($ in millions)

Contract Management CP2-3 - Schedule

Notes

1. This is the Earned Value taken from Performance Metric Reports.


baseline schedule.

3. Revised planned values are being developed to align with the revised contract amount and completion date.

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March 2018.

2. EV: June 30, 2018 CP2-3 Performance Metric Report.


CP4 Contract Management – Contingency Value

CP4 – Contract Balance Remaining

($ in millions)


CP4 – Contingency Balance Remaining

($ in millions)


Dec 2017

$58.2

(16.4%)

Jul 2017 Aug 2017 Nov 2017Sep 2017

$59.2

(15.5%)

May 2018Oct 2017 Feb 2018Jan 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 Jun 2018

$59.5

(15.1%)

$59.5

(15.3%)

$59.2

(15.3%)

$59.2

(15.3%)

$59.2

(15.5%)

$59.2

(15.6%)

$59.2

(15.6%)

$58.9

(15.5%)

$58.9

(15.5%)

$58.9

(16.1%)

$58.9

(16.5%)

Jan 2018

$383$387

End of

FY-15-16

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

$357

Mar 2018 May 2018 Jun 2018

$395 $390 $387 $383 $380 $378 $379 $379 $367 $355

End of

FY2016-17




may be necessary.

End of

FY2016-17Notes:


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

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

Contract

Balance

Remaining

$395.1M $390.0M $387.2M $387.2M $383.1M $383.1M $380.0M $378.3M $378.6M $378.6M $366.7M $356.5M $354.6M

Contingency $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M $62.0M

Change Orders

(from

contingency)$2.5M $0.0M $0.3M $0.0M $0.0M $0.0M $0.0M $0.0M $0.3M $0.0M $0.0M $0.0M $0.7M

Contingency

Balance

Remaining

$59.5M $59.5M $59.2M $59.2M $59.2M $59.2M $59.2M $59.2M $58.9M $58.9M $58.9M $58.9M $58.2M

Contingency % 15.1% 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 15.5% 15.5% 15.6% 15.6% 15.5% 15.5% 16.1% 16.5% 16.4%

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).

1




CP4 Contract Management – Schedule Performance

Index

CP4 Schedule –Total Planned Value of Contract Earned

($ in millions)


250

150

200

300

0

50

350

400

100

Nov

2018

Oct

2017

Jul

2017

$ in millions

Through

FY

15/16

May

2017

Jan

2017

Feb

2017

Mar

2017

Apr

2017

Jun

2017

Aug

2017

$320

Sep

2017

Nov

2017

$94

(31%)

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Feb

2018

Mar

2018

Apr

2018

$302

Jul

2018

May

2018

Jun

2018

Aug

2018

Sept

2018

Dec

2018

Oct

2018

$400

$161

Planned Value March 2018 FCP Forecast Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date (SPI)

Notes:


2. Total amount earned refers to progress on the schedule, not approved contract invoices.


baseline schedule.

Full contract amount: $444.5M

Current completion date: June 2019

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March – 2018.

2. Earned Value/Approved Invoices to Date: June 30, 2018 CP4

Monthly Status Report.


Contribution Plan.


CP4 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule

Performance Index

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

FCP Forecast

Value$59.9M $65.0M $71.7M $81.9M $77.6M $105.3M $138.4M $123.9M $179.9M $250.5M $107.7M $134.4M $160.9M

Earned Value/

Invoiced to

DateSee Note 1

$61.9M $64.5M $67.7M $70.3M $72.8M $87.7M $83.7M $81.4M $84.1M $96.0M $102.0M $90.3M $94.5M


$133.3M $146.1M $159.4M $173.0M $188.7M $204.2M $221.4M $235.0M $245.7M $258.0M $271.0M $285.7M $301.6M

Schedule

Performance

Index

46% 44% 42% 41% 39% 43% 38% 35% 34% 37% 38% 32% 31%

FY2017-18 CP4 – Schedule ($ in millions)


Notes:

1. This is the Earned Value taken from Performance Metric Reports and it is an estimate


baseline schedule.

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March 2018

2. EV: June 30, 2018 CP4 Performance Metric Report


SR-99 Contract Management – Contingency Value

SR-99 – Contract Balance Remaining

($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Contingency

SR-99 – Contingency Balance Remaining

($ in millions)


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

$7.3

(8.2%)

May 2018

$1.3

(2.4%)

Jun 2018

$7.3

(7.3%)

$7.3

(7.3%)$6.2

(7.5%)$5.6

(7.3%)$5.2

(7.4%) $4.0

(6.2%)$3.7

(6.2%)

$3.6

(6.5%)$3.1

(6.4%)$2.6

(6.3%)$2.2

(3.7%)

End of

FY2015

-16

Nov 2017Aug 2017Jul 2017

$77

May 2018Oct 2017 Feb 2018Sep 2017 Dec 2017

$55

Jan 2018 Mar 2018 Apr 2018 Jun 2018

$100 $100$88 $83

$71 $65 $60 $56 $47 $42$60

End of

FY2016-17




may be necessary.

The values shown are a sum of

the Early Work Plan (EWP) and

Main Package (MP)

Contingencies.

End of

FY2016-17

Notes:


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. The Interagency Agreement was amended (Amendment 3) on May 14, 2018 to supplement the Capital cost by $29.2M

1


SR-99 Monthly Status Report.


3

82

SR-99 Contract Management Raw Data: Contingency

Value

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

Contract

Balance

RemainingSee Note 3

$100.3M $99.7M $88.5M $82.7M $76.8M $70.8M$64.5M /

$47.9M

$64.5M /

$43.8M

$55.8M /

$40.7M

$47.5M /

$37.1M

$41.8M /

$32.2M

$59.9M/

$28.2M

$55.1M/

$27.0M

ContingencySee Note 2

$9.5M $9.5M $9.5M $9.5M $9.5M $9.5M $6.7M $6.7M $6.7M $6.7M $6.7M $6.7M $5.9M

Change Orders

(from

contingency)$2.2M $0.0M $0.0M $1.1M $0.6M $0.4M $0.2M $0.3M $0.1M $0.6M $0.5M $0.4M $0.1M

Contingency

Balance

RemainingSee Note 2

$7.3M $7.3M $7.3M $6.2M $5.6M $5.2M $4.0M $3.7M $3.6M $3.1M $2.6M $2.2M 1.3M

Contingency % 7.3% 7.3% 8.2% 7.5% 7.3% 7.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.9% 8.2% 8.2% 8.0% 4.9%

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 Nov-17 are a combination of the EWP and MP contingency values.

Contingency values from Dec-17 onwards are from the Main Package only.

3. The Contract Balance Remaining to Nov-17 is a combination of the EWP and MP values. From December 2017

on, the combined values are shown followed by the Main Package only. Source: June 30, 2018

SR-99 Monthly Status Report.


SR-99 Contract Management – Schedule Performance

Index

SR-99 Schedule –Total Planned Value of Contract Earned

($ in millions)

Contract Management SR-99 - Schedule

200

100

0

250

150

300

50

Dec

2018

May

2018

$ in millions

Through

2016

Jan

2017

Feb

2018

$151

Oct

2018

Feb

2017

Apr

2017

May

2017

Jun

2017

Jul

2017

Aug

2017

Sep

2017

Oct

2017

Nov

2018

Nov

2017

Jul

2018

Dec

2017

Jan

2018

Jun

2018

Mar

2018

Apr

2018

Aug

2018

$230

Mar

2017

$231

(101%)

$229

Sept

2018

Revised Planned ValueEarned Value (SPI)March 2018 FCP ForecastPlanned Value

Notes:

1. Total amount earned refers to progress on the schedule, not approved contract invoices.

2. 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: $290.1M

Current completion date: December 2018

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March – 2018.

2. Earned Value: June 30, 2018 SR-99 Performance Metric Report.


Contribution Plan.

Revised planned values are

being confirmed


SR-99 Contract Management Raw Data: Schedule

Performance Index

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

FCP Forecast

Value$159.4M $165.0M $171.0M $176.2M $183.9M $189.2M $194.6M $200.5 $205.7M $210.9M $219.8M $224.8M $229.7M

Earned ValueSee Note 1

$154.9M $155.3M $166.3M $172.1M $177.7M $183.6M $190.1M $194.9M $198.6M $206.4M $211.9M $226.1M $230.7M

Planned Value $156.6M $161.7M $167.6M $173.0M $178.5M $184.0M $189.5M $194.9M $200.4 $205.9M $211.4M $220.0M $228.5M

Schedule

Performance

Index

99% 96% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 103% 101%

FY2017-18 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.

Sources:

1. FCP Forecast: Funding Contribution Plan, March 2018

2. EV: June 30, 2018 SR-99 Performance Metric Report


Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


Finance/Budget Metrics – Context

For FY2017-18, this report presents:

– Budgeted expenditures based on the Capital Outlay budget

– Expenditures reflect paid invoices, invoices received and in process, and material estimated costs for work

performed, not yet billed.

– 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 August 2018 F&A Capital Outlay Report includes financial data through

June 30, 2018.

Finance/Budget


Finance/Budget

As of June 30, 2018, the Authority has spent 69.9% of FY2017-18 budget and

97.6%10 of the FY2014-15 Cap and Trade appropriation.

Total Expenditures to Date ($ billions)

(Data as of June 30, 2018)

Notes:

1. Source: F&A Capital Outlay Report, August 2018; balance subject to change due to pending approval of federal reimbursements.

2. A risk informed contingency analysis has been performed and identifies cost risk pressures to the current CP 1 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. 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 FY2017-18 budget prioritizes work related to completing the scope within the ARRA and FY10 grants.

4. Expenditures reflect paid invoices, invoices received and in process, and material estimated costs for work performed, not yet billed.

5. The Authority’s appropriation totals will increase with the proceeds received from future Cap and Trade auctions, under Health and Safety Code 39719(b)(2).

6. This line item includes ARRA grant budget totaling $2.55B and Brownfields EPA grant budget totaling $600K.

7. The Construction ARRA expenditures exceed budget. Pending finalization of the remaining federal expenditures with FRA, Project Development and Construction line items will be aligned.

8. The FY2017-18 budget remains $1.638B.

9. The Total Program budget remains $9.678B.

10. FY2014-15 Cap and Trade utilization rate decreased slightly (1.2%) from the prior month due to a funding adjustment which moved $3M from Cap and Trade to Prop IA Bond Funds.

11. Numbers may not add due to rounding

FY2017-18 Expenditures to Date ($ billions)

(Data as of June 30, 2018)


May-18 Jun-18 May-18 Jun-18 May-18 Jun-18 May-18 Jun-18

$10.19 $10.19 $1.64 $1.64 $0.99 $1.14 60.7% 69.9%

Expenditures -

% of Budget

Total

Appropriation 5

FY2017-18

Budget 3, 8

FY Expenditures

to Date 4

Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures

to Date4

to Date4

to Date4

ARRA / Brownfields Grant6, 7

$2.55 $2.54 $0.51 $0.48 $2.04 $2.07

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

PROP 1A $3.18 $1.44 $0.57 $0.42 $2.61 $1.02

Cap and Trade $1.91 $0.60 $0.24 $0.13 $1.67 $0.47

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

Total10

$9.68 $4.58 $1.33 $1.02 $8.35 $3.56

TOTAL Planning Construction2

Budget 3, 9 Budget 3 Budget3

1,000

500

1,500

0

2,000

$151

Total

FY2016-17

$1,638

$1,485

$119

May

2018

$ millions

$235

$173

Aug

2017

$354

Sep

2017

$175

$587

$471

Oct

2017

Dec

2017

$704

Nov

2017

$131$81

$1,175

$861

Jan

2018

$153

$1,018

Feb

2018

Mar

2018

$157

$71

$1,333

Apr

2018

$1,144

Jun

2018

$75$120$120$98

$1,246

$117$175

Jul

2017

$71

$118 $118 $94 $105

$30

$172 $157$183

$80

$157

$52$95

$153

$30

$157

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 (August 2017 – August 2018)

1. Forecast data may shift upon update of monthly actuals.

2. A risk informed contingency analysis has been performed and identifies 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. The FY2017-18 expenditures ($1.144B) are less than budget ($1.638B) primarily due to updated schedules for Design-Build Contract Work and Local Assistance.



Actual Expenditures

Monthly Budget

Actual Expenditures - Cumulative through June 2018

Monthly Budget - Cumulative

Monthly Forecast

Monthly Forecast - Cumulative


$117 $117$117$119 $116


Finance/Budget Raw Data

Capital Outlay Budget, Expenditures, and Forecast

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 $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B $1.6B

Expense to Date $98.5M $169.2M $262.9M $344.1M $449.1M $621.3M $696.1M $775.8M $846.5M $898.8M $993.7M $1.144B

Monthly Expenditures $98.5M $70.7M $93.7M $81.2M $105M $172.2M $74.8M $79.6M $70.7M $52.4M $94.8M $150.7M

Total FY Forecast $1.6B $1.6B $1.7B $1.7B $1.8B $1.8B $1.8B $1.8B $1.8B $1.5B $1.5B $1.1B

FY2017-18 Raw Data

Finance/Budget – by Fiscal Year

Source: F&A Capital Outlay Reports (September 2016 – August 2018)

1. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

2. A risk informed contingency analysis has been performed and identifies 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. The FY2017-18 expenditures ($1.144B) are less than budget ($1.638B) primarily due to updated schedules for Design-Build Contract Work and Local Assistance.



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 $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 $141M $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







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


ARRA State Match Schedule – Context

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

– Expenditures reflect amounts paid and reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), invoices

received and in process, and material estimated costs for work performed, not yet billed.

– Forecast expenditures

ARRA Schedule


ARRA State Match Expenditure by MonthForecast vs. Actual

ARRA Schedule

Notes:

1. Total ARRA State Match expenditures are $937.2M or 37% of the $2.505B State Match obligation for the ARRA grant include invoices reported to the FRA as of June 30, 2018.

2. State funds can be matched against federal funds and matched against ARRA funds already spent.

3. December 2012 FCP did not report ARRA State Match at the discrete level and as such has not been included in the above graph.

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. December 2017 FCP was not approved, but is used to track performance as the Authority works with the FRA towards an approved FCP.

6. Expenditures reflect amounts paid and reported to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), invoices received and in process, and material estimated costs for work performed, not yet

billed.

7. Jul-17 actuals include a technical adjustment primarily related to reallocating ROW remnant parcels from grant eligible funding to non-grant eligible funding.

8. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

9. Variance in FCP and Capital Outlay numbers due to timing differences.


2,500

500

1,000

2,000

-500

1,500

0

Through

Jun 2017

Dec

2017

167101 73

142

Sep

2018

In $ Millions

Jul

2017

294

1

Jan

2018

Aug

2017

89

Sep

2017

1,458

Nov

2017

Oct

2017

Feb

2018

282

Mar

2018

101

Apr

2018

22

May

2018

476

1,332

1

-85

201

Jun

2018

236392

Jul

2018

Aug

2018

571

2,454

476

141

-85

229

74 741

89 770

780

16722

289

76 49146 96 13778 127

18 0128 122

0 0 066

State Match Drawdown Schedule

($ in millions)



Preliminary Quarterly FCP Actual Expenditures



Preliminary Quarterly FCP Actual Expenditures - Cumulative through 6/30/2018

1,332

943

2,230


Agenda







– Finance/Budget


– Risk


CP1 Contract - Contingency report

1. The Program Baseline was presented to and accepted by the CHSRA Board in June 2018. The adoption of the Program Baseline will result in changes to

contingency amounts and drawdown schedule. Over the coming two quarters, the contingency drawdown curve will be revised as project-level information,

budgets and schedules are reconciled with the Program Baseline and associated quantitative cost and schedule risk analysis is completed.

2. Content as of June 30, 2018.

133

102

82

61

41

31

72

4141

0 0 0 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

As of 31-Dec-16 As of 30-Jun-18 50% Constr. 75% Constr. 90% Constr. Substantial Completion

Continge

ncy

($ in m

illio

ns)

Contingency Floor

Actual To Date

Projected Available Contingency

Risk – CP1PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Contingency reassessment

being performed


CP2-3 Contract - Contingency report





230

199

176

153

123

92

61

46

257

180

152

136

96 74

290 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

As of 30-Jun-16 As of 30-Jun-18 RFC Appr. (75%

ROW Acq.)

10% Constr.

(Crit. Util Relo)

20% Constr. (All

Utility Relo)

50% Constr.

(Bridge & Via.

Foun.)

75% Constr. (3rd

Party Constr.)

90% Constr (All

Strs.)

Substantial

Completion

Conti

nge

ncy

($ in m

illio

ns)

Contingency Floor

Actual To Date


Risk – CP2-3

Contingency reassessment

being performed

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE


CP4 Contract - Contingency report





54

48

40

36

29

25

20

15

12

9

6158

50

43

40

2927

20

16

14

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

As of 31-Aug-

16

As of 30-Jun-18 90% Des. RFC Appr. 10% Const. 20% Const. 50% Const. 75% Const. 90% Const. Substantial

Completion

Project

Completion

Conti

nge

ncy

($ M

illio

ns)

Contingency Floor

Actual To Date


Risk – CP 4PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS RESULTS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE


California High-Speed Rail: Operations Report 849 437 51% 412 92 14 43 CP4A 172 125 73% 47 5 19 9 Total 1911 1334 70% 577 100 54 127 3 Executive Summary F&A Committee Meeting –August

Documents