OPINION: Potomac Yard Metro Project and Alexandria Deserve Better

By Adrien Lopez, Potomac Yard

When breaking news hit our inboxes from the desk of Alexandria City Manager Mark Jinks with his May 4, 2018 Memo, our jaws dropped at the sight of the words “eliminate southern entrance.” “How could this be?!” we wondered among our community. Just a few weeks earlier, Potomac Yard (“PY”) neighbors and even the Potomac Yard Metrorail Implementation Work Group (PYMIG) representative for our community had received reassurance from City leaders and Council that the rumors were not true about final drawings eliminating the south entrance and to rest assured that access for the southern neighbors would be provided.

Over the past few weeks since receiving that Jinks memo, our community has done a deep dive into the history of the entire project and the PYMIG process, including by communicating with City leaders, making FOIA requests that led to crowdfunding to pay exorbitant fees charged for access to information, and PY engagement at one of the highest levels ever since our community was founded. What our findings reveal are the City’s egregious mismanagement and lies to the public about the process.

The City Manager and Council say they could not disclose any information to the public about the changes to the Metro design because they were bound by a confidential WMATA procurement process. But this statement appears not to be entirely true. In the Non-disclosure Agreement (NDA) that was signed by City officials (we obtained a copy), the key is under section (2) of the Conflicts of Interest, Source Selection Sensitive Information and Interface with Offerors document. There, the Scope of Work (Requirements) is not listed as "source selection sensitive," so therefore the Scope of Work seems not to be covered under the NDA. Also, by significantly changing the Scope of Work, but not cancelling the RFP and posting a new Request For Proposals (RFP), or posting an amendment to the RFP, WMATA violated some important guidance listed in their own Procurement Procedures Manual, specifically Sections 3-4 Specification, Purchase Description and Statement of Work, Section 3-6 Competition, Section 3-11 Publicizing Contract Actions, Section 10-10 Amendment of Solicitations and Section 10-11 Cancellation of a Request for Proposals. By following the typical process, WMATA and the City would have ensured full and open competition.

The City was made aware of these discrepancies with WMATA procurement requirements, but seems to have chosen not to correct it as no response was given to the community to date. Specifically, the Deputy City Manager and the representative from WMATA informed residents at a recent meeting that adding the South Entrance back to the Metro Station would be too large of a scope change under the current RFP and that a new RFP would need to be issued to obtain pricing from contractors (and that it was not feasible to do so under the current metro project timeline). It is unclear why adding the South Entrance back into the scope of the RFP is too significant of a change for the current scope of work, if this was not deemed a significant enough change in scope when the South Entrance was removed.

What is true is that the changes in station design could have been made available to the community for transparency and public engagement when decisions were being made in July 2017, instead of waiting until one year later. By using the confidentiality excuse to avoid restarting the procurement process, City Staff authorized WMATA to work within the context of the ongoing procurement process to lower the price, supposedly to avoid the associated delay and cost escalation. This argument, embedded in Mr. Jinks’ Memo to City Council, seems to be flawed, as the strategy adopted likely limited competition as well and could have affected the price of the final bid. Therefore, it arguably could have caused (instead of avoided) cost escalation relative to the reduced scope of the project.

If the City Council has known for over a year about this descoping process, then why did they lie to us? They told us in April 2018 through email communication that final drawings were not available but there would be access for the southern neighbors, even stating that the drawings to which we alluded were not correct nor final and that access would be afforded to residents on all sides of the station.

Beyond their mismanagement and covert process carried out to modify the scope of the PY metro, the City could have avoided this mess by better managing the PYMIG process and listening to the community that requested City Staff, in meeting after meeting, year after year, to keep the design simple and be mindful of the costs. When community members repeatedly questioned whether the proposed scope was within budget, we were reassured again and again by City Staff that the designs were well within the estimates.

Beyond their mismanagement and covert process carried out to modify the scope of the PY metro, the City could have avoided this mess by better managing the PYMIG process and listening to the community that requested City Staff, in meeting after meeting, year after year, to keep the design simple and be mindful of the costs. When community members repeatedly questioned whether the proposed scope was within budget, we were reassured again and again by City Staff that the designs were well within the estimates.

It is important to remember that one of the drivers of the City’s decision to select Alternative B over Alternative A for the Metro design, the latter being a less expensive option, was that B enabled further potential economic development in the area and allowed for a developer contribution of $49 million. It is now apparent that this contribution was negotiated on the basis of an inaccurate project cost. When the bids came back above budget, the City (in closed meetings) opted for the easier solution of axing the South mezzanine and related access points that would have been beneficial to taxpaying citizens who bought into the promise of metro-oriented development. Residents and developers in the South end are also contributing through the Special Tax District, the diversion of PY residents’ taxes since 2011 from the general fund into a metro fund (while the City has deferred building an elementary school on designated PY land), and even accepting the placement of a high-voltage underground power line through PY that will cause upheaval for months in our community but will yield some $43.3 million for the City.

Moving forward, if this project – one of the largest infrastructure projects in the history of Alexandria – is to truly be successful, then we need to clean the house and put in place better leaders in our City, including both the staff managing these projects and those tasked with holding them accountable – the Mayor and City Council. We need leaders that not only speak about the value of transparency, access to information and stakeholder engagement in policy development, but that actually practice these principles. Not only do the PY Metro Project and PY residents deserve better, but so does the entire Alexandria community. We look forward to the chance to contribute to making these changes on upcoming election days – June12 and Nov. 6.

Want to submit an opinion piece on a local topic? Email emily.leayman@patch.com or sign up for a Patch contributor account.

Image via Shutterstock