1. Americas Interchange Proposal Evaluation Board of Directors Presentation February 26, 2010

2. Agenda Project Overview Procurement Process Evaluation Process Next Steps Questions and Answers

3. Scope of Work PROPOSED PROJECT FUTURE PROJECT JOE BATTLE BLVD. / LP 375

4. Project Funding Basic Information Total Project Cost = $146M ARRA (Stimulus) Funding ― TxDOT ARRA Funds $75M ― MPO ARRA Funds $21M Additional Funding ― State Infrastructure Bank Loan Backed by Transportation Reinvestment Zone ― TxDOT Funds via Pass-Through Financing

5. Procurement Process Two Step Process Request for Qualifications (RFQ) – Issued June 11, 2009 – Received July 8, 2009 – Evaluation Completed Short List of Proposers – Announced July 30, 2009 Request for Detailed Proposals (RFDP) – Issued November 18, 2009 – Received February 11, 2010 – Evaluation Process

6. Short Listed Proposers Team Make-Up Americas Gateway Builders –Zachry Construction Corporation –CH2M Hill –Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc. –Montoya PR –Structural Engineering Consultants –Quantum Engineering Consultants

7. Short Listed Proposers Team Make-Up Paso Del Norte Constructors –Austin Bridge & Road –Huitt-Zollars –Dan Williams Company –aci Consulting –Aguilera and Associates –Border Research Solutions –CEA Engineering Group –Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc. –Maldonado/Burkett Intelligent Transportation Systems, LLP

8. Short Listed Proposers Team Make-Up J.D. Abrams, LP –Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. –EPI Global, Inc. –The Laster Group –P.E. Structural Consultants, Inc. –Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Inc. –HDR Engineering Inc. –Moreno Cardenas Inc. –Parkhill, Smith and Cooper Inc. –Frank X. Spencer and Associates Inc. –SLI Engineering Inc. –Rodriguez Engineering Laboratories

9. RFDP Evaluation Process Basic Information Evaluation Team Best Value Process Schedule Results

10. Evaluation Team Overview Document Control Pass/Fail Advisor Oversight Committee Price Evaluation Committee Technical Evaluation Team – Evaluation & Selection Recommendation Committee – Technical Advisors Senior Advisory Committee CRRMA Board

11. RFDP Evaluation Process Best Value Process Qualitative Technical Score – Innovation – Value Added Concepts – Pass/Fail Analysis – Without Pricing Information – 30% of Total Proposal Score Major Categories Project Management Plan = 43 Points Development Plan = 47 Points Community Involvement Plan = 5 Points Value-Added Concepts = 5 Points

12. RFDP Evaluation Process Best Value Process Development Price Proposal Evaluation – Price Proposal Value Calculation – Schedule Adjustment Factor – Lane Rental Differential Factor – “Blind” Scoring – 70% of Total Proposal Score Development Price + Schedule Adjustment Factor + Lane Rental Differential Factor = Price Proposal Value

13. RFDP Evaluation Process Final Total Proposal Score Qualitative Technical Score Converted to Technical Score (Numerical) Qualitative Rating Evaluator’s Potential Scoring Range Excellent100 Good80 Fair60 Poor40 Unsatisfactory0

14. RFDP Evaluation Process Final Total Proposal Score Qualitative Factor Calculated Using Technical Scores (Numerical) Qualitative Factor = Technical Score Highest Technical Score TECHNICAL Component of Final Score

15. RFDP Evaluation Process Final Total Proposal Score Price Proposal Value Converted to Price Factor – Development Price – Schedule Adjustment Factor – Lane Rental Differential Factor Price Factor = Lowest Price Proposal Value Price Proposal Value of Proposal FINANCIAL Component of Final Score

16. RFDP Evaluation Process Final Total Proposal Score Weighted Price Factor added to Weighted Qualitative Factor Best Value Proposal Having the Highest FTPS FTPS = (Price Factor x 70) + (Qualitative Factor x 30)

17. Evaluation Schedule Overview Proposals Received – February 10-11 Document Control – February 11-12 Pass/Fail Analysis – February 15 Price Proposal Analysis – February 15-16 Technical Evaluation – February 15-19 ESRC Consensus Scoring– February 24

18. Evaluation Results Three Proposals Exceed Maximum Amount Available to be Paid to the Design/Builder The Board has two options: Adjust the Scope and Request Updated Proposals Terminate the Procurement GEC Team Recommends Adjusting the Scope and Requesting Updated Proposals FHWA Concurrence TxDOT Concurrence

19. Next Steps Overview Value Engineering Develop Project Cost Estimate Develop Addendum 4 Review and Approval by TxDOT/FHWA Issue Addendum 4 Updated Proposal Due Date ~ Early April Re-Evaluate Revised Proposals Seek CRRMA Board Approval of Apparent Best Value Proposal

20. Q uestions?