November 22, 1996 - Letter From Members of Congress Regarding ...

INTEROFRCE
TO: MEMO
Los Angeles County
Metropolitan
Transportation
Authority
November 22, 1996
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JOSEPH E. DRE~j, J ~
BY FAX
LETTER FROM ME’MBERS OF CONGRESS REGARDINO THE
CM PROCUREMENT FOR MRL EAST SIDE EXTENSION
Attached for your information is a tetter from Congressmembers Becerra, Roybal-
Allard, and Tortes regarding the procurement of CM services for the MRL East Side
Extension.
JED/s
attach

F
November 2!, t996
Mr. loe Drew
Chief 2xecuo.ve Of~ce~
Los Angeles County MerropoEtan Tra.ns~rrar/~n Authoriv=’
One Caraway F~_~7~
L~s Aa~.ea, CA 90012
Ks prornise, K we =e wddng r.o foLlow-ap our ,:e!~phone conversanon ~ith you y~m~y
~&~g ~ ~ ~m~ioa of ~ ~ ~d ~ ~d ~e ~c~n~ of a co~on
m~r for ~ p~j~t. To ah~ ¢~mn~ ~m we ~ con~ed ~at ~ praj~: nor f~ victim to ~ ,"
f~er de~ys, we ~tie~,e ~ ~e ~TA should ~ed ~igendy wi~ ~e awning of ~
co~on ~age~nt can~ To ~ ca& we ~ you ~o ~sit d~e ~o~nd~ons of d. e
mde~dear p~ei of ex~ w~cF. ~ you ~ w~ z p~cess deve[c~d ~Rd app~v~ by yc~
~d yo~ s~.
This ia the only means by which we ~ be assured r2nat ~ Eas: Side E~tezsion of Metro
Rail cnn remain on track ~d c~ndnue ~.o be c.-e..~bie m the =’yes of ",he public, iocal aun~orides an~
Congress.
Our coLl~-~ve c,’m~ms are ~,’~unded k~ ~,.e be!/mf dmx ~o d=lay tony furmer woutd gut
.wiricai proje~ at risk= We are concerned daat local E~nds aJloc~d to ~ project, as well as
fundha~ could be put at nsk as omem seek to diver~ daese moneys ~o Irrojec:s ~hicE am on
scheduie and amaampered by inves~i~Uom As you know, a=nn~1~omation funding ks very
competitive and we have worked .hard ~o ~r.sut-e ~ Los Angeles and specifically Meu’~ Rail
pr~jec’m have ~e,’..=ived a fair share of ~e funding pie. It would be tragic anct indeed make @~
effort more di~cuit i~ ~e future shotdd you forgo a critical opporrm-aicy to c~ndnue the _K--.~ Side
F_~tensioa on dine and with a. pennancnt cx)r~’u-uctmn martagement zeam ~Zrmly in place.
!
We are aware uha~ the ,:vfTA’ 5 Irmpe~or ~ene.--al ~s ~a dae pt-oc~s ef conducting a cnminai
{rtvesdg’ation. However, as we discussed yesterday. ~c do act be~eve daat ,:his @r~czss shouid
hinder rbe ~rocurement of :t constmcticn ;nmaagcr for ~e Eas: Side Extension ~,-aa look fo_r-cc~d tc
talking wid-t you about this mere on F,--iday. Novemoer 2"2. As ,ue s~d. we are...’not aware of any
as.~r, of the [nsDeczoc General"3 inveztig~ion into :Iae ~de,pendcnt mvie,,~; panei’~ decision daat

would preclude the M’TA from pro