HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original

8/13/2019 HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original

1/19

February 3, 2014

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL

Mr. Bill Grunloh Ms. Gretchen Tucka

Chief Procurement Officer State Purchasing Officer

Illinois Department of Transportation Illinois Department of Transportation

200 Hanley Building 200 Hanley Building

2300 South Dirksen Parkway 2300 South Dirksen Parkway

Springfield, IL 62764 Springfield, IL 62764

Re:Protest Concerning Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT

Dear Mr. Grunloh and Ms. Tucka:

Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. (EMD) submits this protest dated February 3, 2014, to the procurement

known as Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT (the Procurement). EMD makes this

protest pursuant to the terms of Illinois General Assembly (ILGA) Title 44, Section 6.420 (Filing of a

Protest). The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in conjunction with the California

Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) and the Washington Department of Transportation

(WSDOT), issued the Procurement. IDOT, CALTRANS and WSDOT formed the joint purchasing entities

(each a JPE and jointly, the JPEs) for the Procurement.

On December 18, 2013, the Chief Procurement Offices (CPO) Determination on Award

Recommendation was issued by IDOT to the JPEs and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

recommending an award to Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens). Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.4301,

any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.

Significantly, the proposed award to Siemens does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement

that [a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the

most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the

request for proposals. 30 ILCS 500/20-15(g) [emphasis added]. In short, Siemens is not a responsible

offeror and its offer is not responsive with respect to the Procurement.

EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be

deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpayingpublic and the JPEs.

1ILGA Title 44, Section 6.430 states, in relevant part, [w]hen a protest has been timely filed and before an awardhas been made, the SPO will make no award of the contract until the protest has been resolved, unless the award of

the contract without delay is necessary to protect the interests of the State.

Electro-Motive Diesel 9301 W. 55thStreet LaGrange, IL 60525 USA +1.708.387.5488 www.emdiesels.com

Electro-Motive Diesel is owned by Progress Rail Services, A Caterpillar Company

#3455731


2/19

Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.

Protest to Multi-State Procurement #14-1-DPIT

February 3, 2014

Page 2 of 19

Timely Filing (Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a)2):

ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420 requires that a protester files a protest with the CPO within seven calendardays after it knows or should have known facts giving rise to the protest. On January 29, 2014, EMD

received information requested from IDOT under FOIA relative to the Siemens proposal. This was the

first day EMD knew or should have known facts relative to the locomotive product offered by Siemens

under the Procurement, giving rise to this protest. As required by Section 6.420(a), this protest is being

filed within seven days of that date, and is being lodged with the CPO.

Requirements For Protest (Pursuant to ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)):

(1) Name and Address of Protester: Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.Attn: Gary Eelman

Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales9301 W. 55thStreet

LaGrange, IL 60525

Phone: (708) 387-5488

Fax: (708) 387-6660

(2) Protested Procurement: Multi-State Locomotive Procurement #14-1-DPIT(3) EMD is an Interested Party: EMD participated as a qualified offeror in the Procurement.

EMDs qualified offer was submitted timely on November 27,

2013 pursuant to the requirements of the Procurement.

(4) Detailed Statement:ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)(4) requires a protester to provide factual and legal grounds for its

protest. EMD provides these grounds below. Factually, the Siemens locomotive is incapable of

achieving and sustaining 125 MPH as required by the Procurement, but was artificially made to

appear as though it has this capability. As John Adams once said, [f]acts are stubborn things;

and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot

alter the state of facts and evidence. It is not in the best interest of the JPEs to accept a

proposal that does not meet the 125 MPH speed specification. Also, legally, the unfair advantage

afforded to Siemens undermined the integrity of the procurement process, placing EMD at a

severe disadvantage when IDOT failed to comply with its own procurement process. IDOTs

determination on the sufficiency of proposed award cannot be final and conclusive when such anaward is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

2 ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a) states, in relevant part, [a]ll protests shall be in writing and filed with the CPO

within 7 calendar days after the protester knows or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest.

Protests filed after the 7 calendar day period will not be considered.


3/19



February 3, 2014

Page 3 of 19

a. Factual Grounds for the Protest1. The Procurement Requires Locomotives Offered to Achieve and Sustain 125 MPH

The Procurement specifications require that the locomotive offered by each offeror be able to

operate at a sustained speed of 125 MPH under loaded conditions as specified. This is a material

requirement listed as a pass/fail criterion in the Procurement and subsequent addenda issued

by IDOT (see Section B.103and Addendum 74of the Procurement). Based on the requirements of

Section B.10, proposals receiving a fail will not be evaluated further.

Furthermore, a foundational component of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

(PRIIA); the Next Generation Equipment Committee (NGEC) and the specifications therefrom;

and the FRA, has remained that moving the nation toward higher speed rail would require cars

and locomotives purchased under PRIIA to be capable of sustained speeds of 125 MPH. The

specifications for both cars and locomotives issued by the NGEC under PRIIA, in addition to those

used in the Procurement, identify this criterion in multiple areas (see, for example, PRIIA

Specifications Section 1.35; PRIIA Specifications Section 1.4.6.36; PRIIA Specifications Section 9.2

7;

Addendum 7 of the Procurement8).

3 Section B.10 of the Procurement states, in relevant part, [f]ailure to satisfy the requirements of any of these

Pass/Fail categories in the Technical Proposal in Packet 1 will cause an Offer to be rejected and no further

evaluation will take place. Those Offers that pass all Pass/Fail categories will have the remainder of their Technical

Proposal evaluated and scored.

4Addendum 7 states, in relevant part, [i]n addition to the items listed in these RFP sections, the following items

will be evaluated as pass/fail items: Confirmation of compliance with 125 MPH capabilities under loadsas defined in

Technical Specification 9.2 under the 2 locomotives + 1,360,000 lbs. of trailing load scenario to be submitted with

Service and Performance Simulations in Attachment EE, Appendix G (see Technical Specification 1.4.6.3).

5 PRIIA Specification Section 1.3, which addresses Basic Features and Characteristics, states, [t]raction power

sufficient for eight multi-level car train (2 locomotives) 125 mph; Head End Power (HEP) 3 phase 480V 600kW

minimum.

6 PRIIA Specification Section 1.4.6.3, which addresses Speed, states, [t]he locomotive shall be designed,

constructed and tested to operate at a sustained speed of up to 125 mph on tracks approved by FRA for that speed.

Design and test speed shall be prescribed by regulation.

7PRIIA Specification Section 9.2, which addresses Service and Performance Requirements, states, [t]he offer must

include sufficient detail of the methods and values used in the simulation calculations shall be provided to enable

accurate assessment of the data provided by the proposal offer. Key to the simulations is evidence that the

locomotive being offered is capable of achieving 125 MPH, consistent with the specification. IDOT may audit the

Offerors proposal simulations.

8Please see footnote 4.


4/19



February 3, 2014

Page 4 of 19

2. The Siemens Locomotive Cannot Achieve and Sustain 125 MPHa. The Siemens Locomotive Does Not Have Sufficient Horsepower

Siemens has offered a locomotive that cannot achieve and sustain 125 MPH, making its proposal

non-compliant with the Procurement specifications. In its proposal, the Siemens locomotive is

shown to be only 4200 BHP-rated. It is not possible for a locomotive to achieve, let alone sustain,

125 MPH with merely 4200 BHP in the train configurations specified in the Procurement, despite

the BOOST feature provided in Siemenss design. The BOOST feature appears to elevate the

locomotives BHP to 4400 for a controlled period time9, which allows its locomotive to achieve

a higher acceleration or top speed10. In the context of higher acceleration or top speed, the

top speed on the Siemens locomotive would be something less than 125 MPH because it lacks

sufficient horsepower.

Determining the ability of a locomotive to achieve and sustain 125 MPH is done empirically

through a relatively straightforward and objective calculation. In this case, such calculation

concludes that a minimum of 4530.5 BHP would be required under the specified load conditions

and rolling resistance formula (Davis) in a best case scenario (assuming, for instance, level

tangent track and system efficiencies). These calculations are described in detail in the attached

Exhibit A.

Because the EMD locomotive offered is 4700 BHP, it provides sufficient power to achieve 125

MPH and it can maintain this speed through minor curves and grades. The Siemens locomotive

cannot achieve this speed even on level tangent track. Though the Procurement documents do

not specify a minimum horsepower requirement, speed and horsepower are directly relatedunder the laws of physics, and speed is absolutely derived from horsepower.

IDOTs technical evaluation team would have concluded the Siemens locomotive to be

underpowered if this calculation were made. To be fair, the Siemens locomotive canachieve125

MPH, but only while operating downhill. To contemplate such operational limits in real-life

service would be unrealistic, not likely acceptable to the public, and could not have possibly been

IDOTs intent. In fact, Appendix G of Attachment EE11of the Procurement documents specifies

selected corridors, none of which has terrain that permits a constant downhill operation.

9

Please see Section 1.1.3 (Service and Performance Requirements) of the Siemens proposal, Section 1(Precondition).

10Id.

11Appendix G of Attachment EE states, in relevant part, [a] selected Illinois (Chicago to St. Louis) corridor has seven

intermediate station stops over 284 miles; A selected California corridor from Sacramento to Bakersfield has ten

intermediate station stops over 315 miles; A selected Washington State corridor from Seattle, WA to Eugene, OR

route has nine intermediate station stops over 310 miles.


5/19



February 3, 2014

Page 5 of 19

b. Siemens Failed to Comply with the Specified Formula for Rolling ResistanceSiemens changed the Procurements strictly specified rolling resistance formula and used

variations of the Sauthoff formula instead of the required Davis formula. It is industry-wide

knowledge that the application of the Sauthoff formula yields more favorable results as opposed

to using the Davis formula. This action, which might be Siemenss most egregious departure

from the PRIIA and IDOT requirements, may be a disingenuous act to show compliance with

required performance and suggests a blatant disregard for the Procurements specifications.

In Figure 1 below taken from Siemenss proposal, Siemens submits to IDOT its modifications to

the Procurement-required formula12. The middle column shows the required factors for

calculating rolling resistance, while the right column shows non-compliant factors as revised by

Siemens. Despite Siemenss brazen dictation of revised factors, IDOT appeared to have

surrendered its own directives to yield to Siemenss capricious and arbitrary submittals. No other

offeror was permitted to develop its own factors in a similar manner as Siemens did. Siemens

simply disregarded the specification without any apparent consideration of the integrity of the

procurement process.

Figure 1

Siemenss fear of not achieving performance requirements was well justified as it cannot do so

without manipulating data. Its concern extended to even considering lower air density at the

TTCI test track in Pueblo, Colorado (see Section 2.3.2 of the Siemens proposal). Locomotive

operators should not have to rely on lower air density in addition to downhill grades to achieve

125 MPH.

12The PRIIA Specification under Section 9.2 requires the following factors in train resistance calculations based on

the Davis equation:

Coefficient A = 1.3

Coefficient B = 29

Coefficient C = 0.03

Coefficient D = 0.0024

Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012

Should be 0.03

Should be 0.0024


6/19



February 3, 2014

Page 6 of 19

Figure 2 below shows the results of the various rolling resistance curves used by Siemensdepending on what they were trying to prove (acceleration and the two used for TTCI). As

depicted, this curious way of approaching its lack of locomotive horsepower results in a favorable

outcome for Siemens. An offeror using its own version of a rolling resistance formula (as Siemens

did) would be able to create nearly any desired outcomes of any given simulation and thus alter

what would otherwise be a level analysis between products of multiple offerors. The lower lines

represent the reduction in rolling resistance used by Siemens and inappropriately accepted by

IDOT. The top line (blue) represents the Procurements specification for rolling resistance that

EMD used in all of its performance charts. In using its own rolling resistance, Siemens lessened

this resistance by some 3,840 lbs and therefore requiring less THP by nearly 1,340 when using the

parameters specified and required to be used by the Procurement documents. For whatever

reasons, IDOT may have overlooked Siemenss creative but non-compliant approach.

Figure 2


7/19



February 3, 2014

Page 7 of 19

c. Siemens Used Flawed and Incorrect Assumptions in Acceleration PerformanceSimulation

Here again, Siemens displays its non-compliance and creates its own operating conditions and

rolling resistance formula for the acceleration simulation. Despite the performance simulation

requirements described in the PRIIA Specifications under Section 9.213

, Siemens patently

disregards this requirement and ran the simulation using the Sauthoff formula with no HEP load

(see Section 2.2 of the Siemens proposal, as shown in Figure 3 below). This is not a valid

simulation in either respect and again demonstrates Siemenss attempt to circumvent the

Procurement requirements in two material respects: HEP load and rolling resistance.

Figure 3

In its attempt to appear compliant, Siemens proceeds to state that the Davis formula is

usedfor the simulations at TTCI. This is beyond misleading and could be construed as trickery.

Siemens knew well that on each completed loop of the TTCI test track, its locomotive will achieve

125 MPH at least once while traveling downhill even using the more restrictive Davis formula.

Thus, a statement saying that the Davis equation was used per the specification in the TTCI

simulations at once gives the appearance of complying with the specifications while not being

compliant at all. Siemens used the Davis formula where its underpowered locomotive would not

be seen as such (reaching the top speed once going downhill) but changed the formula to

accommodate itself where weaknesses in its locomotives performance would be obvious, as in

the acceleration performance using the Davis formula. It is evident that Siemens provided

duplicitous information in an attempt to conceal the substandard performance of the locomotive

it proposed. This appears to be another issue that IDOT may have overlooked.

13The PRIIA Specification Section 9.2 requires the following factors for acceleration performance simulations:

Coefficient A = 1.3

Coefficient B = 29

Coefficient C = 0.03

Coefficient D = 0.0024

Coefficient for trailing locomotive = 0.0012

600 kW HEP load for the trainset (later changed to 45kW per car)


8/19



February 3, 2014

Page 8 of 19

The fact is that if Siemens had followed the proper formula and included HEP as required by the

Procurement specifications, its locomotive could neither achieve nor sustain 125 MPH as clearly

shown in Figure 4 below. Determining whether a locomotive can sustain 125 MPH is nothing

more than a simple mathematical equation.

Figure 4


9/19



February 3, 2014

Page 9 of 19

If a more realistic set of assumptions were applied to the Siemens locomotive, the graph in Figure

5 shows an even more inferior and underpowered performance by its locomotive (at a HEP load

of 600kW). A boost of an additional 200 BHP for a controlled period of time would have

virtually no effect on the data displayed in Figure 4 or 5.

Figure 5


10/19



February 3, 2014

Page 10 of 19

3. Sufficient Horsepower Is Necessary to Maintain a Constant Speed of 125 MPHIn requiring a higher constant speed, nothing can substitute for horsepower. Criteria for train

rolling resistance were clearly specified in the PRIIA Specification under Section 9.214, affording

no latitude for alternative assumptions in any calculations. Thus, the results would have been

consistent for any offeror. Comparing the horsepower offered with the performance required of

the locomotive would have yielded clear results, as can be seen in Figure 4.

The results in Figure 4 show that the highest speed that the Siemens locomotive can achieve and

sustain is 121 MPH under ideal conditions assuming no grades or curves. The BOOST mode

offered by Siemens cannot even be considered because it permits a higher BHP for a controlled

period of time and merely for the purpose of achieving a higher acceleration or top speed, but

not both, as described by Siemens itself in its proposal. But even if that feature can operate

continuously for an extended period of time, the Siemens locomotive still cannot sustain 125MPH as required by the Procurement specifications because the requisite horsepower simply is

not available. Indeed, the sustainable speed is likely to be several miles per hour lower than 121

MPH in real world conditions. Even at an achievable (but not sustainable) speed of 121 MPH, the

Siemens locomotive still fails to achieve the strict specification that IDOT stressed as being a

material component of the specification and mandatory in this Procurement.

4. The Track Profile Provided by IDOT Is Inconsistent with JPE RoutesPresumably due to the number of routes and urgency of this Procurement, IDOT was not able to

provide track profiles for any JPE-specified routes as was directed by PRIIA Specifications under

Section 9.215

. Instead, the Procurement directed offerors to use the track profiles of the TTCI test

track in Pueblo, Colorado, with the stated intention of simulating multiple selected rail corridors,

such as Illinoiss Chicago to St. Louis corridor, Californias Sacramento to Bakersfield corridor and

Washingtons Seattle to Eugene route.

This substituted and fabricated route has little to do with actual JPE routes and attendant track

profiles. As a result, sustained speeds of 125 MPH cannot be demonstrated by simulation on the

TTCI track profile; this can be determined only through calculation. This simulation is limited to

demonstrating the achievement (and not sustainability) of 125 MPH. Indeed, in its proposal,

Siemens refers to its locomotives ability to achieve a maximum speed of 125 mph on the test

track at the TTCI in Pueblo, Colorado16, but makes no reference to its ability to sustain that

speed. Thus, the simulation provided by Siemens in its proposal merely demonstrated itsproposed locomotives ability to achieve 125 MPH, and in its limited capacity, only while



16 Please see Section 1.1.3 (Service and Performance Requirements) of the Siemens proposal, Section 1

(Precondition).


11/19



February 3, 2014

Page 11 of 19

operating downhill. Siemens must have known about this unacceptable result, which could be

why it used a non-compliant formula to calculate a favorable outcome for itself.

5. IDOT Erred in Ignoring the Locomotive Horsepower Needed for Speed RequirementsAs the agency providing oversight of the Procurement, it was IDOTs responsibility to ensure that

those reviewing the performance section of the proposals would calculate (logically early on in

the process) whether a proposed locomotive could reach, let alone sustain, 125 MPH based

simply on the horsepower offered. This would have served to distinguish pass from fail

proposals immediately through a straightforward mathematical calculation.

However, it is not clear whether these calculations were made. If they were made, IDOT would

have concluded that the Siemens locomotive could not possibly reach and sustain 125 MPH given

its horsepower; indeed, if the calculations were made, the results appeared to have been

ignored. Failing to examine the horsepower aspect as it relates to the ability of the locomotive to

meet IDOTs requirements has led to the selection of a factually non-compliant locomotive.

Siemenss proposed locomotive simply does not comply with the achievable or sustainable speed

requirement of the specification which is both paramount for real world performance and

compulsory for award of the contract according to IDOTs own requirements.

6. The Form of the Siemens Proposal Failed to Comply with Procurement RequirementsContinuing its pattern of non-compliance and disregard for the integrity of the procurement

process, Siemens exceeded the page limit allocated for the Vehicle Major Systems portion(Section A.21.5.1) of Packet 1. According to Q&A #252 of Addendum 11 of the Procurement,

offerors were limited to 160 pages; Siemens submitted 175 pages.

Based on the Procurement process identified in Addendum 817, any pages an offeror submits in

excess of the page limit will not be evaluated by IDOT. This means that relative to the Siemens

proposal, the last 15 pages of the Vehicle Major Systems portion should not have been

evaluated. These pages covered Chapter 17 (Fuel System) and Chapter 24 (Safety Accessories) in

the Siemens proposal.

Although these pages should not have been evaluated as stipulated in the Procurement

documents, IDOT appeared to have contravened this requirement, reviewing and scoring thepages in the Siemens proposal that were beyond the page limit. The Responsive Score

Calculations generated by IDOT provides a score for at least one of these sections beyond the

page limit, as shown in Figure 6 below [emphasis added by highlighting portions].

17The Page Limits section of Addendum 8, page 6, states, [a]lso, please note that if a Final Offer contains pages in

excess to the page limits shown above for any section, the excess pages will be removed from the Final Offer

(including all copies) and any information presented on the excess pages will not be evaluated.


12/19



February 3, 2014

Page 12 of 19

Responsiveness Points Sub Criteria Points

Category Available EMD Siemens MPI Available EMD Siemens MPI

Buy America 8 5.000 8.000 8.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Standardization 8 8.000 8.000 6.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

General Arrangement Drawings 2 1.600 2.000 1.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Performance/Route Simulations 5 4.830 4.960 4.750 N/A N/A N/A N/A

TS Chapter 4 - Locomotive Carbody 4 3.267 3.600 3.467 60 49 54 52

TS Chapter 5 - Running Gear (Trucks) 7 5.425 6.125 5.425 40 31 35 31

TS Chapter 6 - Couplers and Draft Gear 1 0.800 0.800 0.800 20 16 16 16

TS Chapter 7 - Braking System 2 1.667 1.667 1.600 30 25 25 24

TS Chapter 8 - Engineer's Cab 2 1.543 1.771 1.657 35 27 31 29

TS Chapter 9 - Locomotive Propulsion 8 6.311 6.578 7.200 90 71 74 81

TS Chapter 10 - AC Power Dist, etc. 2 1.633 1.600 1.633 60 49 48 49

TS Chapter 11 - Lighting 1 0.800 0.850 0.800 20 16 17 16

TS Chapter 12 - Loco to Train Comm 1 0.750 0.750 0.800 20 15 15 16

TS Chapter 13 - Head End Power (HEP) 4 3.086 3.429 3.200 35 27 30 28

TS Chapter 14 - Battery System 0.5 0.417 0.417 0.400 30 25 25 24

TS Chapter 15 - Sanding System 0.5 0.417 0.433 0.350 30 25 26 21

TS Chapter 16 - Engineer's Cab Controls 2 1.650 1.750 1.650 40 33 35 33

TS Chapter 17 - Fuel System 1 0.800 0.800 0.800 40 32 32 32

Previous Similar Experience 2 2.000 2.000 2.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Program Management 5 5.000 5.000 4.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Schedule and Narrative 4 3.000 4.000 2.250 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total Score 70 57.995 64.529 58.382

Percent of Total Responsiveness Points 82.85% 92.18% 83.40%

Figure 6

For Fuel System, an offeror can receive a maximum of 1 point. Because Siemenss information

should not have been evaluated, Siemens should have received zero points. However, as shown

in Figure 6 above, Siemens was clearly evaluated, as it received 0.8 point for this section.

Similarly, Safety Accessories should not have been evaluated, and it is not clear whether IDOT

reviewed this section since no responsive points were assigned to this chapter. IDOTs evaluation

of Fuel System, which was provided on pages beyond the page limit imposed by IDOT, is adeparture from the requirements of the Procurement.

7. The Underpowered Siemens Locomotive Gives Siemens a Pricing AdvantageProviding an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to

significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a


13/19



February 3, 2014

Page 13 of 19

locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of

cylinders required.

In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the

locomotive offered by EMD. Fewer cylinders means lower lifecycle costs. It also means the

engine support systems (such as the emissions after-treatment and cooling systems) and the

alternator and propulsion system components can be smaller. Smaller components are less

costly to manufacture and lighter in weight, and consequently, the total cost of ownership are

drastically reduced for the locomotive.

As a result, Siemens is able to offer a locomotive which weighs at least 11,000 pounds less than

EMD's locomotive. But it can only do so because the engine and support components are not

sized to meet the material requirements of the Procurement - to achieve and sustain 125 MPH.

b. Legal Grounds for the Protest1. The Integrity of the Procurement Process Was Undermined When Siemens Received an

Unfair Advantage over Other Offerors

IDOTs acceptance of Siemenss non-compliant and arguably misleading proposal provided a

distinct and unfair advantage to one offeror over other offerors, undermining the integrity of the

procurement process as prohibited by ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(b)(4). The Procurements

specifications strictly required that locomotives proposed by offerors must achieve and sustain

125 MPH, and as described above, the Siemens locomotive is incapable of complying with thisspecification. Accepting the Siemens locomotive when IDOT knew or should have known about

the locomotives lack of capabilities frustrated the very essence of the Procurement - to acquire

locomotives capable of sustained speed of 125 MPH. This acceptance undermined the integrity

of the procurement process as it created an uneven playing field for all of the offerors responding

to the Procurement, favoring one offeror over others.

Likewise, the acceptance of Siemenss non-compliant locomotive is a fundamental violation of

IDOTs own requirements stated under Section A.7.5.218of the Procurement, again undermining

the integrity of the procurement process. The mandate to achieve and sustain 125 MPH is so

notably material that specifications in the Procurement documents, in addition to those from

NGEC, were unequivocal in this mandate. Failure to comply with this requirement isunquestionably a material deviation from the Procurement requirements.

18Section A.7.5.2 of the Procurement states, [a]n exception, if not material, may be waived by IDOT. An exception

from a requirement is material if the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the RFP requirements,

provides an advantage to one Offeror over other Offerors, or has a potentially significant effect on the delivery,

quantity or quality of items offered, amount paid to the Offeror, or on the cost to IDOT. Material deviations cannot

be waived.


14/19



February 3, 2014

Page 14 of 19

Furthermore, Siemenss (i) use of the Sauthoff formula for rolling resistance calculations and (ii)

failure to consider a HEP load in its acceleration calculations, also created an unfair advantage for

itself. IDOT presumably had no latitude to arbitrarily ignore these variations while holding otherofferors to the Procurements specifications. If the availability of more favorable results by

disregarding the Davis formula or HEP loads were made available to other offerors, a more equal

comparison between Siemenss locomotive and other offerors locomotives can be made. For

instance, if other offerors were permitted to use other rolling resistance numbers, drastically

different performance would have been derived and it likely would have affected engines and

systems, locomotive weight, P2 forces, standardization, Buy America, Service Proven, and project

schedule. Such factors could have been used producing lighter weights, less required

horsepower, increased fuel efficiency, lower life cycle cost, and acquisition cost.

The acceptance of a non-compliant offer from Siemens unquestionably created an uneven

playing field for all the offerors. In its form as submitted to IDOT, Siemenss proposal was

undeniably non-compliant. IDOTs waiver of an offerors compliance would signal a clear

partiality for one offeror over others, thereby unfavorably skewing19 the procurement process

and breaching the public trust while compromising the integrity of the procurement process in

violation of Illinois law20

.

2. IDOT Further Undermined the Procurement Process When It Failed to Comply with ItsProcurement Process

IDOT failed to enforce its own pass/fail criteria specified in Section B.1021

of the Procurement.

In this section, the Procurement rules require that if a proposal does not satisfy the requirements

of any pass/fail categories in the Technical Proposal, then the proposal must be rejected andfurther evaluation will necessarily cease.

As demonstrated above, knowing the horsepower alone would have informed a technically

competent evaluator that the Siemens locomotive cannot even achieve 125 MPH as required by

the Procurement specifications. In other words, no other calculation or evaluation was necessary

19 It is important to note that Siemens also provided IDOT with one or more iPads as part of its proposal. EMD

questions the business necessity of this practice and invites the State to scrutinize its implications under the

applicable procurement laws and related authority. See, e.g, 720 ILCS 5-33; See also U.S. v. Siemens

Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 08-367 (D.D.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2008); SEC v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 1:08-

cv-02167 (D.D.C. Filed Dec. 15, 2008) and related material at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/December/08-crm-1105.html.

20 ILGA Title 44, Section 6.20(a) states, in relevant part, [i]t is the policy of the CPO for the Department that all

activities of the appointed SPOs and other designees related to the procurement process maximize the value of the

expenditure of public funds in procuring contracts, and that those appointed and designated act in a manner that

maintains public trust in the integrity of the process.



15/19



February 3, 2014

Page 15 of 19

to determine whether a locomotive can achieve the required speed outside of a calculation

based on horsepower.

If IDOT had fully considered the Siemens locomotives capabilities (or lack thereof) based solely

on a scrutinized evaluation and calculation of the Siemens locomotives horsepower, the Siemens

proposal would have been rejected upon IDOTs completion of its review of Packet 1 (Technical

Proposal). This means that pursuant to Section B.10, no further evaluation would have occurred,

which means that IDOT should not have reached Packet 2 that contained Siemenss pricing.

Furthermore, Siemenss (i) use of the Sauthoff formula for rolling resistance calculations and (ii)

failure to consider a HEP load in its acceleration calculations, should have disqualified its proposal

for material non-compliance with the Procurement specifications. Such disqualification should

have occurred at the completion of IDOTs review of Packet 1. Instead, IDOT proceeded with its

evaluation of Siemenss proposal in blatant disregard of the requirement in Section B.10.

Finally, IDOT failed to comply with its Procurement process, evaluating the Fuel System chapter

of the Vehicle Major Systems portion of the Siemens proposal when IDOTs own procurement

rules would have necessarily precluded this section from review and evaluation. Scoring this

section when it should not have been evaluated again would signal a clear partiality for one

offeror over others. IDOTs failure to comply with its own procurement process compromised

the integrity of the entire Procurement.

3. The Undermined Procurement Process Severely Disadvantaged EMD

The unfair advantage given to Siemens severely disadvantaged EMD. As described in Section(b)(1) above, if all offerors had been afforded the ability to arbitrarily reduce the performance of

their proposed locomotive, or apply other means to obtain more favorable results such as

disregarding HEP load or using the Sauthoff formula, thereby allowing offerors to propose a

locomotive with lower sustained speed (believing it to be acceptable to IDOT), other product

configurations could have been submitted. A lower performing locomotive requires less power,

and consequently, a lower price could be offered. Such differences shape the determination of

the Procurements award. Most importantly, scoring in other categories also could have been

profoundly different.

EMD prides itself in its ability to find the right solution for its customers. If EMD had known that

offerors may provide a solution with lower performance criteria, EMD may have provided adifferent solution that would have met the JPEs needs and with reduced pricing. However, EMD

was unconscionably deprived of this opportunity. No communication was made to EMD (and

other offerors) providing specifications for a lower-performing locomotive. Knowing only those

specifications provided in the Procurement and trusting the integrity of the procurement process,

EMD strictly adhered to the Procurement documents and offered a compliant locomotive in all

areas of the specifications, as well as meeting all pass/fail items. As a result of EMDs strict

compliance with the Procurement documents, EMDs proposal was automatically placed at a

distinct handicap in price and scoring in contrast to the non-compliant locomotive offered by


16/19



February 3, 2014

Page 16 of 19

Siemens, thus requiring that the relief sought by EMD be granted to ensure fairness and

preservation of the Procurements integrity.

c. Request for ReliefEMD requests that IDOT immediately stay the proposed award to Siemens pursuant to Title 44,

Section 6.43022, confirm the statements in this protest and subsequently cancel this

Procurement. EMD further requests that a new procurement be issued as soon as possible and

that IDOT adheres to all requirements for locomotive performance in its evaluation. If, however,

IDOT is permitted by Illinois law to award the Procurement to the lowest-priced compliant

offeror (rather than issue a new procurement), EMD is positioned to begin the process of

executing the terms of its proposal submitted to IDOT for the Procurement.

EMD believes it has provided sufficient information in this protest, including in Exhibit A, that

substantiates the non-compliance of the Siemens locomotive. It would be irresponsible and

potentially unlawful to knowingly procure a locomotive that only reaches its specified velocity in

a downhill or less-than-specified configuration.

Furthermore, the Federal and State taxpayers need to be aware that their tax revenue dedicated

to 125 MPH service would be misspent in the event that IDOT continues with its intent to award.

The FRA and NGEC members have supported the sustained 125 MPH requirement and in this

instance, may have a keen interest in the outcome of this protest as will the media.

In addition, because EMD believes this protest to be of interest to current and potential JPEs,

EMD is taking steps to assure that this protest is communicated to those parties concurrentlywith this mailing to IDOT.

(5) Timeliness:Consistent with the terms of ILGA Title 44, Section 6.420(a), this protest is being filed within

seven days of January 29, 2014 and is therefore timely. January 29, 2014 was the day that EMD

received information requested from IDOT under FOIA relative to the Siemens proposal. This

was therefore the first day EMD knew or should have known facts relative to the locomotive

product offered by Siemens under the Procurement, and of such products failure to meet the

Procurements specifications, giving rise to this protest.

(Signature Appears on the Following Page)



17/19



February 3, 2014

Page 17 of 19

(6) Signature:Respectfully submitted by Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.

Gary Eelman

Vice President - Passenger Locomotive Sales

Copies to the following via overnight mail:

Bruce Roberts, PE Kristi Jamison

Division Chief (Acting) State Rail Plan Project Manager

CALTRANS Division of Rail MODOT

P.O. Box 942874, MS 74 105 West Capitol

Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 Jefferson City, MO 65102

David Smelser - ARRA Cascades Program Manager Larry Karnes

WSDOT Project Manager

WSDOT Headquarters Mailing Address Michigan State Rail PlanWashington State Department of Transportation State Transportation Building

310 Maple Park Avenue SE 425 W. Ottawa Street

P.O. Box 47300 P.O. Box 30050

Olympia, WA 98504-7300 Lansing, MI 48909

Mario Bergeron

Chief Mechanical Officer

Amtrak

100 S. French Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

Craig O'Riley

Iowa Department of Transportation

Office of Systems Planning

800 Lincoln Way

Ames, IA 50010


18/19



February 3, 2014

Page 18 of 19

EXHIBIT A

Minimum Engine Power Requirements

PRIIA Specification 305-005 Rev A and the Procurement documents establish that a speed of 125 MPH

must be sustained for a consist made up of two locomotives and 8 cars (1,360,000 pounds of trailing

load). Each car has a minimum HEP load of 45 kW. Based on the calculations shown below, in order for

this consist to sustain this speed on tangent, level track, a minimum of 4530.5 BHP per locomotive is

required.

Calculating Minimum Engine Power Requirements requires first calculating the equivalent rolling

resistance of the consist, then calculating the power required at the rail (tractive horsepower or THP) and

finally the total required engine power (brake horsepower or BHP) based on rolling resistance and THP,

HEP requirements and locomotive auxiliary loads.

Assumptions

The Procurement documents provided the basic consist configuration, including the Davis constants for

the locomotives and passenger cars specified. For these calculations, an assumed weight of 265,658

pounds is used for the locomotive. Subtle variations such as locomotive weight and assumed system

efficiencies have a minimal impact on the end result.

Davis Constants

A B C D

Lead Locomotive 1.3 29 0.03 0.0024

Trailing Locomotive 1.3 29 0.03 0.0012

Passenger Cars 1.3 29 0.03 0.00044

Calculating Rolling Resistance

The equivalent rolling resistance at 125 MPH expressed in thousands of Newtons (a unit of effort) is as

follows:

Rolling Resistance (kN)

Lead Locomotive 27.03

Trailing Locomotive 15.27

Passenger Cars 54.90

Total 97.19


19/19



February 3, 2014

Page 19 of 19

Calculating Tractive Horsepower (THP)

The power required at the rail to move the consist at a sustained 125 MPH on tangent, level track is

calculated using the following formula:

P (kW) = Effort (N) * Speed (m/s) = =

Note that 125 MPH is equivalent to 201.2 km/hr. The rolling resistance was calculated above to be 97.19

kN. Therefore, the power required for the consist to sustain 125 MPH is:

P (kW) = 97.19 kN * 201.2 km/hr / 3.6 = 5,431.8 kW or 7,284.2 THP

This equates to THP = 3,642 HP per locomotive.

Calculating Brake Horsepower (BHP)

BHP is the total engine horsepower required by the locomotive(s) and consist to sustain 125 MPH on

tangent level track. BHP includes the tractive horsepower (THP), the consist HEP requirements and the

engine horsepower required to power the engine auxiliary loads such as mechanical pumps and cooling

fans. In order to calculate these requirements, it is common system design practice to assume certain

system efficiencies. The following calculations include very conservative best case system efficiencies.

THP an AC traction system has a typical system efficiency of 90%. If 5,431.8 kW is required to sustain

125 MPH, then based on a 90% system efficiency, 6,035.3 kW is required from the engine to supply the

traction system.

HEP 8 cars at 45 kW/car require 360 kW. An AC based HEP system has a typical system efficiency of

90%. If 360 kW is required, then based on a 90% system efficiency, 400 kW is required from the engine

to supply the HEP system.

Accessory Power a modern diesel engine has a typical auxiliary load of 5% of the total THP and HEP

power requirement. This equates to an additional 321.8 kW (5% of the sum of 6,035.3 and 400) required

from the engine to supply the auxiliary loads.

Therefore the consist requires BHP = THP + HEP + Accessory Power = 6,035.3 + 400 + 321.8 = 6,757.1 kW

or 9,061 BHP. Each of the two locomotives in the consist must be capable of generating 4530.5 BHP.

Summary: In order for the 2-locomotive and 8-car consist specified by the Procurement documents

to achieve and sustain 125 MPH on tangent level track, each locomotive has to have

minimum engine power4530.5 BHP.

Documents

HSR. IDOT - Multi-State Procurement Protest - Feb 2014 Original