EMAIL DETAILS

Thanks, Mike. That is really helpful. I don't think this radically changes anything as far as CAF's chances are concerned. They are still at a huge disadvantage on this because they don't have the past experience of achieving 186, but there is a small window because it continues to say "desirable" and they still are not out right disqualified. We'll see what the final RFQ says.


Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC
1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Suite 705
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-1880
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
P Consider the environment before printing this email.

On Dec 16, 2010, at 5:12 PM, Michael Muldoon wrote:

Good Afternoon Guys,

FL Rail Enterprise posted another DRAFT RFQ today. There is still two
sections where they specifically mention the speed requirement:

1) Under the definition section (page 5): "Rolling Stock – Comprises
all rail vehicles that the Proposer team intends to provide, including
rolling stock for revenue and non-revenue operations. FDOT anticipates
requiring under the RFP that the Proposers’ passenger train sets shall
be electric steel-wheel-on-steel rail, with a pedigree of proven and
demonstrable passenger service history; train sets must be capable of
operating at speeds of at least 186 mph/300 kph or greater." -------
Again, here it mentions that the trains must be capable of 186mph or
faster, but doesnt specify having a proven record of going 186mph.

2) Under the experience section (page 29-30): "In addition, FDOT
desires the team members to have, respectively, the levels of
experience set forth in this Section 6.3.1(b). V. Lead Rolling Stock
Manufacturer A Rolling Stock manufacturer that has design,
manufacturing, testing and delivery experience within the past five
years, having supplied at least one project, with electric
steel-wheel-on-steel-track passenger trains capable of minimum
operating speeds of at least 186 mph/300kph with a proven and
demonstrable passenger service history. These requirements can be
satisfied by joint venture. --------- Here the keywords are "FDOT
desires" in combination with the speed requirement. The biggest
difference in this version versus the others is that they added the
last sentence: "These requirements can be satisfied by joint venture."

It is also interesting to note that under the technical requirements
(page 23) for rolling stock it states in the footer: "DRAFTING NOTE:
Additional specific submission requirements related to this reference
to the Proposed Lead Rolling Stock Manufacturer to be developed."

It looks as though all of the requirements regarding joining a team
after it has been shortlisted are the same (pages 8-9).

I'm still looking through the copy but wanted to get it out to you
guys ASAP. I'll circulate any additional comments I have and let me
know your thoughts on the JV piece.

Best,

Mike

--
Mike Muldoon
Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC
1010 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Suite 705
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-1880
mmuldoon@rosemontseneca.com
<FL HSR Draft RFQ (12-16-10).pdf>