Rail Project For Dulles Raises Concerns

Fairfax County board members also expressed concern about having key design elements peeled away in negotiations to meet federal cost guidelines. Supervisor T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee) said one early cost-saving measure that surfaced was a shrinking of pedestrian walkways "into glorified cattle chutes."

All of the debate over the project assumes that the extension gets built in any form. State officials and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which would manage the project, are threatening to end talks with the consortium if terms can't be reached by April 5. Officials say the consortium's cost estimates are too high and must come down to meet strict federal cost-effectiveness criteria.

If the sides do sign a construction contract, many terms and details normally in public view will be treated as though they were national security directives. Under a 2004 agreement between the consortium and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, documents dealing with cost estimates, scheduling, overruns, markups, overhead and profit will be regarded as trade secrets and "sealed jointly" by the consortium and the state transportation agency for delivery to an escrow agent. If there are disputes, the materials can be reviewed -- jointly only -- with 10 days' written notice.

The documents "are and shall always remain" the construction consortium's property, according to the agreement. Six months after final payment to the consortium and the resolution of any outstanding disputes, the materials will be destroyed. Moreover, the airports authority is exempt from the state's freedom of information act, making public access to the documents even more difficult.

A handful of Fairfax County officials, including Richard F. Stevens, the Dulles project coordinator with the Fairfax County Department of Transportation, have been required to sign confidentiality agreements in exchange for access to the pricing documents. Stevens declined to discuss the agreement, and it is not clear to what extent he and other staff members will be able to brief elected officials on details of the construction contract if and when it is signed.

Elected officials in Northern Virginia are anxious that they will, in effect, be signing a check without having a chance to look at the bill.

"We're very fearful that they've been able to use the cloak of secrecy [that the public-private act] provides to prevent public penetration of the contractual aspects of this project," said Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the Fairfax County board. Members are especially apprehensive about "change orders," or alterations in the project's design for budgetary or engineering reasons. "We're going to be handed a bill and told to ante up," he said.

Matthew O. Tucker, director of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, downplayed secrecy concerns. He said there have been more than two dozen technical and advisory group meetings involving the local stakeholders, including Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the airports authority and Metro. "All of these major civil projects come together in different ways," he said. "From that perspective, I don't see this as anything outside of the ordinary."

Tucker said that none of this should surprise local officials. It was all part of the preliminary accord reached by the consortium and the state in 2004. "Everyone had a full understanding as to what this process was and is."

Fairfax officials said the meetings that Tucker described were updates on progress, not deep drillings into details.

But Tucker's response raises the question: Why did local officials buy into a project under the public-private partnership act?

Kauffman, a member of the Metro board and an advocate for the tunnel, said it was seen as the only way to finance such an expensive undertaking. "So it was presented basically as, 'Begin this dance, or there is no project.' "

Fairfax representatives say their concerns are not without precedent.

"Just look north," said Kauffman, referring to Bechtel's management of Boston's $14.6 billion "Big Dig" highway project, originally budgeted at $7.7 billion. In 2004, Massachusetts officials filed a $146 million lawsuit against Bechtel and Parsons Brinckerhoff, alleging that the contractors concealed actual cost estimates from the state to keep the project on track.

Bechtel officials say that the suit, still pending, is without merit.