Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1992, C-6 - SLO TRANSIT SERVICE AGREEMENT l�lllll11�`I "J f �n M6`TING DATE Cl � SA1 1 , S �B�SpO APRIL 7 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Ten,,NUMBNJ FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer.--- , PREPARED BY: Harry Watson, Transit Manager,,V/� - David Elliott, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: SLO Transit Service Agreement CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Approve the recommended ranking of firms which submitted proposals 2) Authorize staff to negotiate a transit service agreement with Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. and return to the Council for contract approval 3) Authorize staff to negotiate with DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. if negotiations with Mayflower are unsuccessful. DISCUSSION: Background. The existing transit service agreement will expire on June 30, 1992 after 10 years. At its meeting on January 7, 1992, the Council approved a new draft transit service agreement and authorized the City Administrative Officer to distribute a request for proposals to provide transit service from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1995. On February 27, 1992 , staff opened proposals from the following four firms: • DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. • Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. • Medi-Ride, Incorporated • Santa Barbara Transportation Evaluation. After opening the proposals, the Transit Manager convened an evaluation panel which included himself, Shayne Sandeman, a transportation planner from Caltrans, and David Elliott from Public Works, who formerly managed the City's transit agreements. Each panelist scored the proposals on a `scale from 0 to 100 points by reviewing four weighted factors: Organization (20 points possible) , Maintenance (20 points possible) , Personnel (50 points possible) , and Miscellaneous (10 points possible) . Combining the scores of all three panelists yielded the following ranking of firms: 1) Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. 273 points 2) DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. 269 points 3) Santa Barbara Transportation 234 points 4) Medi-Ride, Incorporated 222 points Although submittals included cost proposals, the panelists did I,������►►►�IIIIIII�P° �UUI city of San s OBIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SLO Transit Service Agreement page 2 not consider cost. The primary purpose of the evaluation was to identify the best qualified firm. Mayflower did incidentally submit the lowest cost proposal. I Panel Consensus. After combining scores to establish rankings, the panel subjectively reviewed and discussed the proposals to further substantiate the rankings. The attached table shows how the panel rated various subfactors from "superior" to "unacceptable". Following is further explanation of high and low ratings in this part of the evaluation: • Mayflower's startup plan and schedule rated "superior" because it was exhaustively thorough and assigned startup responsibilities to specific employees. • Santa Barbara Transportation's startup plan and schedule rated "poor" because it was very sketchy and did not include , milestones. • Medi-Ride's years of fixed route experience rated "unacceptable" because the RFP required a minimum of five years and Medi-Ride had less than one year. • DAVE Transportation's number of fixed route contracts rated "superior" because it listed 40 existing contracts versus 12 for the next highest firm. • Medi-Ride's number of fixed route contracts rated "poor" because it listed only one existing contract. • DAVE Transportations's and Mayflower's preventive maintenance and inspection plans rated "superior" because of their completeness and documentation. • Mayflower's and Medi-Ride's adequacy of driver hours rated "superior" because there was plenty of cushion allowed for ! contingencies. • Mayflower's adequacy of driver pay and benefits rated "poor" because proposed driver wages were relatively low and this situation has caused problems for the current transit service contractor. (See the "Next Steps" section of this report for further comment on this issue. ) • DAVE 'Transportations's and Mayflower's adequacy of proposed operating reports rated "superior" because of thoroughness and flexibility. FISCAL IMPACT: The submittals included the cost proposals shown on the next page, calculated as a price per revenue mile and listed from lowest to highest. Cha ���G���ni►�►Iilll�lpi►���I`I city of San 's osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPOORT SW Transit Service Agreement page 3 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 Mayflower Contract Services, Inc. $2 .29 $2 . 39 $2 . 50 Santa Barbara Transportation 2 . 57 2 .67 2 .78 DAVE Transportation Services, Inc. 3 .21 3 .30 3 .40 j Medi-Ride, Incorporated 3 .87 3 .93 4. 11 The price under the existing contract with Laidlaw is $1.90 per i revenue mile. i NEXT STEPS: On service contracts solicited through proposals rather than competitive bids, the City's purchasing control procedures require the Council to approve the recommended ranking of firms. Following this confirmation, staff negotiates a contract with the top-ranked firm (Mayflower in this case) and returns to the Council for approval. If staff cannot reach agreement with the top-ranked firm, then negotiations proceed with the second- j ranked firm (DAVE Transportation) . j Attachment: table comparing proposal subfactors NOTE: SUBMITTED PROPOSALS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C: \WP\TRANSITI C�3 ca c as O O O O O O c O co (am ts om o Occ co w CL O .►. w w w w w VU (a Q. co co U) Uco) U) X U)y Cl)Cl) C C ca a3 c~a (a a) (1) a) a) ca (a c0 cn ca y w UJ y w Cl) B z' a% . � Z �. U d L 0 U U L m UC13 IV U cc$c m a) Q a U) y a N U c(aa ® ca ca m Cl) C U) U) U) U) 7 t5 ca ` U O C C C O O C C p O �O± C L a) a) 75 mca a) m m 4) a) ca m CD U Q z w w — :3X X .N—. .—�. X X O co m a) NU) a) U) N y a) F!.ch a) C O G O C CO` O O C O O` O O c rOA ui m m t5 t5 N U U U a) a) m ca a) a) ca ca 75 cCa U U U O_ y y U rA D- y y U mm a) N c-a ca a) c"a U) cYa ct a) LLL � W U) W W U) Q N OD Z C (` W ca In 0 z ca a) x a) � y C Z C D 7 Z y a) 03 CL C C Q H C Q CO O a) Q V > m m a) Z C U) C x C O � C E y Q C rA a) Q X O a) •3 a) ca O E C C m C a) w f0 w E co m Co. x zr_ .� a) N m m = m a m o- r a Q y m � —�. c � a a 3 w m w c ami c m m U a3 Eco O a) V a) m CD m ca uJ LL c } Z U LL H Q LL a. W (n m c,—(o-4 (C C O f0 m 15 U t5 tU m t5 t5 U CO O w m 42ca w cc 75 ca wCL w ca U) U) U U) Ul U) U) X Y U) C Cca (D co c0 co c0 m co c3 c0 Co 03U) U) W UJ y U) CO) co O O C `O c C C O O O m ` m m mE t5 t5 m m a)m m m cc N c0 U _ _ _ m CX O X X X U) m y w `+ w m m m 0♦+ c" ci N t�A O O W W w C t5 ca i V 0 — C O `O C C C O O O (-) mw `, m L m m CD m m m p m m N cU0 N m U U `W O- U Q U U y N y 3 X X X O m m N H m m m y y y f0 c O cc co 0 — C O O C O C C O O O CL U) m V t5 �U m m U U C m m m c0 m ca m co w ca c0 U U y N U N U U m to y m c�6 cr6 m N m N W10 V) U) V) U) U) U) Q c >% m O .. O. 7 J N C +- W c O m m Z cu Oz co O C L C. ca c0 a a CD Cc ca w c > c j y c y N m W O O ca O cE m c�6 a o- o E a E �, a W a E U O Om O m rn c m � U ° �, �, c >. c m cca 3 �, r aO 0 0 3 cam (a .0 m c o o 0 � my °- O V Q Q Cr m C m C m C c C fl c Q ca ca w m m � o o Q ¢ Q a C-�S k 0 c / 0 Co 0 2 R $ a cc (a w 2 2 5 � ƒ 2 cc ° k k « 7 k k 2 2 2 e $ w g x 2 2 2 ° © § g g c c © co ci k c § c / / G CL % 2 2 2 § Q ) w cc � co � / cu k - cc ƒ 0 0 2 2 A 5 7 / ( ( k k w0 k co c c CD m CD c 2 c z k / 0 E § w5- U) U) m Q 7 "CL � 2 % n o c & \ \ c ° > % k 2 0 \ cis 0 1 � � m _ = c e o V) o _ o 3 ■ e V- e V- c o < X � 2 2 w k U- w < < £ Q ��