The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/10/1992, C-7 - AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THREE TRANSIT BUSES AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSIT GRANTS. MEEnNG DATE: Il�ll1 city of san . -.is OBISpO v ITEM NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Managerl��- SUBJECT: Award of contract for the rehabilitation of three transit buses and resolution authorizing the application for transit grants. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the specifications and Request for Proposal to rehabilitate three 10 year old SLO Transit buses. 2. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute contracts with Midwest Bus Rebuilders in the amount of $155,124.00 to rehabilitate the three buses. 3. Adopt resolutions authorizing the application for a Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) grant and a Rideshare grant. DISCUSSION: Background The primary purpose of this staff report is to award contracts for a previously approved Council project to rehabilitate three 10 year old buses. In terms of bidding the project, there has been an inadvertant departure from the usual process, which is also discussed in this report. In addition, the Council is being asked to adopt two resolutions which address two "housekeeping" items related to TCI and Ridesharing transit grants. Bus Rehabilitation Contract Award The Bid Process. In adopting the 1992-93 Budget, the City Council has approved a $210,000 capital project to rehabilitate three of the City's transit 10 year old coaches. Funding for the rehabilitation was to be derived from a Transit Capital Improvement Grant ($105,000) and local TDA funds ($105,000). Although Council previously approved the rehabilitation project, including the proposed funding strategy, through an oversight staff deviated from the normal process of first taking the specifications and Request for Proposals (RFP)to the City Council for approval prior to advertising a project of this scope. Instead, a CAO Special Report process was utilized. Although the City's municipal code would allow for the issuance of the proposals by staff without Council approval, as contained in Municipal Code 3.24.060, and the use of the RFP process as contained in Municipal Code 3.24.060 G, the City's purchasing policies and past practices would indicate that Council approval ;�m'�iiil►Illll�iui°1i II city of sail ,ti. s OBISPO ' iilllf COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT would normally have been obtained first. To a degree, this situation is a result of the Transit Manager's interest in moving the process forward expeditiously in order to retain a waiver from the State for the particular engine appropriate for SLO Transit's older vehicles (this is further described later in this report). At this point, we are faced with basically two alternatives: (A) all bids could be rejected and the process started again; or (B) the Council can waive the usual practice, approve the specifications and RFP, and award the rehabilitation contracts. Staff is recommending the latter alternative for the following reasons: i First, as mentioned previously, Council approval of specifications/proposals is not legally required by the City Charter or the Municipal Code. In the implementation of code requirements, however, as a matter of policy the City Council has established certain cost estimate thresholds which trigger Council review. Since this is a matter of policy, the Council could choose to waive the existing policy because of some extenuating circumstances. I Staff strongly recommends waiving the policy because the delay caused by starting the process all over will result in the expiration of a waiver from the California Air Resources Board (GARB) for a state-of-the-art clean burning, advance design diesel engine without particulate traps. The waiver will expire on December 31, 1992 and will not be renewed. Thus, any delay in the process at this time will cause staff to pursue the engine approval process all over again, causing a substantial amount of delay in the much needed rehabilitation of City buses. In addition, it may be very difficult or impossible to obtain approval for the type of engine suitable for our existing older fleet. j It should be emphasized that through the CAO Special Report process a competitive process has been used as a part of this bid, following all of the usual internal procedures through the City Clerk's Office. Assuming the Council approves of the specifications and proposal at this time, the outcome of this process will have been the same, even if the bid package had been brought to the Council earlier. Thus, the "procedures issue" relates to City policy and not to the fairness or competitiveness of the process. The process has been both fair and competitive. Key Specification Issue: It is important to comment on the reason staff has pursued a diesel engine as opposed to a CNG engine and the importance of retaining the waiver. Prior to developing the specifications, three vendors came to San Luis Obispo and surveyed our buses and determined that they could not be converted to compressed j natural gas (CNG) due to the excessive weight of the vehicles and inadequate amount of room in the engine compartment to accommodate a compressed natural gas engine. It was also determined that there was not adequate room in the engine compartment to accommodate particulate traps to be installed. Thus, staff went through the considerable bureaucratic process of attaining the waiver from CARB to install state-of-the-art electronically controlled advanced design diesel engines, which will burn fuel in a very I e r- °,;�r�iii�illl!II IpaIIIIi� city of San I IS OBISp0 NiNCOUNQ... AGENOARFEART clean manner in comparison to the existing engines. It is also important to note that the i vehicles will also eventually be serving in a back-up capacity, as the City acquires brand new transit coaches. Pursuing a new waiver could cause a delay of up to six months and there is no guarantee that it would be granted (the State only granted three waivers this year). The specifications, CAO report, and RFP are available in the City Clerk's Office for review. Recommended Vendors: The RFP was issued on August 20 with a closing date of September 30. Six vendors responded on either all or part of the specifications as allowed for in the RFP. The lowest responsible per unit vendor reply was from the firm i of Midwest Bus Rebuilders, Fresno, CA in the amount of $51,707 per bus. Responses were also submitted by: Brumit Diesel, Santa Maria, CA Los Angeles Freightliner, GMC, Riverside, CA Team Bid: Bakersfield, CA Complete Coach Works, Ontario, CA 1 Keith's Automotive Trim, San Luis Obispo (interior only) ► The RFP contained provisions that allowed vendors to propose on one or more of the components of the RFP and allows the City to complete any or all of those components and to contract with one or more vendors to complete the various components depending upon which is most advantageous to the City. As noted in the bid summary (Attachment 1), Midwest bid all components of the RFP. The proposals are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. Transit Capital Improvement (TCI) Grant Recently, TCI grants were solicited from the-City by the local San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). The first was for the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center Preliminary Engineering Project (subject of Council action on July 21, 1992). The second was for the previously mentioned 50% match ($105,000) for SLO Transit's planned Bus Rehabilitation, Project. Although the City was the lead agency for the Transfer Center grant, SLOCOG had taken the lead in the Bus Rehabilitation Project grant application and j combined it with a similar bus rehabilitation application for the regional transit system, San Luis Obispo Area Regional Transit (SLORTA). The State subsequently rejected SLOCOG's application and instead asked that SLO Transit and SLORTA reapply separately. The State allowed a 10 day window for the revised applications in order to make the California Transportation Commission (CTC) agenda. While staff did submit the grant application within the 10 day period (which was subsequently approved), it was not possible to obtain formal Council approval within that -7 r,I��I��iillilll��IaIIIIIU city of san lys oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT timeframe. At this time, however, a resolution showing City support for that action is needed (Attachment 2). As mentioned earlier, through the budget process the Council has previously approved the bus rehabilitation program. Rideshare Grant i On July 23, 1992, the local Caltrans office contacted SLO Transit and advised that there was a chance that SLO Transit could secure State Rideshare funds for a bus purchase if staff were able to generate a letter of interest and intent and deliver it to Caltrans that same day. The County Rideshare Coordinator was also given this opportunity, and together our letters of interest were supported by SLOCOG at their August 5, 1992 I meeting. As noted in Attachment 3, SLO Transit's request was for funds to acquire a compressed natural gas (CNG) bus. Indications are that the City has been approved for an amount above the original request (the results of subsequent negotiations with Caltrans). The latest request is for 90% of the purchase price of the CNG bus (the original request was 80%). Upon final approval of State Rideshare personnel and the Federal government who will be administering this grant, the formal grant application process will be requested. At that time a resolution by the City Council will be necessary in support of this project. A resolution supporting the grant application for a Rideshare grant is attached as Attachment 4. FISCAL IMPACT: The TCI grant application estimated the total cost of rehabilitating all three transit buses to be $210,000. The approved TCI grant amount is at the maximum amount allowed (50%) of project cost of $105,000. The remaining $105,000 to be funded from I unencumbered Transportation Development Act (TDA)funds as budgeted for in the 1992- 93 Council approved Transit budget. The recommended vendor responses fall within the grant approved cost estimate. The recommended vendor, Midwest Bus Rebuilders, response for the three buses is $155,124.00. The Rideshare grant match would be $28,000. If CNG is used as an alternate fuel, Southern California Gas would be asked to fund $7,500 (their maximum match amount). ALTERNATIVES: A. As previously stated, all proposals could be rejected and the process started again. The City could lose the waiver, and the result could be the same if that action were taken. B. Council can waive the usual practice, approve the specifications and RFP, and award the rehabilitation contract. This recommended action keeps the valuable CARB waiver active and results in a timely rehabilitation of our transit buses. e7r �i��i�►►i�lllllilll l��u►��II city Of San ' i s OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid Summary 2. Resolution supporting TCI Grant 3. - Letter Regarding Rideshare Grant 4. Resolution Supporting Rideshare Grant NOTE: The CAO Special Regortbus rehabilitation specifications and RFP. and the vendor proposals are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. hw\rehab.rpt BUS REHABILITATION RESPONSES RECEIVED BRUMIT DIESEL $53,598.00 MIDWEST BUS REBUILDERS $51,707.00 LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER - GMC $60,921.00 BAKERSFIELD TEAM BID $62,042.00 COMPLETE COACH WORKS $68,190.00 KEITH'S AUTOMOTIVE TRIM $ 4,123.00 ATTACHMENT 1 hw\busrehab.bid -7 to BID SUMMARY L.A. MIDWEST BRUMIT FREIGHTLINER TIME 2-4 WKS START 2 WKS START 8 WKS START 4 WKS EACH 4 WKS EACH 3-5 WKS EACH FRT AXLE 1754 2592 3097 ADD'L AXLE 1141 2892 DR. AXLE HOUS 2005 2046 2717 HUBS 505 295 771 BRK.SYS. 2322 1467 3917 AIR SYS. 1653 194 1329 BATTERY 1018 472 948 INTERIOR 2803 NONE 2753 EXTERIOR 5710 3775 358.1 COOLING 1374 244 1107 DRIVESHAFT 101 147 NONE EXHAUST 575 776 572 TRANS. INC.IN 14,480 INC.IN RPWR RPWR ENGINE INC.IN INC.IN INC.IN RPWR RPWR RPWR REPOWER 30,396 27,110 37,237 TRANSPORTATION 350 NONE NONE TOTAL 51,707 53,598 60,921 A-7-7 BID SUMMARY COMPLETE TEAM COACH BID* KEITH'S TIME IMMEDIATE 6 WKS START FRT AXLE 2200 2452 NONE ADD'L AXLE 1800 2608 NONE DR. AXLE HOUS NONE 1930 NONE HUBS 1040 NONE 1930 BRKSYS. 3660 NONE AIR SYS. 1360 NONE NONE BATTERY 740 380 NONE INTERIOR 4200 5141 4123 EXTERIOR 3100 5067 NONE COOLING NONE NONE NONE DRIVESHAFT 310 147 NONE EXHAUST 1280 NONE NONE TRANS. INC.IN INC.IN NONE RPWR RPWR ENGINE INC.IN INC.IN NONE RPWR RPWR REPOWER 48,000 42,387 NONE TRANSPORTATION 500 NONE NONE TOTAL 68,190 62,042 4,123 *Bakersfield Team Bid of Three Vendors RESOLUTION NO. (1992 SERIES) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT GRANT WHEREAS, the Transit Capital Improvement funding allows for the rehabilitation of transit coaches to enhance transit service; and WHEREAS, the City accepts the lead in applying for this grant from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is the hub of the consolidated regional transit system and.transit is a priority service of the City Council; and WHEREAS, all funds identified in the project application are committed to the project by the eligible applicant; and WHEREAS, Transportation Development Act funds will be used as the 50% grant match; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has the management and financial ability to accept the legal liabilities associated with this project; and WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments by resolution recommends that the City be approved in this application request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approves the application for these TCI funds and asks that the California Transportation Commission approve our request and authorizes the Mayor to execute the documents. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 2 Resolution No. (1991 Series) Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1992. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Adm istrative Officer r/,6rne hw\rehab.rpt 7-10 1 I I I 11 X77 / d Eat li►I�Illllllillllllllllllll��111111l��f►1111��I � II city of sAn tuis oBispo —� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 July 23, 1992 Linda Dolling Caltrans District 5 50 Higuera Sreet San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Rideshare Commuter Transit Enhancement Dear Linda: San Luis Obispo City Transit currently operates a commuter type system that has the major destination of California Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo. Current demand far exceeds our ability to supply enough buses. At the beginning of each school quarter, we have a situation where several routes consistently leave 30 to 40 riders per stop at the curb, not having enough space onboard to transport them. We could easily be transporting 2,000 to 2,500 more riders per day than we are currently serving if adequate rolling stock and operating funds were available. Those passengers that we turn down, return to their place of residence, get in their cars and commute to school. Obviously this has a negative impact on congestion, air pollution, and parking. With the addition of one transit vehicle, we could transport an additional 150,000 riders per year. The City is committed to both expanding its fleet as soon as possible and to the introduction of alternatively fueled transit vehicles as soon as the California Air Resources Board authorizes an alternative engine. The cost of an alternatively fueled (compressed natural gas) vehicle is currently quoted at $280,000. If we were awarded a grant through the Rideshare program, the City would pursue grant match combinations by pooling both City funds and Southern California Gas Company funds to make a grant match. With an estimated cost of a CNG fueled bus at $280,000, potentially a 20% match could be packaged which would leave a required grant request in the amount of $224,000. 1 know of no other system statewide that could virtually guarantee maximum sustained commuter ridership on a bus added to its system. I would hope that the Rideshare program could look upon our request favorably. Sincerely, ZX Harry Watson Transit Manager HW:bw\RIDESHARE ATTACHMENT 3 1111 II� cityof santuis oBispo — - REIM990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 October 8, 1992 Linda Dolling Caltrans District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Rideshare Commuter Bus Grant Approval Dear Linda: On behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo, please accept our thanks for your recent approval of our grant application to purchase an additional transit bus which will be used to reduce commuter trips within the City of San Luis Obispo. In these times of diminishing local, state, and federal funding, this grant is most timely. Attached is a copy of my July 23, 1992 letter to your office requesting that we be considered for this one-time grant. I'd like to call your attention to the second paragraph where the City Council's desire to introduce alternatively fueled buses into our fleet is explained. I'm sure you are aware that the California Air Resources Board recently authorized a compressed natural gas engine to be used in transit buses in California. Also contained in that paragraph is the estimated cost of $280,000 to purchase a compressed natural gas transit bus. It is at this point that the grant application and the grant approval numbers begin to differ. We stated that we hoped to be able to put together a 20% match between the City and the Southern California Gas Company of the requested $280,000, which left a grant request amount of $224,000. It appears that the grant award was based on that after- match number with an approved amount being $179,200 which equals 80% of our after- match grant request. That action leaves us approximately $100,000 short of being able to purchase a compressed natural gas transit bus. Our understanding from speaking to Rideshare Coordinator Tom Fulks is that potentially there are a few dollars left in this grant award cycle. With that in mind, we ask that we be reconsidered at 90% of the original grant application amount, which is $252,000. The reason for the increased percentage amount request is due to a substantial decline in the amount of local revenues being generated by sales tax, which is the primary funding source for SLO Transit. Should that amount not be realistic, we ask for the original request of 80% of the necessary $280,000 which is $224,000 of Rideshare monies being necessary to complete this project. Page 2 Dolling October 8, 1992 I know time is of the essence with this request, so we ask that you act on the City's request at your earliest opportunity. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please don't hesitate to call me at 781-7121. Sincerely, Harry Watson Transit Manager HW:bw DOLL2.ltr �Irracu��vr y RESOLUTION NO. (1992 SERIES) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE GRANT WHEREAS, Rideshare funding allows for the purchase of transit coaches to enhance transit service; and WHEREAS, the City accepts the lead in applying for this grant; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is the hub of the consolidated regional transit system and transit is a priority service of the City Council; and WHEREAS, all funds identified in the project application are committed to the project by the eligible applicant; and WHEREAS, Transportation Development Act funds will be used as the 10% grant match; and WHEREAS, if compressed natural gas is used as an alternate fuel, Southern California Gas has agreed to fund up to $7,500 of the cost; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has the management and financial ability to accept the legal liabilities associated with this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo approves the application for these Rideshare funds and asks that the Caltrans Rideshare approve our request and authorizes the Mayor to execute the documents. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 Resolution No. (1992 Series) Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1992. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Admi istrative Officer orn y hw\rehab.rpt 14 7-is