Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1992, C-4 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE DRAFT AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO PROVIDE TRANSIT SERVICE FOR SLO TRANSIT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992-93 THROUGH 1994-95.IIIoNIIIVIIIIiiIIi�IIUIi� f MEETING DAT Ip�u�� c� o san ��.�s osispo - �- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:_ FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer/No Prepared by: Harry Watson, Transit Managerfw SUBJECT: Consideration of approving the draft agreement and request for proposals (RFP) to provide transit service for SLO Transit for Fiscal Years 1992 -93 through 1994 -95. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Approve, and authorize the CAO to distribute a request for proposals (RFP) and proposed new contract for SLO Transit service for Fiscal Years 1992 -93 through 1994 -95. BACKGROUND: SLO Transit is in the last year of its current contract with Laidlaw Transit, Inc. for the operation and maintenance of our transit fleet. The current contract was initiated 10 years ago on a five year basis with CalCoast Charter. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. bought out CalCoast Charter in the second five year option of the original contract and has been operating the system for four years. The RFP "Package" The RFP package contains a Service Agreement, the Request for Proposals, a Scope of Work, Service Options, a Performance Incentive Program, and finally the Questionnaire /Contractor's Proposal. The package is a compulation of several RFP /Agreement documents that staff believes are among the best in effect with transit operations in the State of California. RFP and Agreement documents were made available to staff by other operators in Central and Northern California, by the California Transit Association, and by the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Elements of many of those RFP's and Agreements have been folded into a document package that should serve SLO well through both the three year contract period (and for the optional two year extension contained in the agreement package, should the City choose to exercise that option). The proposed package has been reviewed and revised by a subcommittee of the City's Mass Transportation Committee (made up of Chairman James Forrer, Vice Chairman Karl Hovanitz, Ken McCracken and Dr. Walter Rice). The Service Agreement deals with the legal requirements of operating a transit system in the 90's and spells out specific requirements to be met by both the vendor and the City. It includes all current Risk Management requirements of the City. The Request for Proposal section gives the City flexibility in negotiating specifics of the service level, spells out requirements of the various staffing levels to be supplied and minimum training and reporting requirements. The timetable and methodology to be used by the City in vendor selection is described, C- 4111MIQ city Of San, JS OBISPO 01 1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 The Scope of Work section spells out the level of service to be provided consistent with the existing system and through the expansion programmed in the recently approved Short Range Transit Plan. It deals with potential new technology being introduced into the system in the way of emission controls and alternate fuels. City requirements set forth address: All facilities and equipment for both the City and vendor; vehicle maintenance; parts and supplies; and reporting for the City, State and Federal government. Additional information requirements include employee qualifications, training, uniforms, work rules, fare handling, any future Federal drug testing requirements and accident procedures. The. Performance Incentives section lists a set of performance incentives and penalties. Low levels of maintenance roadcalls, preventable accidents and high on -time performance result in an additional one cent per mile each. Uniform infractions, running ahead of schedule, missed safety meetings, dirty buses, failure of maintenance inspections, non - functioning wheelchair lifts and missed runs result in penalties ranging from $10.00 to $125.00 per infraction. The Service Options section allows for the vendor to offer additional services not specifically called for in the RFP section. This allows the City to avail itself of programs and services currently being offered other transit systems that we may not now be aware of or which we would like to take advantage of occasionally. Examples could be mobility training for the disabled, vendor conducted service club presentations, etc. This section is also where potential fleet expansion costs are addressed. The Service Questionnaire section will provide insight into how the potential vendors will deal with the many facets of operating our transit service. Typical of the issues dealt with in the questionnaire are: examples of implementation schedule, a chronology of the firm's experience by service, fleet type and contract size, site manager profile, maintenance supervisor profile, state required reporting history and three year income history. Litigation and credit questions and Federal directive questions are asked. Several equipment and maintenance procedure questions are asked. Extensive questions on personnel, wages, training, benefits, existing employees, shift coverage and information services are included. With the City's urbanization designation, very extensive reporting requirements are attached to the Federal dollars so several reporting questions are asked. C -4 -=Z 1I141� city Of San 1wiS OBISpO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 An expanded "options" section is contained in the questionnaire so we can explore the firm's attitudes on alternate fueled buses, fleet expansion and service hours expansion. Finally, we ask who the principals of the firm are and deal with proposal bonds. Time Table Our tentative time table for the RFP process is to issue the RFP in January 1992 with proposals to be received by the City in March 1992. This timetable allows for a pre - proposal question submission and response period, an evaluation of proposals, Mass Transportation Committee review, and a vendor interview/ negotiation period. A detailed outline and schedule for the process is provided in the RFP document. Award of the contract by Council is scheduled to take place 45 days prior to expiration of our current contract on June 30, 1992. The 45 day timeframe would allow a new vendor adequate time for the smooth transition of service for SLO Transit on July 1, 1992. FISCAL IMPACT: The results of the RFP process are unknown at this time, but a recent awarding of the contract for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) service resulted in a rate per mile that is 15% above our existing rate per mile of $1.90. It should be noted that the Regional contract does not include the cost of diesel fuel, nor does it include the cost of insurance coverage for the operation. Both of those items are provided by SLORTA. It should also be noted that our RFP will include the City supplying the maintenance and storage facilities as compared to the Regional operator being required to supply those facilities. CONCURRENCE: A subcommittee of the Mass Transportation Committee was formed August 14 to review the RFP and scope of work. They reviewed the documents and met with staff, and many of their recommendations are incorporated into this RFP package. NOTE: The Agreement and RFP package are available for review in the City Council reading file and in the City Clerk's Office. HW:bw rfp. rpt c -jY