The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/18/1995, C-1 - TRANSIT SERVICE CONTRACT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) �IIm�IIINIIIII�pp SIUr M NG DATE: Cio San uui S OBISPO -J�-95 Nis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITMn NUMBER: FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Wo*§7" Prepared by: Harry Watson,Transit Manager SUBJECT: Transit Service Contract Request For Proposal (RFP) CAO RECOMIM EENDATION: 1. Approve the RFP for Transit Service for a term of three years, with provision of a two year extension. 2. Allow staff to develop a competitive bid for the City operation of the transit system. 3. Authorize the CAO to award the contract to the most responsible bidder. DISCUSSION: Background Our current contract with Mayflower Contract Services Inc. expires June 30, 1995. There is a contract provision for a two year extension.The Mayflower Company is being purchased by Laidlaw(our former contractor). Since Laidlaw's notice of intent to purchase Mayflower, the terms of the proposed contract extension have been further discussed with Mayflower/Laidlaw with results which are less favorable to the City. Due to State grant funding requirements, the City is asking for a flat monthly fee, a variable driver hourly fee and a variable bus mileage fee. We formerly had an all encompassing mileage rate contract. The offer made by Mayflower/Laidlaw incorporates an adjustment to the drivers wages to meet those offered by Regional Transit This is necessary to reduce our driver turnover which has ranged from an annual high of 80% to 40% in this current contract period. The proposed rate still does not meet the wages offered locally by the tour bus industry. Current Status Staff had intended to bring a negotiated Mayflower contract extension request to Council in January. The night before the Mass transportation Committee (MTC) was to hear the request, the City was notified of the Laidlaw buy out The MTC discussed the contract in length and voted to recommend the RFP process as well as having the City bid on direct operation of the system: Staff subsequently re-negotiated the terms of an extension with the new management. The latest offer exceeds the funding levels available. Mayflower has agreed to a month to month extension to facilitate the RFP.process. The RFP is available l-� ��►�►i�►�i��IIIII�IIIh ��l`I City Of San.-.AIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT RFP/Page Two in the Council office for viewing. Cijy Weration of transit System The MTC preferred City operation of the system prior to our current contractor and asked again that the City compete in the process as well. The MTC feels that City operation will guarantee service quality, dependability, continuity and stabilization of the service. It is common that transit services are operated by Cities, Counties and Transit Districts rather than by vendors. Cities such as Chico, Chula Vista, Arcadia, Roseville, Norwalk and Santa Monica operate their own systems. The impact on staff to prepare a City bid is estimated to take three weeks of full time effort. This may be less if it is determined early in the process that: the cost of labor required by City operation will make the City's bid non-competitive that the non transit City services required to support City operation of the transit system are unavailable (Finance, Personnel). The City bid will meet every condition required of private vendors bidding on the service. Selection Process An evaluation team will be assembled made up of the Transit Manager, Public Works Administrative Analyst, a fixed route transit staff person from an neighboring community, a representative from Finance, Administration and Personnel (Risk Management). The contractor proposals will be evaluated using a rating grid. Interviews and negotiations will be held resulting in a best and final offer. At that time, the City's sealed bid will be opened and compared(the Transit Manager would be excused from this process).The results of that comparison will be taken to the CAO for the award to the most responsible bidder. CONCURRENCES: The MTC passed a motion that the contract should be advertised and that City staff should prepare an independent bid. C��-z i��lllUllllll��u�►��II city of San L"IS OBISp0 = COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT RFP/Page Three FISCAL IMPACT: The impact on the budget of the continued operation of the system will not be known until the results of the RFP process are known. However the new contract rate is projected to be . higher than the current level due to the need to reduce driver turnover and meet accounting rules needed to receive STA funds. In any case, staff will negotiate the best possible contract with the most responsible bidder with the goal of maintaining current service levels. Should expenses exceed revenues available, staff will return to Council seeking approval of either decreased service levels or increased funding. NOTE: RFP is available for review in the Council office. Attachment: Tentative Schedule Contagnl Ci3 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE The tentative schedule and description of events for this procurement are: Date Event April 18, 1995 Council authorize's RFP April 19, 1995 Staff issues RFP May 3, 1995 Pre-proposal conference, deadline for submitting questions, deadline for submitting protests to staff. May 24, 1995 Deadline for submitting protests to FTA. June 14, 1995 Proposals due. Non public opening and initial evaluation begins. Sealed City proposal due. June 21, 1995 Interviews and negotiations, if necessary, are conducted. July 51 1995 If interview and negotiations are conducted, best and final offers are due. July 6, 1995 Evaluation team analysis and selection of the most qualified proposal. City proposal opened. Evaluation team compares City proposal to most qualified vendor proposal. July 28, 1995 CAO awards contract. October 2, 1995 Service begins. evcRFPsch These tentative dates are subject to change at the sole discretion of the City.