Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-07-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - COMMUTER BUS SERVICEAGENDA REPORT CONSENT CALENDAR DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND July 12, 1994 City Manager SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COMMUTER BUS SERVICE CONTRACT Public Works On March 30, 1994, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) held two public hearings in Santa Clarita, as required by Article 8 of the California Transportation Development Act of 1971 (TDA). The TDA Hearing Board annually makes recommendations to the MTA Board concerning the findings and conditions for the use of TDA Article 8 funds based, in part, upon the public hearings. The MTA estimates that the City of Santa Clarita will receive $2,561,218 in TDA Article funds during the 1994/95 fiscal year. On May 19, 1994, the Hearing Board recommended that the City of Santa Clarita continue commuter bus service (adjusted based upon actual ridership demand) to the San Fernando Valley, and explore service opportunities to the Antelope Valley, utilizing Article 8 funds. Three commuter routes currently serve the San Fernando Valley. They are Route 796 to Warner Center, Route 797 to Chatsworth, and Route 798 to Van Nuys. In response to direction to explore service opportunities to the Antelope Valley, Route 795 was created. In addition to providing residents with mid-day access to County facilities in the Antelope Valley, this route also serves to employ equipment dedicated to the San Fernando Valley routes during off-peak hours, thereby reducing net costs. Finally, per the Hearing Board recommendation, existing routes to the San Fernando Valley were evaluated based upon current ridership statistics. As a result, Route 796 to Warner Center was presented without change, Route 797 was reduced by 50%, and Route 798 was reduced by 57%. The service which has been retained carries 90% of the current daily average passenger count. The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide these commuter bus services for one year, effective September 1, 1994. Three proposals were received and evaluated. In �r3i1 v Ui' 1J IyCJ� , �s:�ry San Fernando Valley Commuter Bus Service Contract July 12, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION In an effort to minimize costs, Transit staff developed equipment and operational options to allow respondents maximum flexibility while maintaining explicit levels of service quality.. The contractor was encouraged to suggest schedule or route changes, if those changes would provide a lower overall operating cost for the same level of service, or a greater level of service for the same overall operating cost. No suggested schedule or route changes were received which achieved either goal. In addition, several equipment options were offered, and are discussed in detail below. The financial viability of each proposer was evaluated by an analysis of assets and liabilities. Each of the respondents supplied ample documentation to indicate adequate financial viability. Technical competence was evaluated by the quality and quantity of personnel and equipment to support viable service. This included the extent and quality of recent performance in operating transit services of a similar nature, including vehicle maintenance and road service support, and quality and location of storage and servicing facilities. The quality and quantity of equipment was of great importance in evaluating the technical competence of each proposer to provide inter -valley commuter bus service. Accordingly, proposed equipment was inspected and evaluation trips were conducted. Operational management ability was evaluated by the extent of recent experience in the provision of fixed -route transit services and peak hour commuter services. Also included was the extent and background of management staff proposed for support of the project. Cost Per Revenue Vehicle Hour (see ATTACHMENT 1 for Proposals By Net Cost matrix) was evaluated by comparison with proposed costs of other respondents to the RFP. For the purposes of comparison, the Cost Per Revenue Vehicle Hour was converted to Total Operation Cost for one year. In addition, further analysis included the net cost impacts of retrofitting equipment, projected fare revenue, and projected contributions from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Equipment options were viewed as critical to providing staff with a wide range of net costs from which to develop a recommendation. Those options were as follows (see ATTACIMENT 2 for Proposals By Equipment Option matrix): San Fernando Valley Commuter Bus Service Contract July 12; 1994 Page 3 EQUIPMENT OPTION #1: Contractor will provide up to thirteen (13) buses, including two (2) spares. The vehicles will be 'over the road" or tour coaches with on -board restrooms, air conditioning and wheelchair lifts in compliance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) provisions. In addition, all vehicles will be dedicated to Santa Clarita Transit service during hours of operation, and will be painted according to City standards, displaying the City logo. EOUIPMENT OPTION#la: All provisions of Equipment Option #1 apply, However, should equipment need to be retrofitted to meet ADA requirements, the Contractor indicates the one-time cost separately (not included in hourly rate bid), to be reimbursed by the City. EOUIPMENT OPTION 2: All provisions of Equipment Option #1 apply. However, should the Contractor desire to submit an alternate bid, vehicles under this option may be painted according to City standards, displaying the Contractor name and logo in lieu of the City logo. EOUIPMENT OPTION 2a: All provisions of Equipment Option #2 apply, However, should equipment need to be retrofitted to meet ADA requirements, the Contractor indicates the one-time cost , separately (not included in hourly rate bid), to be reimbursed by the City. EQUIPMENT OPTION 3: All provisions of Option #1 apply, However, vehicles will NOT be painted according to City standards. San Fernando Valley Commuter Bus Service Contract July 12, 1994 Page 4 EQUIPMENT OPTION 3a: All provisions of Option #1 apply. However, should equipment need to be retrofitted to meet ADA requirements, the Contractor indicates the one-time cost separately (not included in hourly rate bid), to be reimbursed by the City.. EQUIPMENT OPTION 4: Standard transit vehicles or over -the -road coaches may be proposed which include air conditioning and wheelchair lifts in compliance with ADA. However, school buses are not acceptable. In addition, should equipment need to be retrofitted to meet ADA requirements, the Contractor indicates the one-time cost separately (not included in hourly rate bid), to be reimbursed by the City. CONCLUSIONS Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. scored highest in the evaluation. The ownership and immediate availability of equipment was central to their success. In addition, Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. currently operates the San Fernando Valley services, and continues to work with City staff to provide safe, convenient and reliable service. Using the Proposals By Cost matrix (ATTACHMENT 1), it is clear that the cost of operating buses which are painted and dedicated to the Santa Clarita Transit system is quite high. There is a difference of $110,435 between Antelope Valley Bus Bid #1 and #2. In Bid #1 the equipment would be painted, and solely dedicated, to Santa Clarita Transit service. Bid #2 allows Antelope Valley Bus to use their equipment for other purposes when not providing Santa Clarita Transit service. Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. believes, based upon recent experience, that quality service can be provided with one spare bus, instead of two spare buses. Staff considers this proposition to be acceptable, and results in considerable savings. This offer appears as Antelope Valley Bus Bid #3, and is the proposal recommended by staff. San Fernando Valley Commuter Bus Service Contract July 12, 1994 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT As noted earlier, the MTA estimates that the City of Santa Clarita will receive $2,561,218 in TDA Article 8 funds during the 1994/95 fiscal year. TDA funds must be spent for public transit purposes when a legitimate need for transit service can be identified. If no "unmet transit needs" are identified which can be reasonably met by an allocation of Article 8 funds, then the revenue may be used for street and road purposes. Unmet needs were identified, and defined as reasonable to meet, through the TDA public hearing process. Therefore, a decision to award a contract for commuter bus service will obligate the contract amount in Article 8 funds. New accounts have been set up for the San Fernando Valley service. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a one year agreement on behalf of the City with Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $1,045,004.00 for operations and $240,000.00 for equipment retrofitting. Authorize formation and expenditure from Account Number 55-7005-227. .NWd.,pt Attachment #1 PROPOSALS BY NET COST PROPOSER/ ,. FY 95.' RETROFIT - PROJECTED FY:95 COUNTY FY 95 FY.96 iFy 97 3 YR TOTAL Equipment ,S. OPERATION COST ,; ". FARE CONTRIBU- NET COST NET .COST NET COST NET COST :Option COST_ -REVENUE ..TION. .., ATE MGT. $1,302,448 $0 $319,000 $98345 $885,103 $885,103 $885,103 $2,655,309 Option 4 AVE BID ,M1 $1,193,655 $260,000 $319,000 $113,466 $1,021,190 $787,190 $787,190 $2,595,570 Option I AVE BID #2 $1,070,950 $260,000 $319,000 $101,195 $910,755 $676,755 $676,755 .$2,264,265 Option 3a AVE BID a3 $1,045,004 $240,000 $319,000 $96,600 .$869,404 $653,404 $653,404 $2,176,212 Option 3a - Alt' LAIDLAW $2,388,365 $243,040 $319,000. $231,241 $2,081,165 $1,862,429 $1,862,429 $5,806,023 Option le Retrofit Costs are not -to -exceed estimates used to calculate projections. Projected Fare Revenue is based. upon 500 passengers per day, a $2.50 average fare, and 255 service days per. year. County Contributions. are based upon 10% (equivalent to Route 799) of net cost; ridership survey determines actual percentage contribution. Net Costs are for comparison purposes only, as Operation Cost and Projected Fare Revenue are held constant. Attachment #2 PROPOSALS BY EQUIPMENT OPTION OPTIONS ATE ANTELOPE VALLEY LAIDLAW' Option 1: 13 over -the -road coaches, including 2 spares, restrooms, a/c, NO NO NO w/c lifts, City paint and logo Option Is: Same as Option 1 with NO YES YES w/c lift retrofit Option 2: Same as Option 1 with City paint and NO NO NO Contractor name and. logo Option 2a: Same as Option 2 with NO NO NO w/c lift retrofit Option 3: Same as Option 1, NOT NO NO NO with City paint or logo Option 3ai Same as Option 3 with NO YES + ALTERNATE* NO w/c lift retrofit Option 4: Standard transit vehicle or over -the -road coach YES NO NO with a/c, w/c lifts *ALTERNATE: Antelope Valley Bus, Inc. proposes to operate with one spare bus instead of two spares.