HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - SAN FERNANDO COMMUTER BUS (2)AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: June 13, 1995
City Maviager Approval_
Item to be presented by:
SUBJECT: SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COMMUTER BUS SERVICE
CONTRACT
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
BACKGROUND
On March 30, 1994, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority held two
public hearings in Santa Clarita, as required by Article 8 of the Transportation Development
Act (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. On May 19, 1994, the Hearing Board directed the City of Santa
Clarita'to continue commuter bus service to the San Fernando Valley, to explore service
opportunities to the Antelope Valley, and to monitor those services for cost-effectiveness and
efficiency. Accordingly, the City Council approved a contract with Antelope Valley Bus,
Inc., on July 12, 1994 to operate those services. That contract will expire on September 1,
1995. Staff has monitored the services and issued allotice to Invite Bids on April 28, 1995,
which included specified service adjustments. Bids were opened on June 6, 1995. Based
upon appropriate evaluation criteria, the recommended contractor scored highest.
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.
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
, Po
�$tJL
Ager�.� lien ..3 7
San Fernando Valley Commuter
Bus Service Contract
June 13, 1995
Page 2
of equipment was of great importance in evaluating the technical competence of each
proposer to provide inter -valley commuter bus service.
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 a 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 projected fare revenue
and projected contributions from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
CONCLUSIONS
Antelope Valley Bus Inc. scored highest in the evaluation, and is Staff's recommendation.
The bid cost per revenue vehicle hour of $53.18 is 13 % lower than the current $61.32 per
revenue vehicle hour.
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 $803,000.
San Fernando Valley Commuter
Bus Service Contract
June 13, 1995
Page 3
PROPOSALS BY NET COST
PROPOSEW
Equipment
;Option
FY96 -;
OPERATION
COST'"
PROJECTED
I FARE
REVENUE
FY96 COUNTY
CON'IRi6U-
TION'
FY96 _.
NET COST:
ATE #3+
$1,091,916.82
$179,200
$182,543.36
$730,173
AVE #4
$802,887.68
$179,200
$124,737.53
$498,950
Projected Fare Revenue is based upon 350 passengers per day, a $2.00 average fare, and 256
service days per year.
County Contributions are based upon 20% (equivalent to Route 799) of net cost; based upon
ridership survey.
Net Costs are for comparison purposes only; as Operation Cost and Projected Fare Revenue are held
constant.
*ATE chose only to bid on equipment option 3 (buses painted in contractors colors, two spare buses).
Equipment option #4 (buses painted in contractors colors, one spare bus ) is the option currently used
and the one that staff opts to use next year. For comparison purposes, AV Bus bid for equipment
option #3 is $819,259.26.
ATTACBAIENT 1