HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-26 - AGENDA REPORTS - TRANS SERV OPERATION & MAINT (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: June 26, 2001
City Manager Approval:
Item to be presented by:
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF TRANSIT SERVICE
DEPARTMENT: Transportation & Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year contract with ATC for
the operation and maintenance of the City's transit service, subject to City Attorney approval.
BACKGROUND
At the June 12, 2001 City Council Meeting, the City Council continued the award of contract for two
weeks.
Since 1991, the City has contracted for the provision of transit service operations and vehicle
maintenance. The contractor provides all drivers, supervisors, trainers, mechanics, utility workers,
and administrative staff, as well as a five -member on-site management team. The current contract
includes a total of approximately 140 personnel.
In anticipation of the expiration of the existing contract, on September 12, 2000, the City Council
approved the award of contract to the consulting firm of Urbitran to conduct a comprehensive review
of management and operation options for Santa Clarita Transit. At the January 2, 2001 City Council
Study Session, Urbitran presented the findings of that review. As a result, a decision was made to
continue a contracted service model, similar to the existing arrangement, for the next five years.
Based upon recommendations of the Urbitran study and the City Council's comments at the
January Study Session, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was developed. On March 13, 2001, the City
Council authorized the release of that RFP. A pre -proposal conference, including a facilities tour,
was held on March 29, 2001, and was attended by 17 individuals representing nine Transit contract
firms. Written questions from proposers were accepted and responded to through April 12, 2001.
Three sealed proposals were received by the April 26, 2001 submission deadline.
A seven -member Evaluation Panel consisting of two City Transit staff and five individuals
representing various disciplines outside of the City organization reviewed proposals. The Panel also
interviewed each firm's proposed five -member management team on May 16, 2001. Panel members
e r , _ Agenda Item
G`,�u V��;E u A
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF TRANSIT SERVICE
June 26, 2001 — Page 2
then independently scored each proposing firm in the areas of Technical Competence and
Operational Management Ability. Concurrently, City staff analyzed and scored the areas of
Financial Viability and Cost. The resulting scores were tabulated to determine the proposal most
favorable to the City. Of the three proposals received, ATC received the highest average score in
each of the four evaluated categories. A Summary of Proposal Scores is attached for your review.
Evaluation criteria were clearly defined for all proposers. Strong consideration was given to the
proposed salary ranges and benefits packages identified for service personnel. This element of
ATC's proposal set them apart from other firms, especially for drivers who make up the vast
majority of the workforce (108 of 157 proposed employees); this was an important issue voiced by
the City Council in January. An analysis of proposed personnel and compensation revealed that
ATC would compensate drivers at a significantly higher rate than other proposers.
Another critical element of the Evaluation Panel's consideration was the quality of the proposed
management team. Following a daylong interview process, the Panel discussed in detail their
impressions of the managers interviewed. ATC's management team also fared well in this area.
ATC's performance has been superior to the prior contract firm. Ridership continues to grow, while
accident rates and mechanical failures have been reduced, with performance far exceeding industry
averages. Their performance is on a positive trend, and they offer an incumbent management team
with years invested in that trend. Accordingly, the Summary of Proposal Evaluation Scores supports
the recommendation of this report.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with the award of this contract have been anticipated by staff and are included
in the proposed Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Transit Division Budget. The Transit Financial Forecast
projects that adequate monies in the Transit Fund will be available for the duration of this proposed
contract. Finally, it is important to note for the City Council that the City's Transit Operations do
not require any financial support from the General Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
Summary of Cost Proposals
Summary of Proposal Evaluation Scores
Contractor Proposals (available in City Clerk's Reading File)
Evaluation Process — Executive Summary (available in City Clerk's Reading File)
Award of Transit Contract Ldoc
Lol
u
;T
1� �co
'
U
{n
cD �
(CT!: , c
v
�
t °
LL
D) ;_ O
3
:I
v
m
R
m
m
i
N w R
41
}
C
C
QOj C
•i C � A
L y0
O U
V
�� U
y O y
CL > >_
7
R
>
R
�' R
r
•O r- y
°' 4)
L0
44)
>
>
>
a `° R °
c c
y
O.
Mil LL
1:1
R lL
V V
L
O
O
N •° N i
CD
} p
O11 O
N H
F
�'
co H
x
a •� v
,�
f»
R
•L
H a c a y
co
0
41
O
R
m
M
d 'p0 w
41
O
Q. y a 3 L
a N
^
d :: c V
c V:°0
3
o
T
>, a y U
N
691.
64
a o'
H E > a
co
O
cc
O R Lei
r
C
�+ p L
° 7
•� i
O
1 �
O O
O .-
W R }
O. O
N
N
O C 00 i 4
3 a mr
N = N W
O
V y d a
N
o C a R "= p d
N Lo
M O
m''1 Co
O
�.:
to
O v
4) y
L)
y G
R
�'
N' �'
3 w p
do'
>
o
o'
o o
a° a 3 t a
W
El -T
to
<A
N l"4 a y ai O
R O.
LL
'.
C •' O J p 4) 7
a
° o
° o
° R T H V a
rn" a c d
V
N N V
N N V
•N r d p r ..+ A
C a
Q 3
a
R p' y C .L,. O
3
o
y
3
4)
d
L o o
IL
L o o
d
0 0 o
°-
a r N r° R
a
v
v
v
O
a 0 O O w
V
C
a C
d C
y N
°•' O R O R
a �
o m
d O
ua cac °
Ca
a
a
r
p
o
R y 3 a X
o
X o
ao
3 o R E da .'.
ad
d 47
Q
O
p
U R a
U a -j 41
O
J
U o°
Q Qo
Santa Clarita Transit
Operation and Maintenance Contract
Summary of Proposal Evaluation Scores - June 2001
sAtransil\rfp\2001 EVALSUM2.XLS
Technical
Op Mngmt
Financial
Laidlaw
Competence
Ability
Viability
Cost Total Scores"
Panel Member #1
23.301
20.50
17.00
19.00
79.80
Panel Member #2
24.001
25.00
17.00
19.00
85.00
Panel Member #3
10.001,
20.00
17.00
19.00
66.00
Panel Member #4
20.00
18.0017.00
19.00
74.00
Panel Member #5
21.00
17.00
17.00
19.00
74.00
Panel Member #6
26.00
24.00
17.001
19.00
86.00
Panel Member
23.00____23.00
___17.00___19.001
82.00
_#7
Average Scores
___
21.04
21.07
17.001,
19.00
78.11
I
I
Technical
Op Mngmt
Financial
Connex
Competence
Ability
Viability
Cost
Total Scores
Panel Member #1
23.001
22.75
19.001
20.00
84.75
Panel Member #2
28.00]
28.00
19.00
20.00
95.00
Panel Member #3
10.00'
15.00
19.001
20.00
64.00
Panel Member #4
25.001
25.00
19.00,
20.00
89.00
Panel Member #5
24.00
27.00
19.00!
20.00,
90.00
Panel Member #6
24.001
28.00
19.001
20.001
91.00
Panel Me_mber_#7
24.00!___
26.00
___19.00;
___2_0.00
___89.00
Average Scores
___
22.57'
24.541
19.001
20.00
86.11
I
I
Technical
Op Mngmt
`Financial
ATC
Competence
Ability
Viability
Cost
Total Scores
Panel Member #1
27.001
25.50
20.00
20.00
92.50
Panel Member #2
26.001
25.00
20.00
20.00
91.00
Panel Member #3
25.00:
25.00
20.00
20.00
90.00
Panel Member #4
28.00
26.00
20.00
20.00
94.00
Panel Member #5
26.001
23.00
20.00
20.00
89.00
Panel Member #6 :
28.00
27.00
20.00
20.00
95.00
Panel Member #7
_ _ 28.001
_ _
_ _ _20.00
_ _ _ 20.00 _ _ _
95.00
Average Scores
26.861,
_27.0_0
25.501
20.00
20.00
92.36
Technical Competence
Operational Management
_
-Quality/Quantity of Service Personnel
-Extent of Recent Management
-Proposed Equipment
Experience
-Extent and Quality of
Recent Performance of
-Extent and Background of
- Similar Service
- Management Staff
-Vehicle Maintenance
Plan and Support
-Proposed Salary Ranges and
- -Proposed Salary Ranges and
- Benefit Packages of Management
Benefit Packages of Service Personnel
-Responses to Methodology and
i
Project Management
Rnancial Vlabiiity.
- was evaluated by the City's Accounting Manager through
analysis of audited financial
-
statements for the past three years.
cost - was scored by assigning 20 points to the lowest cost First Year proposal, and deducting points from
_
higher cost proposals proportionate to the increase in cost.
sAtransil\rfp\2001 EVALSUM2.XLS