The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Statement 1981/06/16 Item 19 "'I COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT .. Item "9 .. ITEM TITLE: Resolution J'l>~t?~pprOVing Agreement with Inc., to operate HandYtrans for FY198~:) Development Services Administrator~)' V~ Meeting Date 6/16/81 Community Transit Services, .. SUBMITTED BY: (4/5ths Vote: Yes No x ) - - . II' The current agreement with Community Transit Services, Inc., (CTS) to operate HandYtrans terminates on June 30, 1981. The Transit Coordinator solicited proposals from qualified firms to operate HandYtrans through the competitive bid process. A committee reviewed and evaluated the three proposals submitted, and selected CTS as the firm best qualified to provide the specialized transportation services specified in the Request for Proposal. Therefore, it is my . . RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt this resolution approving an agreement with Community Transit Services, Inc., for the period July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: . ~ In order to solicit proposals to operate HandYtrans, the Transit Coordinator sent Requests for Proposal to twelve firms and placed an advertisement in the San Diego Union. The following proposals were submitted: .. Firm Cost (One Year) $ 213,868 198,399 174,866 .. 1. Paull s Line, El Cajon 2. Community Transit Services, Inc., Anaheim 3. Taylor Bus Service, Anaheim _ The evaluation process consisted of the following steps: . .- 1. Formation of evaluation committee 2. Proposal evaluation by committee 3. Oral presentations by proposers to the committee 4. Selection of firm by committee for Council approval. The evaluation committee consisted of the Transit Coordinator, the Transit Division Administrative Analyst, the Traffic Engineer, and a Transportation Analyst from the County of San Diego. Each member reviewed the proposals and ranked them based on specific criteria. As a result of this phase of the process, CTS was ranked first, followed by Taylor Bus Service and Paul's Line. .. . .: The two top-ranked firms - CTS and Taylor Bus Service - were then asked to make oral presentations on the respective proposals. Major findings of this oral presentation were: 1. CTS: CTS essentially proposed to continue their existing system operation except that Lanette Loughlin, current Head Controller, will be promoted to Site Super- . visor. ID 0()?) Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) ..; .. ... .. . . . .. .. .. .. . .. ... ... .. .. .. ., .. Page 2, Item 19 Meeting Date 6/16/81 2. Taylor Bus Service: (a) Taylor's elderly and handicapped dial-a-ride experience is limited. The firm operated a system in Orange County for one year, but has not operated any comparable service in three years. (b) Taylor had made no arrangements either for vehicles nor specific personnel to operate HandYtrans. (c) Taylor proposed to operate HandYtrans from the company's San Diego facility on Lockridge Street. This operations procedure accounted largely for the cost difference between CTS and Taylor because there would be no building lease cost in Chula Vista, and dispatching would be done by existing personnel at the Lockridge facility. (d) Only one employee had pervious dial-a-ride experience, and he alternates his time between the Anaheim and San Diego facilities. Considering both the proposal evaluation and the oral presentations, the committee decided unanimously to recommend that CTS be awarded the contract. This decision also took into consideration CTS's very satisfactory performance in operating HandYtrans since November, 1979. The Transit Coordinator and I have negotiated an agreement with CTS that contains the following major provisions: A. I am proposing that the term of this agreement be for two years because cost savings will result as follows: One-year Term Two-year Term $198,399 $190,853 $207,079 (year 1) (year 2) These savings are due primarily to a lower vehicle lease cost, and a lower fee of 9.5% instead of 11%. B. Sunday Service: We are proposing to initiate HandYtrans service on Sunday beginning on July 12,1981. During this past year, we have received numerous requests for weekend service, particularly on Sunday, from people who would use HandYtrans for church, shopping, and social trips. We propose to provide Sunday service for six hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) using two vehicles on a six-month trial basis. We will evaluate this new service's productivity at the end of six months to determine whether it should be continued for the rest of FY1981-82. C. The City's current agreement with CTS is in the amount of $138,880 for a period of about 7.5 months (November 19, 1980 to June 30, 1981). This cost is approxi- mately $18,517 per month; however, invoices have averaged about $13,500 per month. The FY1981-82 maximum cost of $190,853 is $15,904 per month, which includes the addition of 624 service hours next year for Sunday service. Discounting this new service, the FY1981-82 maximum contract cost of $190,853 is an increase of about 8.5 percent over this year's actual cost. The FY1982-83 cost of $207,079 is an increase of 8.5 percent over FY1981-82. /()~O") ... . Page 3, Item 19 Meeting Date 6/16/81 ~ Should the agreement be terminated before June 30, 1983, the one-year vehicle lease cost will be recalculated and prorated at the one-year rate of $33,600 instead of the two-year rate of $29,400. E. Payment will be based on an hourly rate of $25.28 per service hour for FY198l-82, and $26.91 an hour for FY1982-83, instead of the existing cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. The hourly rate procedure reduces administrative overhead and is one additional component that resulted in cost savings under this agreement. D. .. . .. F. Fuel will be billed separately from the hourly rate, at cost plus 5 percent. Under this procedure, we will not pay the CTS fee of 9.5 percent on the fuel cost. G. The contract cost includes expanded service on Sunday for a total operation per week of 132 hours (Monday-Friday, 8 hours per day/3 vehicles; Sunday, 6 hours per day/2 vehicles). A representative of CTS is in attendance to answer any questions Council may have. FISCAL IMPACT: .. The FY198l-82 TDA Article 4.5 claim submitted to MTDB and SANDAG on April 1, 1981 was in the amount of $218,450; this included a total operating cost of $243,750 and an estimated contract cost of $225,920. This negotiated cost of $190,853 will result in a cost savings of about $30,000 over our original estimate. .. WMG:rms/DT007 .. .. .. - by t:,e City Co~!n~ij of Chuic, V'isla, C:ulh-ornia <t Dated _ 6 -It:, - i'1 .,. . . . .. .. / tJl)oL;;