Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1979/07/24 Item 18CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNC I L AGENDA STATEMENT ~ Item No. 18 For meeting of 7/24/79 Re~~iution 910 9~.Awarding Contract and Approving Agreement Between Community Transit .Services and ITEM TITLE the City of Chula Vista for Management and Operation of Specialized Transportation System (Handytrans) for Chula Vista Elderly & Handicapped SUBMITTED BY Development Services Administrator ~~), ITEM EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES NO x ) Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for management and operation of Chula Vista's proposed specialized transportation service (Handytrans) for area elderly and handicapped were sent out on April 10, 1979, to 45 private and public transportation providers in Southern California. Four bids were received by staff and one was a "No Bid." After detailed discussions with the remaining bidders reg arding project operation and required equipment, the following revised bids were received: Mac's Hack $171,604 Chula Vista, CA Community Transit Services 172 171 (CTS), Anaheim, CA Taylor Bus Service 138,165 Anaheim, CA Mac's Hack, a local taxi service, had neither prior experience in elderly and handicapped transportation service nor in dealing with social service agencies. They also had a poor understanding/approach of the project. Based upon written responses to the RFP, oral interviews, and reference checks, I recommend that Council award the Handytrans contract to CTS. I offer the following five reasons as justification for awarding this contract to a firm which was not low bidder: TTn ~ ... /Tll. nl n / _ UtiD•111~Lt-V1`t EXHIBITS ~c.onLinuea on supplemental page) Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Notification List Other Nletno ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on FINANCIAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are budgeted in FY 1980 Transit Service Account 236-2360-5203. Refer to Page 4 of Transit Coordinator's memo for detailed listing of applicable costs and revenues of Handytrans program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution awarding contract and approving agreement between Community Transit Services and the City of Chula Vista for management and operation of Handytrans. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION ~ ~ `~ by tlt~ Ci+.y Cc,;tr~ci! of ` C~~la Vila, California ~-°~'~ Form A-113 (Rev. 5/77) Agenda Item No. 18 For Meeting of 7/24/79 Supplemental Page Two 1. CTS has had l~ years of experience in providing si-nilar types of transit service throughout the country. They currently operate ].5 specialized transit systems throughout California and have had an excellent overall record of service provision. Taylor Bus Service, on the other hand, is a large school bus operator and does not presently operate any such specialized transit system(s). They formerly operated two similar type systems in Orange County and the Transit Coordinator received overall negative reports on Taylor's operation of these systems. These reports centered on Taylor bidding too low on the respective contracts for system operation and then coming back for additional funds in order to continue to provide service as well as not providing an adequate number of vehicles and trained drivers. 2. This is a demonstration program that is anticipated. to provide innovative techniques of providing needed transit service to area elderly and handicapped and to reduce duplicative existing social service agency transportation services. Its duration as presently scheduled will only be for a twelve month period. This program will be evaluated on the local, regional, state, and federal levels. 3. Service provision required will be of a complex technical nature. Effective social service agency coordination is also a prime factor of success of this program. 4. The City requires a firm such as CTS to meet the desired objectives listed above. CTS has also been found to have greater ex perience as well as higher overall success in providing similar type transit service provision throughout the State. 5. Cost is only one of the following five unranked criteria that were listed in the RFP on which the City would base its decision on as to which bidder would be the most eligible/suitable transportation provider for Handytrans operation. 1. Cost per vehicle service hour 2. Relative firm experience and abilities 3. Relative staff experience and abilities 4. Reasonableness of proposed cost details 5. Training and start-up program and costs Please refer to the attached memo from the Transit Coordinator to me which details all of the above reasons G~~ Z Agenda Item No. 18 For Meeting of 7/24/79 Supplemental Page Three justifying my recommended choice of CTS as providing the management and operation of Handytrans. ~/ /;2 CTS has agreed to a cost plus fixed fee contract with their bid price of $172,.171 being the maximum price that can be charged to the City. Please refer to Exhibit B of the agreement for a detailed breakdown of CTS' proposed costs of operation of Handytrans. Basically, CTS will provide the following: 1. 4 vehicles (vans) 2. 4 radios and 4 fareboxes 3. Dispatch facility 4. Maintenance, fueling, and storage of vehicles 5. Insurance 5. Project record-keeping The anticipated start-up date of Handytrans is October 22- November 12, 1979. Please refer to the attached memo for a review of the basic Handytrans operational guidelines, which were formulated by staff in conjunction with area social service agencies. These guidelines will be reviewed and modified, if need be, by the five member Technical Advisory Committee on Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Service which was recently established by the Council. This is a transportation demonstration program funded for a twelve month period of system operation with a possibility of continued outside funding upon expiration of the initial demonstration time period. I believe that the more successful the program, the higher the probability of system operation after the one year demonstration period and conversely, the less successful, the slimmer the chances of continued system operation. Regardless, the City will be under no financial or contractual obligation whatsoever at the end of the demonstration period. July lg, 1979 File DP-014 To: W. J. Robens, Development Services Administrator From: Jack A. Bloom, Transit Coordinator CC~~ Subject: Award of "Handytrans" Contract On April 10, 1979, I sent out requests for proposals (RFP) for the management and operation of a specialized transportation system for Chula Vista's elderly and handicapped citizens. RFPs for operating this one year demonstration program were mailed to 45 private profit and non-profit transportation providers in Southern California. On May 11, the deadline for receipt of bids, four bids were received. One company, Paul's Lines, Inc., offered a "No Bid ." I would like to review in detail the other three bids. Community Transit Services, Inc, was the apparent low bidder at $143,0?_6. However, they did not include costs of leasing the required number of vehicles needed for system operation and thus later revised their bid to $172,172 which included $29,156 for appropriate vehicle lease costs. Taylor Bus Service' s original bid price was S 1 ~4 , 877. However, their bid also needed to be revised due to bidding on four rather than the required three vehicles which we proposed to be in operation at any one time. Taylor thus lowered their bid $25,71?. to $138,165. Finally, Mac's Hack came in with an original bid of $231,202 and after detailed discussions with him on proposed project operation, he also revised his bid downward to $171,604. All of the final bids from the three firms do essentially reflect the following items that staff requested offerors to bid on in the RFP: - 3 vans, all with wheelchair lifts, to be in operation at any one time - 1 van to be used as a spare vehicle - 4 fareboxes and 4 radios - Equipping and manning a dispatch - Maintenance, fueling and storage - Management and operation of the - Vehicle and driver insurance - Training all personnel - Daily financial, passenger, and facility of vehicles proposed service operational record-keeping q~tiZ W. J. Robens -2- July 18, 1979 Oral interviews of the three firms were held on May 23 and were conducted by Gene Pound of Caltrans, you, and myself. CTS and Taylor were essentially rated even and Mac's Hack came in a distant third based on the following four criteria: 1. Cost 2. Technical capabilities 3. Approach/Understanding 4. Personnel Mac's Hack neither had experience in the field of solely transporting only elderly and handicapped and dealing with social service agencies nor did he have a reasonable approach/understanding of the project. Tavlor Bus Service's final bid was about $33,000 lower than that of CTS for operation of the proposed system. However, I made a reference check on Taylor as to the reasons why they were no longer operating a couple of transit systems for the handicapped in Orange County that were formerly contracted to them. I found out that Taylor did not actually comply with the terms of their signed contract with the respective public agency as regards provision of an adequate number of vehicles and trained drivers. Officials of these public agencies stated that Taylor seemed to bid quite low and then had to come back for additional funds to recoup higher than anticipated costs of operation. A thorough reference check was also performed on CTS. I contacted most of the 15 agencies throughout the State that contract with CTS to provide operation of similar type transit systems. All the responsible officials of these agencies that were contacted were quite satisfied overall with the service provided by CTS. Not one of the officials I contacted stated that CTS came back to them during system operation requesting funds over and above their original bid price. About five stated that due to good service provision, their agency's contract with CTS was renewed for an additional year without going out for competitive bids on system operation again. CTS has operated other transportation demonstration programs throughout the State and seems to be quite well respected in the field of transportation service provision for elderly and handicapped. I believe that my recommendation to contract with a firm that is not low bidder is not only justified due to the demonstration aspect of this program but, also, to the complex technical nature of service provision required. The project also requires specialized care and handling of senior and handicapped riders by the system operator as well. CTS is not only one of the few private firms managing and operating similar transportation programs throughout the State but based on a thorough reference check, they have b~ ~ °L ~- W. J. Robens -3- July 18, 1979 proven to provide this specialized type of service quite effectively and efficiently overall. The Assistant City Attorney agrees with me that by going out for open and competitive bidding, the City is only limited to awarding the contract to the low bidder if the RFP specifically states that to be the case. This RFP clearly states that the contract will be awarded to the bidder whose proposal i~ determined to be the most advantageous and suitable when considered in light of the following five unranked criteria: 1. Cost per vehicle service hour 2. Relative firm experience and abilities 3. Relative staff experience and ability 4. Reasonableness of proposed co st details 5. Training and start-up program and costs Caltrans staff in San Diego and Sacramento has also concurred with my decision. CTS has agreed to a cost plus fixed fee contract with their bid price of $172,171 being the maximum price that can be charged to the City. This is broken down to a maximum cost to be paid by the City of $159,1h7 and the maximum fee charged by CTS of $13,002. Please refer to Exhibit B in back of the City/CTS agreement which provides a detailed breakdown of CTS costs. There is a good probability, I believe, that as the proposed system becomes more efficient and cost effective over the twelve month demonstration period, CTS' bid price of $172,171 would be reduced. CTS has informed me that suitable vehicles would be available about 75 days after Council execution of contract. Training of drivers and related personnel for the Chula Vista operation would take approximately two weeks. CTS will also have secured a dispatch office and minor vehicle maintenance/storage facility within seven weeks. Thus I am anticipating the effective start-up date of Handytrans to be between October 22 and November 12, 1979. Listed below are updated estimated revenues and costs of this twelve month demonstration transit program: a~q Z ~(~.~ W. J. Robens COSTS CTS Contract 5172,171_ (Mgmt & Operation) Estimated CTS Costs & Fee For 1350 Additional Hours of Service 4x,000 City Marketing Planning and Evaluation TOTAL COSTS 5,000 $22..1, 171 -4- July 18, 1979 REVENUES SB283 Grant Fares City Gen. Fund LTF _Ar t . 4 . 5 TOTAL REVENUES $ 81,300 27,000 1,000 111,871 $221,171 Based on an approved LTF Article 4.5 claim by the City to MTDB and CPO of $142,000, the Council budgeted $253,820 in the FY 1980 Elderly and Handicapped Transit Service account. This innovative program will be continuously monitored and evaluated by the following agencies/firms during its twelve month demonstration period: 1. The City 2. Caltrans 3 . * MTDB 4. *CPO 5. Crain and Associates, a consulting firm which is contracting with UMTA and Caltrans to evaluate certain transit demonstration projects in the State. MTDB and CPO have approved the allocation of $11,920 to the City of Chula Vista of LTF Article 4.5 funds for the support of community transit services in FY80 subject to the following - that all Article 4.5 claims are approved as one-year demonstration projects with no assurances of additional TDA funding beyond FY80. - that all operations funded under Article ~.5 are expected to maintain a reasonable farebox recovery ratio of at least llg. It is anticipated that Handytrans will capture about 12~ of its operating costs from the farebox in FY80. - that if the Article 4.5 program is continued beyond FY80, the allocation of future funds will be based on the results of a regional study to be undertaken to determine the most efficient and effective method of coordinating community transit services throughout the region. The study is to be a cooperative effort of CPO, MTDB, and the operators of community transit services. W. J. Robens -5- July 18, 1979 SB 52(?, which recently was enacted into law by Governor Brown, extends this LTF Article 4,5 program an additional two years to FYR?_. ~v ~~ Since July, staff has met with several area social service agencies and other governmental organizations to discuss the proposed operation of the system, I am proposing the following operational guidelines, which will be reviewed and modified if need be by the five member Elderly and Handicapped Transit Technical Advisory Committee which was recently established by the Council and is anticipated to hold its first meeting in August: - The service area of the system will initially be limited to the existing Chula Vista Transit service area. If after a f_ew months of operation it is determined that actual ridership figures as well as qualitative rider and social service agency surveys warrant expansion of the system, the proposed system could operate in the National City and Otay areas as well. National City would be contacted for funding their portion of service provision at this time. - Hours of operation will be 5:30 a,m, to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. It might well be determined that after a couple of months of system operation ridership demand would warrant expansion of the system, particularly in regards to servicing medica]. and recreational trips, If that is the case, staff would then closely examine the feasibility of. expanding operating hours to perhaps 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m, on Saturday. - Service will be limited to elderly (over fi0 years of age) and handicapped (defined as those people who due to some physical or mental disability, cannot conveniently board, ride, or deboard fixed route public transit). - Each eligible user/rider of the system will have a pass, It is anticipated that riders use a SDTC Gold Card and have a CV system sticker attached to it. Elderly must show proof of age, i.e., Medicare card, SDTC Gold Card, etc. and handicapped must have a doctor's certificate if the nature of their disability is not readily noticeable. - Fare will be 75 cents per trip per rider. Companions/escorts will also be charged 75 cents. The CVT elderly/handicapped fare is currently 20 cents. It is anticipated that multi-ride ticket booklets will be conveniently available for patrons of the system to use. - It is estimated that between 5-10% of the users of the system will ride on a subscription basis (e,g,, every Tuesday and Thursday at 10:00 a.m,) About 80$ of the riders are estimated to be scheduled at least 24 hours in advance with the remainder riding on the system on a demand basis given sufficient system capacity and time. ' W. J. Robens -6- July 18, 1979 Zt is estimated that the system will serve a target population of 13,200 people and service approximately 35,700 passenger trips during its twelve month operation of about 110,000 miles. Cal trans staff in San Diego and Sacramento has provided approximately 200 manhours in the last few months in assisting City staff in the planning, design, and marketing of the proposed system. Finally, the more successful the program, the higher the probability of system operation after the one year demonstration period and conversely, the less successful, the slimmer the .chances of continued system operation. Regardless, the City will be under no financial or contractual obligation whatsoever upon the end of the twelve month demonstration period. Please contact me should you require additional information on this program. JAB:nr q~~ !~