HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 217-12 ..,.x. .w....x.J....._ ...,..a...-.... .. ...a..v ....a..u.t........... .»........ _....s,x....a....,.t._.... i....«._.. .., .a...vr......,r. .J.w,.w.s....`.............n ».....»...,...,...,.J.,,u We....,r...w,.A�.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2012, the Common Council selected First Transit as the
operator of the City's publicly-funded transit system; and,
WHEREAS, the Council's April 2"d action occurred as a result of: (1) the City's
implementation of the required Federal Transit Administration's competitive procurement
procedure in order to maintain the receipt of federal funds to pay for the City's publicly-funded
transit system; (2) the Evaluation Committee's review, analysis, and recommendation of the
proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposals; and (3) the Council's meeting
with consultant Rich Garrity who assisted the City in this process; and,
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2012, and as permitted by the City's December 28, 2011,
Request for Proposals seeking an operator for the City's publicly-funded transit system,
Rochester City Lines filed a protest with the City Attorney in response to the Council's April 2"d
section of First Transit; and,
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2012, the City Attorney responded to the protest and denied it
on the basis that it lacked merit; and,
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2012, and as permitted by the City's December 28, 2011,
•Request for Proposals seeking an operator for the City's publicly-funded transit system,
Rochester City Lines further protested the. Council's April 2"d action by filing an additional
protest with the City Administrator and the Common Council; and,
WHEREAS, Rochester City Lines' April 17th protest came before the Council at its May
7, 2012, meeting, which was a public and open meeting as required by the Minnesota Open
Meetings Law; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 7th meeting, the Council considered this matter and reviewed
the following documents (copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein) that
have been presented to it:
1. Discussion and materials presented to the Council by consultant Rich Garrity at
the April 2, 2012, Committee of the Whole meeting as to the manner in which the
City's Request for Proposals were prepared; the manner in which the responses
to that Request for Proposals were received, evaluated and scored; the
composition of the Evaluation Committee; the criteria used by that Committee;
and the Committee's recommendations;
2. Letter of April 5, 2012, and attachments, from Steven A. Diaz to City Attorney
Terry Adkins;
3. Letter of April 12, 2012, from City Attorney Terry Adkins to Steven A. Diaz;
4. Letter of April 17, 2012, from Steven Diaz to City Administrator Stevan E.
Kvenvold and Rochester City Council; and,
5. Memorandum of April 19, 2012, from City Administrator Stevan E. Kvenvold to
Mayor and City Council; and,
WHEREAS, after review and consideration of the above discussion, information and
documents, the Common Council concurs in the analysis and conclusions provided by the City
Attorney in his April 12, 2012, letter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Rochester that the Council concur in and adopt as its own the City Attorney's April 12, 2012,
response to the April 5, 2012, Rochester City Lines protest of the Council's April 2, 2012,
selection of First Transit as the provider of the publicly-funded transit system and, accordingly,
denies the protest as being without merit.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF Y00 , , 2012.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON OUNCIL
ATTEST:
D&PU-rY Cilry dlE
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2012.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Resl O\Adopt.RC LBidProtestResp
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING W
DATE: 05/07/12
AQENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
• NSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S
OFFICE t:)-_5
ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF ROCHESTER CITY LINES PREPARED BY:
PROTEST OF APRIL 2, 2012, SELECTION OF FIRST TRANSIT AS STEVAN
OPERATOR OF THE PUBLICLY-FUNDED TRANSIT SYSTEM. KVENVOLD
On April 5, 2012, Rochester City Lines (` RCL ) filed a protest with the City Attorney in
response to the Common Council"s April 2,\2012, selection of First Transit as the provider of
bus transit services in the City. The City's Request for Proposals (`"RFP") permitted RCL to
take this action. As required by the City's RFP, the City Attorney responded to that protest
by letter dated April 12, 2012. In the City Attorney's response, the City Attorney found no
merit with the protest and, as such, denied it.
RCL has now taken the next step provided for in the City's RFP. RCL has further appealed
the Council's April 2"d action to the City Administrator and the City Council. The RFP states
that the City Administrator must respond to this further appeal 'after the first available City
Council meeting."
I have reviewed RCL's protest as well as the City Attorneys response. I agree with the City
Attorney's response and recommend the Mayor/Council do so as well. I attach copies of the
)test and the City Attorneys response.
Council Action Requested:
Motion to concur in the City Attorney's April 12, 2012, response to the RCL protest of the
Common Council"s April 2, 2012, selection of First Transit as the provider of bus transit
services in the City.
r )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Stevan E. Kvenvold 'I
Date: April 19, 2012
Subject: RCL Protest of City Council's Contract Award for Bus Transit Services
Attached for your review and information is a letter from Rochester City Lines attorney,
Steven Diaz, requesting that the City rescind the award of the bus service contract to First
Transit and either award the contract to Rochester City Lines or redo the competitive bid
process.
Also attached is a letter dated April 5, 2012, from Mr. Diaz to Terry Adkins requesting the
same action as referenced above and Terry's response to Mr. Diaz rejecting Mr. Diaz's
request.
This mater will be placed on the May 7, 2012, City council agenda for your consideration. I
will be recommending that the Mayor and City Council concur with Terry's reasoning
rejecting the appeal presented by Mr. Diaz on behalf of Rochester City Lines.
Enclosure
c: T. Adkins
R. Freese
T. Knauer
Law Office
S`11 EVEN A. DIA
2300 M Street NW,Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20037
Telephone: 202-416-1633
Electronic Mail: sdiaz@diazlaw.net
April 17, 2012
By Hand Delivery
Stevan Kvenvold,
City Administrator
Rochester City Hall
2014th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Rochester City Council
2014th Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Further Protest of City Council's Contract Award for Bus Transit Services
Dear Mr. Kvenvold and the Rochester City Council:
This letter serves as Rochester City Line's ("RCL's")further protest of the Rochester City Council's award
and announcement on April 2, 2012, and its proposed selection of First Transit as the provider of bus
transit services in the City of Rochester. RCL appeals for all the same reasons articulated in its April 5,
2012 letter to City Attorney Terry Adkins, which is attached, and for such other and further reasons as
set forth herein. As fully articulated in the Appeal of April 5,2012,the competitive procurement for this
contract was the product of a biased, outcome driven, and fundamentally unfair evaluation and
selection process, rendering any contract awarded to First Transit invalid.
The City has failed to respond substantively to RCL's claims or to justify the fundamentally flawed
procurement. Instead,the City seeks to avoid responsibility through unfounded technical procedural
claims. Rochester City Attorney Terry Adkins responded to RCL's protest in a letter dated April 12, 2012,
which is attached. Rather than defend the procurement by demonstrating that the process was fair and
impartial, as is the City's burden,the City instead claims that RCL has failed to present sufficient
evidence of unfairness. This is disingenuous at best, as the City has refused to provide the information
requested by RCL to substantiate its claim further, namely,tla evaluation instructions,scoring sheets
Stevan Kvenvold and Page 2 April 17, 2012
Rochester City Council
from members of the evaluation committee, and related documents. At the same time,the City chides
RCL for failure to provide specific evidence contained in the very documents in the City's own custody
which it refused to disclose. The City cannot withhold evidence and then deny RCL's complaints and
protest for"failure"to provide that very evidence: this is a clear abuse of City power.
In summarily rejecting RCL's appeal, the City relies primarily on an April 2, 2012 memorandum from the
City attorney to the Mayor and Common Council to justify the City's actions. The city attorney's
memorandum is, however, insufficient to cure the fundamentally flawed and biased procurement
process. Once again,the City sidesteps the issue by stating that RCL"presented no information
indicating the Council failed to follow the guidance provided in this memo,"thereby attempting to lay
blame on RCL instead of acknowledging the City's own error and unfairness. Moreover,the city
attorney's statement that the memorandum "directed [the Council]to not consider any other matters"
is simply inaccurate. Rather than advise the Council that it is legally impermissible to consider whether a
proposer has exercised its free speech rights or sought to enforce its legal rights in a court of law, as is
required,the city attorney simply stated that it was his "recommendation"that the Council not consider
these things,thereby incorrectly implying that such considerations,though not"recommended," are
allowable. This "recommendation" was accompanied by a description of actions applicable only to RCL,
thereby highlighting(if not suggesting)the•negative inferences identified by the city attorney. At best,
this memorandum suggests as a mere alternative approach the actually mandatory source evaluation
and selection criteria and the requirements of Due Process in a manner that fails to mitigate the •
fundamentally unfair nature of the procurement. The City has failed to rebut RCL's presented evidence
of a biased procurement process,or to disclose or consider the evidence in its own sole and exclusive
control.
While RCL presented the City with numerous substantive objections to the procurement process,the
City has failed to address these objections in any meaningful way and instead relies on wordplay and
technical procedural objections in violation of RCL's right to a full and fair consideration of its protest.
Therefore, it is necessary to briefly restate the grounds for RCL's protest here.
First, half of the purportedly impartial evaluation committee are City officials who have a history with
RCL and its operation of regular route transit services in Rochester. The City at no time notified RCL of
this fact so that RCL could seek alternative references. Further, none of the persons in a position to
provide operating references to RCL and who were on the committee recused themselves in light of
proffered reference citations, instead sitting on their hands allowing the untrue and unfair appearance
that there are no references for the service history of RCL. These same officials have been directly
involved in the City planned ouster of RCL from its own transit system. These and others on the
committee have a direct bias and conflict in that they have stated the City's intent to remove RCL from
transit service in Rochester but did not recuse themselves in consequence of that bias and material
predisposition. These facts are admitted in Mr. Adkins letter of April 12,2012 that at least one selection
committee member, unknown by RCL to be on the committee at the time it submitted references, "did
not provide a reference, [and therefore) a conflict of interest did not occur." Mr.Adkins does not claim
that such person(s) also recused themselves, or that RCL was, in consequence of the timely undisclosed
conflict, afforded a fair opportunity to provide other references. Such conduct is prejudicial to RCL and
taints the fairness of the entire procurement.
Stevan Kvenvold and Page 3 April 17,2012
Rochester City Council
Second,the City Council's bias against RCL is established by Council Member Michael Wojcik's public
statements of personal animus against RCL and its General Manager Dan Holter. Further, Mr.Wojcik
has publicly stated that the entire Council shares his bias and predisposition against RCL and Mr. Holter.
Neither Mr. Wojcik nor any other member of the Council recused themselves from participating in the
making of the subject award.
Third, the evaluation process itself and the selection committee's final report confirm that the
procurement and contract award were fundamentally unfair. RCL was scored last in categories that
included evaluation of its "experience with providing Public Transit Fixed Route Service in areas of
similar size and scope to the City," and "experience with operating and maintaining a fleet of similar
size," despite the fact that RCL has provided,operated, and maintained the transit system for the past
45-plus years in a manner often and publically lauded by City officials and others. RCL was also scored
next-to-last in the"Transition Plan" category,which included evaluation of a proposer's startup plan for
taking over the transit service (implicitly from RCL) and its plans for recruiting and training staff—the
subject RFP explicitly calling for the hiring of existing staff selected and trained by RCL. RCL was also
scored last under the "interviews with Key Management Staff" factor. This inherently subjective factor
was given undue weight and invited partiality. Biased evaluation under this factor is evidenced by the
undisputed disinterest and disrespect by selection committee members during RCL's interview, openly
• mocking RCL representatives as they spoke (for example, rolling their eyes and by other non-verbal
conduct).
Fourth, as discussed above,the City's evaluation committee failed to disclose in a timely manner the
inherent conflicts of interest by members of the committee and failed to afford RCL the opportunity to
provide alternative references. There is no justification for the failure to disclose such conflicts,for
failing to cure them, or for secretly disallowing only RCL from presenting untainted references (keeping
in mind that the membership of the selection committee was undisclosed until after its work had been
completed).
Finally,the "Financial Ability"factor inherently and unfairly skewed the evaluation against RCL, not
because of any rational connection to its ability to perform under the contract, but explicitly, as
confirmed by the city attorney in his letter of April 12, 2012, because of the biased predisposition of the
City to firms of a certain size (in effect, any company larger than RCL or any other Minnesota-organized
and headquartered company). The city attorney's response is that"the financial ability of a prospective
vendor to float costs between City payments is critical to sustained or uninterrupted provision of public
transit services." (April 12,2012 letter, pp. 7-8). The city attorney continues in this vein,stating a clear
admission where he writes that RCL"did not excel sufficiently to overcome the inherent advantages
characteristic of these larger firms." (April 12, 2012 letter, P.4, emphasis added). After 45 years of
continuous and successful operation of fixed route public transit in Rochester,this factor was clearly
Used as a pretext, and in a preemptive fashion, arbitrarily to exclude RCL from serious consideration for
award, and to discriminate against it.
Stevan Kvenvold and Page 4 April 17, 2012
Rochester City Council
The City has failed to justify, explain, or rebut any of the above affirmative evidence. Moreover,the
City's overall response to RCL's claim that it received biased and unsupportable low scores from the
evaluation committee is that it cannot discuss these claims because the actual scores given by
the evaluation committee members are not public. The City, which itself has this evidence in its own
files, has obviously failed to consider it, and proceeds upon the circular argument that because it refuses
to disclose such evidence, RCL cannot provide it and the protest must therefore be denied. Such
tortured logic is mere evidence of the bias and predisposition which have guided the subject
procurement and of the fundamental unfairness of the manner in which the procurement has been
administered.
For all of the reasons stated in this letter,as well as those set forth in RCL's April 5, 2012 initial protest to
City Attorney Adkins (whose own conflict in giving legal advice on the appeal of his decision to superior
City authorities is patent), RCL requests that the City rescind its selection and award of a contract to First
Transit and either award the contract to RCL or cure the fundamentally flawed selection process by
allowing for a fair and unbiased procurement.
Respectfully,
to . Diaz
Enclosures
cc: Dan Holter, RCL
Terry Adkins, City Attorney
LAW OFFICE
STEVEN A. DLAI
April 5, 2012
Terry Adkins
City Attorney
Rochester City Hall
201 4th Street SE
Rochester,MN 55904
tadkins@rochestermn gov
Re: Protest of City Council's Contract Award for Bus Transit Service
Dear Mr.Adkins:
This letter serves as Rochester City Line's ("RCL's")protest of the Rochester City Council's
award announcement on April 2,.2012,and its proposed selection of First Transit as the provider
of bus transit services in the City of Rochester.
The competitive procurement for this contract was marred by a biased and unfair evaluation and
selection process,rendering any contract awarded to First Transit invalid. The Minnesota
Supreme Court has recognized that"[a] fundamental purpose of competitive bidding is to
deprive or limit the discretion of contract-making officials in the areas which are susceptible to
such abuses as fraud,favoritism,improvidence, and extravagance." Griswold v. Ramsey County,
65 N.W.2d 647,652 242 Minn. 529, 536 (1954). Any competitive bidding procedure that
defeats this fundamental purpose invalidates the contract. Id. The competitive procurement
process must"promote honesty, economy, and aboveboard dealing", as Drell as provide
prospective contractors with"an equal opportunity to bid." Transit Team, Inc. v. Metro. Council,
679 N.W.2d 390, 396(Minn. Ct.App. 2004). Minnesota courts will"scrupulously guard the
competitive bidding process." Lovering-.Iohnso7,4 Inc. v. City of Prior Lake, 558 N.W.2d 499,
503 (Minn. Ct.App. 1997). A public contract will be invalidated if officials acted in an
arbitrary, capricious,or unreasonable manner. Griswold, 65 N.W.2d at 651-52.
Here,the bid evaluation process,the final report of the evaluation committee,the City Council's
actions, and subsequent statements by City officials,all demonstrate that the selection of First
Transit was the product of a biased, outcome-driven,and fundamentally unfair selection process.
The City Council's decision was thus patently unreasonable and the product of an unlawful use
of local regulatory powers to compete with an existing private transit provider. Therefore,it
must be rescinded.
2300 M Srp=NW,Sum-800 • WASHIN=i 14,D.C.20037
TELEPHONE: (202)416.1633 9 FAx: (202)833-3843 • EMAIL:SDIAZ@DLIZLAW.NET
v V
ee were City officials who have a history with O
Half of the members of the evaluation committee ty
RCL and have been a part of the City's contentious relationship with RCL since the City issued
the request for proposals(RFP). The same officials that were involved in the City's ouster of
RCL from its own transit system and the subsequent letting of a contract for others to operate the
system,were then charged with evaluating RCL's bid to continue to operate the system. These
were the very city officials who prepared for the predetermined substitution of RCL with another
transit operator by spending millions of public funds to recreate administrative office, dispatch,
garage,parking and yard, and dispatching facilities. These officials included Richard Freese,
Anthony Knauer, and Scott Retzloff. The selection of these individuals is plainly contrary to the
purportedly impartial nature of the evaluation committee. City officials—comprising half of the
evaluation committee—simply cannot be considered impartial. Their selection established an
internal bias and predisposition that infected the entire evaluation process. The City's fixed
intent to put RCL out of business is reflected in the City's threat to use its regulatory powers to
prevent RCL from continuing to operate. For example, see public statements made by the
Rochester City Attorney such as the attached press report.
The City's bias and predisposition against RCL is further shown by the Common Council,which
is responsible for final approval and selection of a proposed contractor. Council Member
Michael Wojcik publicly alleged,before the RFP was even issued,that"RCL stole $140,000
from taxpayers", and further stated that"[e]veryone on the city council was disgusted by the
[six-month contract awarded to RCL in December 2011] and looked forward to awarding a new
contract through open competition bebainning July 1,2012." Mr. Wojcik also stated that the
Council,prior to any contract award, "secured an understanding with First Transit that they
would recognize the existing ATU organization and would be offering positions to existing
employees first." Finally,Mr. Wojcik has stated that"[t]here is no love lost between me and
Dan.Holter, given his lobbying antics,belief that he is `entitled' to a profit, and his holding us
hostage for that profit." (See Mr.Wojcik's blog entries dated December 22,2011 and April 2,
2012, copies of which are attached). These statements indicate that: (1)there were improper
exclusive contacts and negotiations with the ultimate contract awardee prior to the final
selection; (2) the Council has a grudge over an"extorted"allowance for any profit in the current
subsidy contract with RCL; and(3)there is personal animus between the Council and Dan
Holter,RCL's General Manager.
The obvious appearance of impropriety created by all of the above facts is sufficient to invalidate
the City's contract award. See Telephone Assocs. v. St. Louis County Bd., 364 N.W.2d 378, 382
(Minn. 1985) (holding that mere creation of an opportunity for fraud or collusion cannot be
tolerated even when there is no evidence of it); Coller v. City of St. Paul,223 Minn. 376, 389,26
N.W.2d 835, 842 (1947) (noting that although there was no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, it
was unnecessary to make such a showing). Furthermore,it is improper for a public entity
exercising regulatory powers to use such power to its own advantage in competition with a pre-
existing transit operator.
Moreover, in addition to the makeup.of the evaluation committee,the evaluation process itself
and the committee's final report confirms that the contract award is the product of bias,
predetermination, and fundamental unfairness. The committee considered four evaluation
factors relating to the technical proposals: technical,interviews with key management staff,past
2
performance(reference checks), and financial ability. Each of these evaluation factors was used
artificially and unfairly to skew the outcome against RCL,thus depriving RCL of an equal
opportunity to bid.
First,the committee's scores in the technical factor,which made up the largest percentage of
total points, demonstrate the bias against RCL. Under the technical factor,RCL scored last
overall,including last in qualifications,proposed management and operations plan, and proposed
maintenance and equipment plan. RCL scored next-to-last in the transition plan category. As set
forth in the RFP,the most important criteria to be considered in the"Qualifications"category are
the bidder's "experience with providing Public Transit Fixed Route Service of similar size and
scope to the City," and"experience with operating and maintaining a fleet of similar size." RCL
has provided, operated, and maintained the transit system for the past 45-plus years. RCL has
received numerous accolades and testimonials for its service. In fact,in 2003,RCL was awarded
the State of Minnesota Transit System of the year award. Its qualifications to operate the same
transit system that it has already been operating are well established. RCL's scores in this
category demonstrate the outcome-driven nature of the committee's evaluation. These scores are
also entirely inconsistent with the numerous public statements made by City officials, including
Mr.Freese (for example,those comments recorded by the City itself during the pre-bid
conference on the RFP,and statements made before Judge Chase by the Rochester City Attorney
in open court during hearings in pending litigation), attesting to the consistently high level of
service RCL has always provided.
• The fact that the committee scored RCL next-to-last in the"Transition Plan"category is simply
inexplicable. The RFP specifies that this category includes consideration of a bidder's"plan for
taking over the City's transit service—operations and maintenance including a detailed startup
plan to ensure service is initiated according to the date determined by the City." This category
also includes consideration of the bidder's plan for"recruitment and hiring and training of all
staff." RCL needs no startup plan. It has already been operating the transit system at the highest
level for more than 45 years. RCL also needs no plan to hire and train staff. It already has fully
trained staff and a contract in place with Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005. RCL's
ability to take over the service and to recruit and train staff in order to provide service by July 1,
2012,is simply not at issue. Indeed,the RFP itself calls for the retention of as many of the staff
recruited and trained by RCL as possible(see also,Council Member Wojcik's blog postings
referenced above,in which Mr Wojcik encourages RCL's employees to work for First Transit).
The committee's scores in this category demonstrate that the entire evaluation was purposefully
skewed against RCL.
Second,the"Interviews with Key Management Staff'factor,which was given 30%weight in the
overall evaluation,enabled the committee to unfairly sway the overall evaluation against RCL.
This factor,which is inherently subjective and invites partiality,was given undue weight. Not
surprisingly,the committee ranked RCL last—and did so by a significant margin. During RCL's
interview,the committee members were disengaged and disinterested; some were openly
disrespectful,rolling their eyes while RCL management made its presentation.
Third,the"Past Performance—Reference Checks"factor was fundamentally unfair and
prejudicial to RCL. The evaluation process for this factor created an internal conflict that
destroyed any purported impartiality of the committee. To evaluate this factor,the technical
3
assistance consultant conducted telephone interviews of references provided by each contractor
to attest to"the contractor's experience/history on comparable projects of fixed-route operational
experience." The technical assistance consultant then compiled answers given by each reference,
which the committee then reviewed and scored. RCL's prior experience involves operating the
very transit system that is up for bid, and its references were the very City officials with which it
has regular contact in the ordinary course of operating the transit system in Rochester. As one of
its references,RCL listed Anthony Knauer,the City's Parking and Transit Program Manager.
Mr. Knauer,unbeknownst to RCL,was also a member of the evaluation committee. Thus,Mr.
Knauer acted both as a reference and an evaluator of that reference. There is no indication in the
report that Mr.Knauer ever disclosed this conflict or recused himself from this portion of the
evaluation. RCL also listed Scott Retzlaff, a City employee in the Parking and Transit Program,
as an additional contact to attest to its past performance. Mr.Retzlaff also turned out to be a
member of the evaluation committee,and there is no indication that he disclosed the conflict or
recused-himself This provided the opportunity for these City officials to not only improperly
influence the evaluation by provided biased.references against RCL,but also to then evaluate
and score RCL based on their own reference. In fact, one of the questions that the RFP provides
to be asked of references is whether they"would choose to renew a contract with [the
contractor]." The conflict of interest made impartiality impossible. Furthermore,the conflict of
interest gives an overwhelming appearance of impropriety,which alone is sufficient to invalidate
the contract award_ See Telephone Assocs.,364 N.W2d at 382; Coller,223 Minn. at 389,26
N.W.2d at 842.
Finally,the"Financial Ability"factor also demonstrates that the evaluation was skewed against
RCL and deprived RCL of an equal opportunity to bid. The committee purportedly evaluated •
this factor on a"pass/fail"basis. However, even when provided with the same objective opinion
from an outside auditor,half of the evaluation committee concluded that RCL had the requisite
financial ability while the other half somehow concluded, after 45-plus years of successful
operations,that it did not. The bias against RCL is palpable. Moreover,the City's requirement
under this factor that a contractor show working capital representing at least 25%of its bid price
shows a strong bias toward large national firms. A large company has far more cash on hand and
can much more easily obtain a significant credit line. This requirement stacked the deck against
RCL and in favor of large national firms from the start. RCL has operated the transit system for
the past 45 years with no interruption. This historic performance is more than sufficient to
establish RCL's financial ability to operate the system. However,the committee ignored this
fact in its evaluation. It is no surprise that all three contractors ranked ahead of RCL are large
national and international companies. First Transit operates throughout North America and is
one of the nation's largest providers of bus transportation. MV Transportation advertises itself
as the"largest American-owned passenger transportation contractor" in the country. Veolia
advertises itself as"the largest private sector operator of multiple modes of transit in North
America." In contrast,RCL is small,locally owned business, and simply does not have the
excess working capital of these gargantuan-sized firms. The City's requirements in the financial
ability section of the RFP are heavily biased towards very large firms,with no factual or logical
nexus to the ability to perform the work. This use of a deliberately and arbitrarily exclusionary
and discriminatory requirement is a violation of very third party contracting rules adopted by the
City expressly for this procurement. (See Federal Transit Administration Circular 4224.1F, ch.
VI(2)(4)). This improper and unnecessary device was improperly invoked to achieve the
intended result—namely,that RCL would not be awarded the contract.
4
• In short, every aspect of the evaluation,from the makeup of the committee,to the evaluation
criteria,to the scoring and final report,to the revealing admissions made by senior City officials
in public, demonstrates the bias of the City against RCL. The decision was made long before the
RFP process that RCL would no longer be the provider of transit services to the City of
Rochester. The evaluation and award of this contract demonstrates that the entire process was
outcome-driven and fundamentally unfair.
Because the City Council's decision is plainly unreasonable,RCL requests that the City rescind
its selection of First Transit and either award the contract to RCL or cure the fundamentally
flawed selection process and allow for a fair and unbiased competitive bid.
Very truly7ours,
Diaz
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A.DIAZ
5
3r za*•7• S 6�.Y Ml
�� �2� T' t - it•. a � a�+.0 � w 1°''+ t �s•y"�
aat^yam .�lib
t"^'�'T pa a Yyh
����,��:.i.�.�rc �rr,��'�`�• '3r�,` r�"e%:,r _.rrQ: -�h =~. �.
- •� ,T•aa.+ 3..s�:.aext�..�.yar..ssrx��-z�•tKt� �.� kaR'�,v"':�'z'�v3w.�.1*'�tSc'is�'3r;
1,1111�M216 DOWN
.Y_'at+sva z�7c �a t a�`�. � v. :;. 'v+7���.v - .Jx'.� Jpar aaw,.,.r. <.. �#i,. fi •. t'+�'k:
nday th cltaYtpannlcunan3mpusly lfil fi Harspn'�bsent)tntavpm c el�i _ .�� d
i4 lb
kP
, ty
1 -�ind�end t�emmmenda};pn�p Jza +;at rngstt n�jate�ta E e n�ansn�� h ypna '
• s f m 'ifeg[tav eip am anles.cprq ;bli e an�>rsnnt ste'dnp - , -
,.�rY551,
"N V12,y, �fflttt a Tit,'
d•Y i e�'ak N i4 �,
t ifi`El: r nsn crsncJtr vitb{ipclae5 :t. u es. '� ` e �Pfis� �+
ms
ti } �u�ste amg�pusptayer r„ srny55E5 ve st z alrri ,thDz fiat -.;�� `,'�a '
sDp etefne sisv _ an+i arsral nst
ecpmmrendanrnt]11�a
an`�'�ip�,,a „ T a �' l/iS51'_54IILilt3 hrefalpn- fd5�
tueti hat �rst ranstt stas be ces a ablel 1ti 11s pF 1 _ Grp '
FS[ A lem nd fielsnn o 3
< tl?s me fn a Lr r3i IranT1 Isn p mdll ss verMr-"�1 filpn hs as mnrida_A Zinc teiy n
lu Y�'*�e�✓.�+iai w,+��+L3z �
YisYic4n: "mpsfiunderra[ed` ,�n"ate
r per to1l� o[ODD91nDrs�pe ar. n Inbk�t �iese ai�nd 91ose�n n �! srsts ,r,• tlhQtq*� - ,�j �t'�'
��.�++Yn����.
w r ran5yi L�,[1�e�CTanylSm 1 ISdt r3[ SI.A�t]U,eSlfpnS t.11E'ptDL£SSpn Dgrn1d d 9 L• id6°;' •%•'
# v ,ram;•eed�ni yl�•ialr L ues[lnn h he•rr 9esr�y.�rnpnsal�s�k�nas ai Y➢" ,t � � �",�' {�,i> .
�' §.'hS '��i�'<L:'�v'-+a,���-��.a..a �r`����!'Y��I�� s '�f .• t F- !d._ }.r >••z
e►ampiz illatTheyral e� patmxpenEnec ti Ih�na�s^[' p p Ie,��rn�u�y +` 1D.�1CCDlfI) l�l
'fin*e'�k+�i' T'`�e"''� �' ,-St -�" � >r. t. �.*��ak�v._ {`�-�siry,,�y.+ •r•-L T�
eiing m�a"zi m,s rnwas � h, lke�iaTesC�rhs17etgmJ
s •.- �.� '- �"`-"'^�'ys ��r�� J � 'l�cttyfiourmt p�'ade.�vmmumty gt``
e s�`sseryTed n au deimin ing�MffnsiTra ha[aheyunn dx[ n ze he J n om a Lr�
�~
true li r nrzznnn n rDaiO ffe[tnggta mons3ro�rxi�iriIin; I.%ees Irst m@ me r t[j[on� �
�� tt a 1D�iered ursas[sYpu3hing�ar ng faml les ve areta[xnmpLs r xr .`� s
lane Dihm t�l t ave lreati Old 11esa YD�C t YJ)cahunae D re [� e€ r3 sa �u 'Y.
- ' � ronmentrivaSh
" esp cS 1n1 Afinhts2slrrver * sx y I <a,�iz Icr Z..4.«. A>N� ` i
��, uenilM ' #ti s r is Government`i�rC3" t vvEmment § ;
.�,Danaltericp{mnues�to7hreat��a n �atallel ansn terp�llalfiE pees llf .t• _ p �jonldayaxivc eruer��'►- tT� �,_.
�`"xsa ?�`"�:r�
aase4heNMW
DO5Le3 aE� �have'Fs"D "Drtl` 1J��L � ib�C
g s- `s, € k� ti>~ :t` err `Gk �� " .t ,eC. a.-r, ;�is'•ad')af•c r
'�-.�e�r. ?t�
s ro ak'�ib!i�*Yck�'•"• +2�3.,>Y•`r„t'c."ass`sq'p-=Yr�ts'p ' akd$Ci aXfang—
�sTt rz •_..:'t ' y.k
;��,�7irerelsna�aelas�ie�ivfen e"`�nd9aniHulterr�t-rn�is'�`olfblme.nuts''�e7^l. rat w, q.'.i� ;t��
teas
a'+j�:'k�r_"F red brUty,�s t,�,4rtiay tJ,,y tti✓kF.'At°Y'e.dnta>ve i`trir nn p3¢",�Le,.,1{s.ts,{ss�a"i"']<vf*otro�`s'r�ura_�Yard.zmsaa.�ee I �a+a"t s..E«rsz"K Sx*��r✓y 1i>r,"�' g < 7S� d � e
`e aRM `Kiia
aC
{'
� '�fiarc rtu=ss'�nai ade.2a`tecl;Imr�3a :on atls�Stie�[lldfiutmrakesmysnnn _:� �'� .n��
r� s- '.1: �*'+6; rrg .r i�` wt "'1EN
�F ,: ki.".a, Fr .� Y -��✓'°
z =�ezrsfDn rased vn<pi�emr revenge�t a` + 'i kr ii a sb'<+
4t" r { .w r " s .„, �ro ,r itytmtnn e +'F 3 xe5
�"" -?7hrs3ltorrld'havearo tthgayve.imWaa'Pn'Dan:Holtgr�s psitesst3,nz
e{slhefd mu ul fie sated
1r�*�` ','r,�y
.,fir t.i+ Uw
v -1tsvll�r;Ym-erL un "hIDny$h
.-•k'r'.. .. ,9.a �_t.�,�� .,c %.t .?'^ 't y .;aecv �'",� .a".iii.�.,y�ti}'��� �a�'�ai ° "r�"�``",:'Yp• t�a p
�"�'F�.� J 9 -•' '�'�'1t ijl p aF"1 r.w.'fi�'L�f '�=� V2u"iTB Dln 'fDZS�ETief2LCC5i �{b;_�3 �k '7 ",�°Lt^'^S7'1're' tfr � gt '7" _
'l?'*',:vm ro�emu-tsnn-t7�fts`tt�etweenmow�rlH,fi2nfi v.. ,a ,sue "t , 3i' ^�'S' "s,a`?'x^`' i 'yam ;..
:+- ✓w�-,'�,Er4•rn' "'E.. `.�-" e Via'' nDateEDTd S"
3iE' [�+-.s7Rv���` r -" :�•�.se�,e.{
ilia�[hrev�is�7 rumrljngy�Rh't;1i esL { .f.,, � e
•r �" 6�G`„{' '� sr�*rl
4Yr ?IY�rt -f`'8 .�rar.J
Vt4' i 's 7► TnYR�LCfsinil6.lT�Qs IrAg��t�
�'^��S�x�t^�i
S 7' s yted tti6tyiDurcjl y�cnrnmKuts(d1 8
4e�* .��f ar��i *�,t' 591� .1*aig�i5�t krr da e
�ce'=Dn: nrMxutS
WIN
� '�
5 H•�,r-,rh��Z� y���,t�r fv�" � �i"c�v ', ,`, .ge5 Y t t' y,� r a
r.s�InttotrutlerRs ° `>i'r Sti+ �°{�'w-✓ `fig
"K't+ '�'vTt L� r } l @i 4 TnTRnnity.- .!•.
ySl � T l Y�� a'� •jf'rA+lC'� 'i _ �ls� _ � •r•
� t
a«"s?y<3eavea'Rrepladw�,.�'k��.js�*b•� `'��":. 4,��+'�l� �.. +:. t -�� �����;,��ry� � ti ,�„� max.
a +�e�',`f` tcu:i.. b•v^Ki..! `-iu .:•b �>. �Cvinmem. !�<fi�'t' ,. ab'# ram„ yq ��� � w
,.��Yr`�T7n r't vll cf�t<Dut7l'.Ged7xrenu leGl'Y `�' ''a.
, w « x?
,� .1}cbsne.X v"q'A.°`..L"w•.a ' 'E'.s'°`v'• M-
at c�',,��'�"`�fi+us,Y,` RE.,
ON
d t
..4ue+Ye,�^vsj$h$e'"�- M
� � ii,•,. rF�*+k� y; �� ,,a;. r' .* ,� y`"r'r �r,C-�x.•.. ,rba'sv. �� ]+l
5l� h
t -ys.7yiS5 iM A v
��.•.��yr,�- _.{x,� Y��C"nGt`.,L.xs•�'+ ��ti , ��"�• � �� i �����5iy-��E Y ��µ�gt�-r�.�c av,
{S ¢t' S'S '+ [ m: � '-et ki+' ..•3°' � JAaT. .1 `SC3•��n..:s_
a sv� 6
r�x ��>_��>s .`fit�•G-r' �
ii.'�'� ..hy v' s s>u`.�'`^I� �•+��STc` " .*_ d "G Ez� kro
—w.V�ri ,••4 �
�.��yy�•tr�g
# �$,.aH.
g?3.�i }nertv�tc�u e ��r'.*t�S< .z v�i�rub of ��5t��'� Commenl5`its5 ..x tic 4 ,3y`�R' Y
:at C ✓a"iw. .t °pzi'�,x„l!'S2%�£'� ,' �""�pJ"„{�`'Y„'� .,•: r"1 � 8� �J' ,']'.3 •�uH�" �tr
Y• -r 'Ss
��•°w{'a' �+,�t5` i:k"._ a '� {t ,rw'mfr e�t;���'J���t�'sk t,'r'�vlo-�`� '
d"'`at f
rsy "Lfx '3� �
a[� �
t �,�i 3 xs.rr r,�.T Y.x'�t.t:i�-�'t'�,ua� -t_��,ro`x+..L� .r y_ �c ,r..f.� � �cr[.��•�'"�r� r� _
c...r..✓. {+.ir.+.>���{ .F N'�'* �,. -s �a-�".'t-''tt'Yp �''X 3. ���'���`"< �`�"r'"�'rJ'�~'r�'�S`� '°'y
�,�''� r--"w f'+,1i'. �'Y•,-' 9
21
M A�;m1fa `T .�Y' � '+i` } � �"I r• � " ?- "�
:}S t"*'xg,. a.'QIi C�-S...�({4 ,wl
" e-•�.ra.. ..
'' `Sno'almrp� i k�mSsa ., awa � � %,s"�'
'''"\ s pr�d,Sxle04'mn-�nsy"_'� Mx=�' '�.��'s,,.. ]x•.. ^'`,r rr :e -.� :;-�,a� `,-..'.-�-""-`�'�''�3
yt Yitnr4�1s 'a A'. " f`� u�at
'a��«,_ psgnpsl� Y y ro,
MOWN
p.y.-tt OW2ria18Ti'wuJO y�,�, qs•;+ ` y
L -
��ri�Y q ,+3 i y��Jx`��J��y, `r�'.,�;d,_,.'}�j;.L�Y�(�^� 7'�`�,�RY,�`.'A '`� � E t ��r,���b' ��•[y e �in� ���f�
� 9���' 'N �@'e,r�Hf �� x t � C .s,. '+��'��..f�.+� q F�• �Lam;
�y.�{Jr d jr/F�'"'��^•,;s�s3 w�/K�Pi+ n�"+.3�� � y.�.. ti Mrh :n... � .Rye. ,X�y�er�.€."�+1'"�^ .� ���a,873r�-
73 }S 'Ct�e;� -_- e"r� 2swek'+,.,¢. .3e'•`r' .a $ �a-�c-.�.d�^s.. ..�5."''.'fh,
j>A is
-
r ` €4 m CHM a .
� --��F'f"�•�:t''� `"" b i i�� t,�''ya�,� �'��
tlrnivRQ-Nw1e374jumuu3rom avers
'zu4n In
FJi# � h- _ ,II�mse•ARebmamc�tt��r9s•"�.�i.
t Tn+ ' .�r f '' °' ,s,'� ✓ay,'�s '',s+"�4,1 -:�� i 'v y� Js�� ¢ n`e'"�r n 27FA"`c7"Ai
V"x+`P�„ t ,.r��
� ^!u � d� "PAwereC b3'73u+a'ismTan.
d ^Fr
�'" r QtecenLrAosts r
��' '3ratmttn uvt*aLeTAY�ftt�fit
Al
o �,. .,+ :: - v4T`x • - ".fs *.�� 'er a.wn dnpaeinT bimm ra=
Sys..-�..w-a8tr7.wrl
Zv
�, ,� � yyTy ltJe1)Je1p NNl HeIiYl1�0'y�Cr"�{81g3
i y��� '�'� .� "��y �•�Mic
� yy ,"M
'IV d.+noaaLY i-' i.
•" ., s x .�a�R •r "Y,i�g°'sf'-:�ui`� �,w`.�,�� �`' f^ -. .gas" ':t a,� A,"
e
o" f- � axTa yy R alb v
n,3verzZe-b-Arcou-ta bMIDI
titw1S.LW.t' �-' or7a-7'i.d'.ta 'a.,+t `s - 4+• �.3;• +r-�-':+.•'.�,+. .
,k-
h d`;7 1-, ,a }yy,+ y :y�s"S• 'd ` 7IC£. 11PS SICK aY215Bl1a
get
sriy
1x s'7r y #i��(�ri�a .+.:^K "'S } .F - " t� '- 9� k .'Y�1T� Jam+•-..r.�a"'tr.�
�snsssf inns-�m�pzTuy ':'�' {��•' a;r '�* .p. z''yrmmoCrty -13lpda - r,
L �xt M♦ r�� ,� � �.�.�`s.'� '`� i� qA. ��,�,,.��" {�. "`'"�.� "� -�PYe�opmen�3��v�ntorn ,�
e uu�1� �`..:�,sr�sr-f4^r yyx't`� L� ,�ryv9 �` g'a�„'t .T ,,�� i�f?>!pp'�aTie!rtSryt''� •� `�y"'�.
to �R en
�F ,� •••AAA E st F•R,. 7G .A'ny.^ T -1`- tnvlronmenYiaa""i`slrmm±;ors�rs
�t -A'Ey I�ess�yra�Xmex-��vnrY l��SF' .rn� rni� .� `.r�'`5, ' Y+�'l-a.- � � � +'r#+•�G "t�S.SaA�`I.Dq
:3 }• rs:+a` r`- `z d�^�''4, `'F*:=ie" ''n1 '.- « � '`,.+-a'Fr P1 k' ".,rvr�a`]C�7aidlorffi •..n.�,.
tit � ipvemmetttlo�l GnvemmenL `
� # �5 �°� a: �cs�".Pw`-a•.���'�-�
' to r s �n�tr s cii3tlu5ju`i` L E �"3 .1 TBTlantaayArmcxe�ter g -
��r� � � ,...
.,�.�> .� �.- -•r,�e'';i` � '�,_s,: � ei�7ibcrh�adslJL'C�`n��"Talrus�;��
ij M nu�..3"ri-rat.Kt"�ia• � A:t• •` + �" +4za' �'� �'},+ S ;'�#F« s
>ibl�c #w *'
s..llw,3ylxzl eeun nDe[mtrt� �7�ne<ityrnunnl•rn[w•pa�'�an,+inller�s37aLy�D m)raKP-ytr,�� i`r'��/OJ'�S28A'iHierpJ�harsnleitar-,-3ioi7n.
av:, rt ��"l as r* 5+�asC� a�sa��a ce. rf u *3C
'nan m*1'iT ..FFin J>tnnruY53nnrM�mreapa� nlamm Eve�mtp .he trlyxnunulaastiF' y `,ytl axe,23n57t 5�' �r
f"'; �0.KK--i[`': ' e-'� u..is. �' I"
i oust tlL`hciontrait.:nn 3oDleDYanafnz�Ry. ir antfi inn [rtnra,gn FtnrcAmpeu nm�eg ro'J ly 4 g. T1Spi�TEnCyTra � apt'•
r `€S3'.s
taw .Yc :S'T� 'i 1I.E.M.
x.#, ^7 �Z.£)n��incns'th ixievers siF72ndtesit+7anitie lurmmg;sly.3imaherzmmtemt7nr'PhFafr �` rr �ill�3n
�.{.s��`-�,�t��•a„°y'^x...`,�sr,""'..r.,�.��:;iJl;''i�'� -�Y��"�-L�.+�5��.0 ti+*',rrfic'.. f,�ri^`�Y." 'Y..�.i1i�r�x-.. 1. �'}-`�����-�s+�''6 .
a `a L'nn"T.sntt2tS•s�jbZht�^xi nt ttla 7s�lega!ly�n)_'t9ltt+wiasril,�n57tl uus�Ly�ui�nQ mf.alpax_�1�n;,, �#r�wr"'�,.a`;„3 ategpn�q�i{ �i.,=��t��'
��",.ra-��.¢C ssi"nc`�a ti 4Z,".,+K'.,�''j�i#�".e�'.1w"a.M ,,�- �E .. �'cat+c`5•-+r�M"19�,"�,Y� F rye ++x ys; fie.
�•" Lrzur m I ,[enaa_ts�` �f^ � �.2 cs,, ��_��- "3 ""� '�' "� '#'•�,�
+�'f'.•,.,.tiy,#F �F���r .)�� �' ;` '#� �'tL�' r�i x"s�. a "�-,�,'1 7„ Y� '��tiw�' s'k.'',y�#.+�` �1w1.T7¢lsael;'ksar�!£'•M "�;„�.
fi.���'iyrtrht3sDanytoIlxrps�v�lame a rsdla Pt ltai o`.. "in s1e s�'t7a�altavmg a �Oilmnm,ly lA ' ��' ' '.
'r��'+t'+na ftuatonrtcrs2�jor{yaT+shr�p�vn tfgtt r�n�a bcc>bur yr rm y>Fr�,�em.ntls�i c u rani' t ,,x,. t�,,
GYlatlallat�aaZlYd A�ht3anit�x mpar{y tl•,da',Sn'JIa.PSDmehe +3yly^hh�C�aPne�fjf{e n9iey ['�° ,{a,
fa ih' � x � s.•�, '!_ •"L'� Aootic�:d4 r r: _. �t.
�.�..(. huJhEStr rtr�`1'D�,I+Ier♦rdsc�pl.}.C'•hD T,1,S31ir'W- *r. m.•37{Nyi`
_�'�"'�"KFKf il'{ {• -5 y _�/ £itLy2D+�"_ -
.t r' anshubt{�F',ha>laonean episa r+anr tlao nmme '{nrsums c{ ne¢la{nuar'rtJ
' �iro4ts •d }r1�3 � r,�£rl.` ` """'4- !yi
,h `eaon5rve.A9rtlmctu m5fintter d neraaa ,a x cxAtl .atalf fJIticmlr °�fwaysArE•n•
.+ tFt 's•'?�s:l,- 'fR .;7DI"n"�3F� '.sR?j " '�g •"s ' t .,''pee.' ` e 4 ..e.A..
*3 '� 7na[l{e irntlSAn�nakeL{..sesrl tenements}YT he w.ysatrttfi�e'ransi Win'ARM.
S rvnvs�es�e['s, t,�idlacl•{�htleos;,�`{
Yi '..Sa . .- a '�3a"�b 5c•;fi -� }i'.` y` it'IIN
x tsn: la s 4a�tuu2 ZCL r amtn0t� ar rn 3snmY usrs nu eht a omdN site a'unci r
5' ��e�� z y se menu ttre ea37x,n Can so u49e. Lna1 1,e� 7
murD -D xma Fr le'sye s_7.ay3
.� y.� c,?lazb APra��r�rhCO IIYTnnII3C1:kM' �Y``I,aI,TI]tlL.TraE 1IIh6
T" f ^s s 6Y"� s �f �a` L� rvniael �,� �? "��jr •R?
Sy ,7n�h s rYr•A[atLL�tha 3pnAe.- p.—)hem elm is rtlr. Snh�ifaF .r
bfq; i+R' Y [S l
8 �yn gm�h� ��7ngu1��- {A��_tn+Ten�vs mipanYr�ta•Y�osn �ntw¢[#
y�"+towr'nn[heY.sr9reetler '�
F6,1`f['a�kft<F-e' �
ave
5�1��sa1a .syS
��� �� in xIIi1 s�ti 1 x�.'N}�. � . ^...�� � � _ �r�.' �T� ' � �_ t Y ��y t,��; #r uA• s'r r
Y ,
��"`•ywomn�myvuxs.3tt�•�1 aF °+� ,�, ,1.. '� at � �br�+ r .r , r_t�t:f` '
q�y��+-', ISm`w+���� -�. "k '�.n1�4"4 r+ttfJT�{,.'+Y2-^.F,Z�� �a '��„��. •t.,
au K7'iikicm.•wm MnPi�.4 r�>if�' :3lyAii:S'CW`°%".. r i X � Rt s .' ro
H` ,sou Stzrc. ?+ .�r lava w t kL 7t�:Fzb xx asxk.
gw
k"paeTl. ,,t�� -.r. � � �±�`ram. .. �'� . k+�sw�.,+•t � ���0` ���w° r
gm
F' y +r'�'N�,,__"--'}}�r., 'e 't ^•Yr-?� rtl'`..'3M'u��` srr�-,'-'''=' `�' _ F�'..�M1r`+f,,.- ��._' 'u _T �
-� � .c s,n r�t.��r
k r� ?
3
LE 'dPsigzY�{„'' ssq• -' E�y � '"y'tlltDua� 1+'z.;.... �.:. r`'.. . •<
'fit7d 1 as
Page 1 of 2
Pb A- mBulletm
Buses might battle for riders in Rochester
Mar 31,2012,6:23 am
By Jeffrev Pieters
The Post-Bulletin,Rochester MN
This might be more competition than the city council bargained for.
A brewing bus battle could be touched off by a council vote Monday,presumably to award a 54-month service
contract to a new transit company,First Transit of Cincinnati.The new contract starts July 2.
But the current contractor,Rochester City Lines,isn't ready to let go,said Dan Holter,the company's general
manager.
City Lines has acquired buses,and is ready to start planning routes and schedules,pending Monday's council action.
"I continue to take steps that will allow us to be a viable participant"In transit,Holter said."As we sit right now,I
believe there is nothing that prohibits as from doing that."
City Lines,a company started and still owned by Holter's family,has run public transit free of competition in
Rochester since 1966.
Last year,the Federal Transit Administration ordered the city to award its next contract through competitive
bidding.Four companies submitted bids,and City Lines was ranked fourth among them.First Transit ranked first
for quality and had the lowest bid price.
Holter disputes the city's scoringsystem and objects to the entire bidding process.The bus system is privately owned,
Holter insists,and is being wrongly taken from him.
The dispute is being argued now in Olmsted County District Court,where two attempts by Holter to stop the bid
process were unsuccessful.
Competition
There is nothing to stop City Lines,which holds a five-year,non-exclusive city transportation franchise,from running
buses as a private enterprise in competition with the city,said City Attorney Terry Adkins.
Under the city franchise,the city council must approve the company's proposed routes and schedule,Adkins said.
"In order to maintain traffic flow and prevent gridlock,they would have the ability to say,'No,not at this time,but
maybe at a different time,"'he said.
City buses have the advantage of being federally subsidized.Holter says he'd level the playing field by canning his
buses only on the most fruitful routes and switching to mini-buses for mid-day service.
More spec route and schedule information"has yet to be formulated,"he said.
The biggest question mark,Hotter said,is whether he would be able to keep his drivers or if some would leave him for
First Transit.
"If they decide to raid our business,it's going to be pretty tough,"he said."We have a great team,and we intend to
keep them."
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/print.php?id=1491655 4/5/2012
Page 2 of 2
He is still hopeful the city council might award City Lines the contract.
"The city and us have a lot at stake,and we would like to continue a mutual relationship,"Holter said. "It was never
my intention to fight with the city."
Post-Bulletin Coazpa?*,L.L.C.
www.postbullatin.com
i
http://vmw.postbulletin.com/ne,vN,s/stories/print.php?id=1491655 4/5/2012
ol
RpGg ESTER•rgr?yA•
AII-AAiE6IfdQ[Y �+OE. £`TOT
4�
q�e c�•Q'D .P.•,�
IG
�pRTE D.AU G UST.S
TERRY L ADKINS
City Attomey
April 12, 2012 201 4th Street SE,Room 247
Rochester,MN 559D4-3780
(507)228-21 OD
Steven A. Diaz, Esq. FAX#(507)328-2727
2300 M Street N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Mr. Diaz:
Thank you for your April 5, 2012, letter labeled as Rochester City Lines' ("RCL's")
protest of the Rochester City Council's award announcement on April 2, 2012,
and its proposed selection of First Transit as the provider of bus transit services
in the City of Rochester: I received this document on April 5, 2012, and am
responding to you on behalf of the City of Rochester as required by Section 5.01
of the City's Request for Proposals.
RCL's protest focuses on your claim that the City's process "was marred by a
biased and unfair evaluation and selection process, rendering any contract
awarded to First Transit invalid.' RCL also states "that the selection of First
Transit was the product of a biased, outcome-driven, and fundamentally unfair
selection process." RCL lists several grounds in support of your claims. I will
individually address each of the complained-of grounds mentioned in your letter.
First, RCL states that half of the evaluation committee members were City
officials "who have a history with RCL and have been a part of the City's
contentious relationship with RCL since the City issued the request for proposals
(RFP).° RCL suggests these City employees wanted to replace RCL with
another operator in conjunction with their effort to build a new maintenance
facility. RCL also suggests that the selection of these City employees for the
evaluation committee established an internal bias and predisposition that
infected the entire evaluation process."
The facts indicate the two parties had a decades-long civil relationship. The
current issue arose only because of the findings contained in the City's most
recent Triennial Review, not as a result of any City employee or official seeking
to oust RCL as the operator of the City's publicly-funded transit system.
The fact that the City constructed a maintenance facility is consistent with the
practices of virtually every other municipal transit operator in the United States.
Construction 'of maintenance facilities, using FTA capital funds, will ultimately i
An E np&ya
i
work to lower the costs paid to transit operators thereby providing
ng benefits to
customers and taxpayers alike. The mere fact that Department of Public Works
employees supported a City decision to construct this facility simply represents
good government practice. RCL has submitted no evidence to suggest this
action was discriminatory to RCL.
You attached to your letter comments made by. the City Attorney. Those
comments merely affirmed RCL's contention that it could operate a parallel
transit system. He stated that the City does maintain authority to approve routes
and schedules, and gave an example about how two separate transit systems
might be regulated to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. But, he said
nothing indicating an "intent to put RCL out of business" or to "prevent RCL from
continuing to operate."
Under 49 U.S.C. § 5325(j)(2)(C), the City is obligated to consider the past
performance of vendors submitting bids or proposals under transit procurements.
Other than making a general and subjective statement that a contentious
relationship existed at the time of evaluation, RCL has offered no evidence
indicating the City/RCL relationship materially impacted RCL's ability to compete
for the contract.
More importantly, at the time it considered this matter at its Committee of the
Whole meeting and its formal Council meeting on April 2, 2012, the Council had
before it a memo from the City Attorney. That memo, a copy of which is
attached, instructed the Council to base its decision solely upon the responses to
the RFP, the outside consultant's work, and the Evaluation Committee's scoring
and conclusions based upon the evaluation criteria. The Council was specifically
directed to not consider any other matters beyond this scope. You have
presented no information indicating the Council failed to follow the guidance
provided in this memo.
Second, RCL claims that the City employees who made up half of the Evaluation
Committee were biased against RCL, were pre-disposed to oust RCL and to put
it out of business.
In order to completely respond to this claim, I must discuss the actual scores
given to the four proposals by City employee Evaluation Committee members as
compared to non-City employee Evaluation Committee members, as well as the
comments of all of the Committee members. However, I cannot provide this
information at this time as such data remains nonpublic until a City completes the
negotiation of a contract with the selected vendor. Minn. Stat. §13.591, subd.
3(b).
The facts in the public record simply do not support RCL's claim of bias in the
evaluation. Four of the eight-member Evaluation Committee had no connection
to the City of Rochester at all. RGL has provided no information that even hints
2
Fifth, RCL states that the Evaluation Committee's score for RCL in the
"Transition Plan" category is "simply inexplicable" as RCL is the incumbent
operator and "needs no startup plan."
In order to fully respond to this claim, I must discuss the actual scores given to
the four proposals by City employee Evaluation Committee members as
compared to non-City employee Evaluation Committee members. I cannot
provide this information at this time as such data remain nonpublic until a City
completes the negotiation of a contract with the selected vendor. Minn. Stat.
§13.591, subd. 3(b).
Sixth, RCL states that the "Interviews with Key Management Staff' factor was
inherently subjective, invited partiality, and was given undue weight.
The facts indicate that the FTA does not dictate evaluation factors to be used in a
competitive proposal other than that established by the Common Rule (49 CFR
part 18). The City may adopt criteria it deems most important to the selection
process. Additionally, the City may assign any weight it desires in evaluating the
factor. FTA only requires that the City identify all evaluation factors and their
relative importance. Numerical or percentage ratings or weights do not even
have to be disclosed. Thus, there is no violation of FTA standards in the City's
use of this criterion or its relative weight.
In order to further respond to this claim, I must discuss the actual scores given to
the four proposals by - City employee Evaluation Committee members as
compared to non-City employee Evaluation Committee members, as well as the
comments of all of the Committee members. However, I cannot provide this
information at this time as such data remain nonpublic until a City completes the
negotiation of a contract with the selected vendor. Minn. Stat. §13.591, subd.
3(b)
I can tell you that, if one assumes this factor is a subjective one, the FTA
guidelines tell us the factor is nonetheless appropriate for consideration. Section
4.5.2 of the FTA's Best Practices Procurement Manual states, in part, as follows:
Some agencies have employed a quantitative approach of
assigning scores to both technical and cost proposals, thereby
compelling a source selection that is basically mathematically
derived. Proponents of this method usually argue it is the most
"objective;" and therefore the fairest, approach to determining a
winner. On closer examination, however, all approaches are to one
degree or another, subjective. The decision regarding what score to
assign any given factor is subjective, and any formulas employed
after the initial scoring cannot make the process an "objective" one.
Further, grantees must be allowed the flexibility of making sound,
factually based decisions that are in their agency's best interests.
We also believe that any approach that assigns a predetermined
5 .
numerical weight to price, and then seeks to "score" price,proposals
and factor that score into a final overall numerical grade to
automatically determine contract award, is a mistake. Rather, we
believe that agencies should evaluate the prices offered but not
score the price proposals. Prices should be evaluated and brought
along side the technical proposal scores in order to make the
necessary tradeoff decisions as to which proposal represents the
best overall value to the agency. Agencies should carefully
consider the technical merits of the competitors and the price
differentials to see if a higher price proposal warrants the award
.based on the benefits it offers to the agency as compared to a
lower price proposal. This is a subjective decision-making, tradeoff
process.
Seventh, RCL states the "Past Performance-Reference Checks" factor was
"fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to RCL."
The facts indicate the City solicited only.one reference per form. Despite that
fact, RCL listed two City employees as references on one form. The Evaluation
Committee and Technical Assistance Consultant considered that as only one
reference. When he learned he was listed as a reference, the affected City
employee contacted the City Attorney for advice. In order to comply with the
City's. Code of Ethics and in light of the City employee's involvement in pending
litigation between the City and RCL, the City Attorney advised the City employee
to not participate in the reference interview process. Because this individual did
not provide a reference, a conflict of interest did not occur.
More importantly, it is the proposer's responsibility in naming a reference to
ensure that individual is able and willing to participate as such. By naming a city
employee who is heavily involved in public transit issues without first determining
the employee's ability to participate simultaneously as a reference and as a city
employee engaged in public transit matters including the review of the proposals
submitted in response to this RFP, RCL took the chance this reference would not
be able to participate as such. RCL's failure to conduct its due diligence as to
this particular reference is RCL's responsibility; not the Evaluation Committee's
or the City's responsibility.
Eighth, RCL states the Financial Ability" factor demonstrates that the evaluation
"was skewed against RCL and deprived RCL of an equal opportunity to bid."
Initially, it should be noted that RCL did not ask for any relief from this RFP
provision during the pre-proposal conference, or during any subsequent question
and answer period prior to bid"submission. RCL's opportunity to protest the
inclusion of this provision within the RFP occurred prior to the proposal
submission deadline. Because RCL did not do so, it has waived that claim and it
cannot be made following the award of a contract.
6
' r
As for the merits of RCL's claim, the facts indicate the City utilized a financial
ability as an evaluation factor because it is required by law to do so. FTA Circular
4220.1 F, Chapter IV, paragraph 2a states:
In addition to the Common Grant Rules that require contract
awards be made only to responsible contractors, Federal transit law
at 49 U.S.C. Section 53256) limits third party contractor awards to
those contractors capable of successfully performing under the
terms and conditions of the proposed contract. Before selecting a
contractor for award, the recipient must consider such matters as
contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past
performance, and financial and technical resources (emphasis
added).
Additionally, the Federal Mass Transportation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. §
5325(j)(2)(D)), specifically requires that recipients of FTA funds shall consider,
before making an award to a contractor, the contractor's financial and technical
resources to perform the contract. Thus, the imposition of financial responsibility
criteria in this procurement is a matter of law rather than an element created by
the City of.Rochester to hinder RCL's competitive ability in the procurement.
Admittedly, both FTA Circular 4220.1F and the Best Practices Procurement
Manual contain little guidance on how to determine financial responsibility.
However, use of a "Yes/No" or "Pass/Fail" evaluation method for this criterion
was not arbitrary. FTA Circular 4220.117, Chapter 11, paragraph 3b states that,
while Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) do not apply to FTA procurements,
"in the absence of other guidance, FAR standards may prove useful if the
recipient's circumstances are suitable. for application of the specific FAR
provision under consideration."
FAR 9.104-1(a) echoes FTA requirements in this regard and is supplemented by
Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance
information. This publication states:
Responsibility is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror
has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an
analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational
controls, technical skills, quality assurances, compliance with
Goverment laws, and past performance. These surveys and
evaluations provide a "yes/no," "pass/fail," or "go/no-go" answer to
the questions, "Can the offeror do the work?" to help you determine
whether the offeror is responsible.
j The Evaluafion Committee's process in assessing this criterion was consistent
with Federal guidance on the subject. Since FTA and the City operates its transit
program on a "cost-reimbursement" basis, the financial ability of a prospective
vendor to float costs between City payments is critical to sustained or
5
uninterrupted provision .of public transit services (e.g., performance under this
contract).
It is important to note that RCL performance under this criterion resulted from its
unilateral decision to disregard or ignore the RFP, and substitute its own
judgment in the preparation of its proposal response as opposed to some
concerted effort on the part of the City to ensure RCL could not win the award..
RCL unilaterally determined its status as the incumbent was sufficient to ignore
the City's RFP requirement to submit a letter indicating it .could secure a
performance bond. If the City were committed to see that RCL did not receive
the contract award, as RCL has repeatedly claimed, it would have jumped on this
failure to comply and ruled RCL's proposal as non-responsive. Instead, the City
viewed the failure as a minor irregularity and, accordingly, waived it as such. At
the vendor interviews, RCL was given the opportunity to correct this error and the
City subsequently received the necessary letter.
Additionally, RCL had nearly two months following the release of the RFP to
remedy any shortcomings in its working capital. Nothing in the City's. RFP
precluded Rochester City Lines from demonstrating sufficient financial ability
pursuant to the requirements of the RFP. RCL could have obtained a line of
credit more than equal to the minimal requirements of the RFP (the City believes
the company certainly has assets in the form of real property and other company
owned rolling stock to serve as collateral). Alternatively, RCL could have offered
tangible evidence that the current economic .conditions or lack of suitable
collateral precluded the firm from obtaining such a line of credit. It took neither
step. Instead, RCL simply cited its status as the incumbent operator, noted its
long history as the incumbent operator, and unilaterally.determined it need not
meet this requirement.
The above facts show that RCL has failed to demonstrate that inclusion of
financial ability as an evaluation criterion, mandated by Federal transit law,
hindered its ability to compete.
Ninth, RCL states the use of deliberately and arbitrarily exclusionary and
discriminatory requirements is a violation of FTA Circular 4220.1 F, Chapter VI,
paragraph (2)(4). Your letter does not cite the specific violations.
i assume RCL meant to cite FTA Circular 4220.1 F, Chapter VI, paragraph 2a(4)
which outlines ten conditions that are illustrative of prohibited solicitation
requirements that unduly restrict competition.
The City received five proposals, four of which were deemed responsive. Based
on marketplace conditions for'transit management, operations, and maintenance
service contracts, and on the procurement experience of other municipalities
soliciting similar services, and on the fact that no protests were filed prior to the
proposal due date regarding the City's RFP's specifications, competition is
deemed adequate and the specifications were not unduly restrictive.
. 8
In response to the Circular's provisions, the City has demonstrated:
• It has previously established that it did not establish
unreasonable business requirements for preparing a
proposal.
• It did not impose unnecessary experience
requirements.
• It did not pre-qualify offerors and, therefore, did not
limit competition by imposing conditions prohibited by
the Circular.
• It did not.place the selected awardee on a retainer
contract.
• It did not impose excessive bonding requirements.
• It did not include brand name only type specifications.
• It did not include state or local geographic
preferences (prohibited by the Circular).
It did not allow organizational conflicts of interest to
occur as prohibited by the Common Rule.
It did not support or acquiesce to noncompetitive
pricing practices between firms or between affiliated
companies.
• It did not engage in any arbitrary actions in its
solicitation and evaluation process
Thus, in the absence of specific claims, I can find no support for RCL's claim that
the City violated FTA Circular 4220.1 F in the conduct of this procurement.
In summary, the facts I have gathered in response to RCL's protest indicate the
following:
• Suggestions of bias and prejudice against RCL are
not supported by scoring data that is currently public
data;
Claims of discriminatory evaluation are not supported
by factual evidence. The results simply reflect the
9
i
• outcome of the competitive procurement process and
superior competition;
There are errors of fact in your claims regarding
improper contact with the selected firm prior to award
and how the Committee evaluated Financial Ability;
• RCL's performance in the evaluation process resulted
from its own mistakes in preparing its proposal
including the failure to verify the legal availability of
references prior to proposal submission and outright
dismissal of key RFP requirements. These errors
contributed to RCL's lower scores as compared to its
competitors; not bias reflected by Evaluation
Committee members; and,
• The City's RFP and evaluation process complied with
its RFP specifications, federal law and FTA Circular
4220.1 F.
For the reasons stated herein, RCL has failed to establish a basis for any of the
claims asserted in its protest. Therefore, I find RCL's protest of the Rochester
City Council's award announcement on April 2, 2012, and its proposed selection
of First Transit as the provider of bus transit services in the City of Rochester to
be without merit and do hereby reject it.
,Sincerely,
TERR L.ADKINS
Rochester City Attorney
TLA:jlh .
Cc: Mayor and Common Council
Stevan E. Kvenvold
Richard Freese
10
OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 14, 2012
TO: Mayor and'Common Council
FROM: Terry L. Adkins—Rochester City Attorney`lP
SUBJECT: Selection of an Operator of the Publicly-Funded Bus Service
The purpose of this memo is to provide legal direction to the Mayor and Council•in the
selection .of a firm to contract with the City to provide operating personnel to utilize.City-owned
buses and other City-owned facilities to provide public transportation regular route' bus
services in Rochester.
In making this decision, you are not evaluating or weighing evidence, as you would in a public
hearing. The Request for Proposal (RFP) sets forth performance and cost proposal
quirements, contractual terms and conditions, administrative requirements, criteria which the
City will use in evaluating proposals submitted in response to the RFP, and other important
Information. In exercising your discretion as the Mayor and Council, you should review the
responses to the RFP, the consultants' work, and the Evaluation Committee's scoring and
conclusions based on the evaluation criteria. Ultimately, you should base your decision on the
RFP's requirements and terms.
It is my recommendation that you not give any consideration to whether any fir i submitting a
response has taken a position in negotiations with the City (or with another city), or pursued a
particular strategy related to such negotiations. 1 also recommend that you not give any
consideration to whether any firm submitting a response, or its owners or representatives, has
exercised its rights to free'speech (or the contents of that speech). And, I also recommend
that you do not give any consideration to lawsuits or claims filed or threatened by any of those
firms, or the actions taken by'such a firm in that lawsuit. If such a firm has filed a lawsuit, do
not hold that fact against that firm, and do not give that firm any preference because it has
done so.
Even tf you. disagree with something that was said by or on behalf of such a firm, your focus
should be on the responses to the RFP submitted to the City.
f -
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Room 104 — City Hall
April 2, 2012
3:30 P.M.
PAGE
1-20 1 ) .Public. Transit Service Operations and
Maintenance Contract (attachment)
II MEETING �
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION .�
DATE: 4-02-2012
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Transit Service Operations and Maintenance Contract PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER
The City was required by the Federal Transit Administration to provide for open market competition in
contracting for operation and maintenance of the public transit system. (The City had been negotiating annual
operating contracts with Rochester City Lines up to this point.) A Request for Proposals (RFP) under FTA's
competitive proposal method using "Best Value"was used for the procurement process. The RFP calls for a 54
month operations and maintenance contract for public transit service beginning on July 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2016. The RFP was advertised beginning on December 28, 2011 Nvith proposals due on February
22,2012.
The RFP process involved a number of steps including; pre-proposal meeting, a fleet review, written questions
j and responses, and issuance of an addenda. The City also retained the services of a third party Technical
Assistant to guide the process, provide guidance to the evaluation conunittee, monitor compliance with FTA
best practices and tabulate scores. The Pre-proposal meetings were well attended with 7 vendors represented.
Five proposals were received by the City Clerk on February 22, 2012 of which one was withdrawn. The
submission of proposals was followed by a scoring of the four proposals by an eight member evaluation
committee consisting of 4 City staff and 4 non-local transit professionals from the State and other public transit
systems. Proposals were scored by each member of the evaluation committee independently using predetermined
criteria included in the RFP. All four proposers were interviewed-by die evaluation committee prior to sharing of
any scores. The Financial Ability of the proposers was reviewed by an outside third party CPA firm. The •
references were interviewed by the Technical Assistant. The results of these independent reviews were provided
to the evaluation coinunittee who then reviewed and scored them. The price proposals were held*by the City
Clerk and not made available to the committee until all proposals were scored and ranked.
Based on the reviews, scoring and ranking the evaluation committee is unanimously reconumnding the award of
a 54 month operations and maintenance contract commencing July 1, 2012 to First Transit of Cincinnati,Ohio.
(First Transit also has offices in Minneapolis and 11 other operations in Minnesota including Duluth and Fargo,
Moorhead.) First Transit also provided the best pricing. The value of the 54 month contract calculated with a
constant of 70,000 revenue vehicle hours under Fist Transit's price proposal is $19,674,750. The next closest
price proposal is $21,613,100 or $1,938,350 greater. The Civ estimate for the 6 month contract in 2012 was
$61.32 per revenue vehicle hour.First Transit's proposal is$61.65 per revenue vehicle hour for 2012.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution awarding a contract to First Transit of Cincinnati, Ohio for transit operations and
maintenance for a period of 54 months commencing on July 1,2012 through December 31, 2016.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 14, 2012
TO: Mayor and'Common Council
FROM: Terry L. Adkins— Rochester City Attorney
SUBJECT: Selection of an Operator of the Publicly-Funded Bus Service
The purpose of this memo is to provide legal direction to the Mayor and Council. in the
selection of a firm to contract with the City to provide operating personnel to utilize City-owned
buses and other City-owned facilities to provide public transportation regular route* bus
services in Rochester.
in making this decision, you are not evaluating or weighing evidence, as you would in a public
hearing. The Request for Proposal (RFP) sets forth performance and cost proposal
• ,;quirements, contractual terms and conditions, administrative requirements, criteria which the City will use in evaluating proposals submitted in response to the RFP, and other important
information. In exercising your discretion as the Mayor and Council, you should review the
responses to the RFP, the consultants' work, and the Evaluation Committee's scoring and
conclusions based on the evaluation criteria. Ultimately, you should base your decision on the
RFP's requirements and terms.
It is my recommendation that you not give any consideration to whether any firm submitting a
response has taken a position in negotiations with the City (or with another city), or pursued a
particular strategy related to such negotiations. I also recommend that you not give any
consideration to whether any firm submitting a response, or its owners or representatives, has
exercised its rights to free speech (or the contents of that speech). And, I also recommend
that you do not give any consideration to lawsuits or claims filed or threatened by any of those
firms, or the actions taken by such a firm in that lawsuit. If such a firm has filed a lawsuit, do
not hold that fact against that firm, and do not give that firm any preference because it has
done so.
Even if you disagree with something that was said by or on behalf of such a firm, your focus.
should be on the responses to the RFP submitted to the City.
City of Rochester,Minnesota
Department Of Public Works—Transit and Parking Division
Request for Proposals:
Rochester Public Transit Service:Operations&.Maintenance
Final Report of the Technical Assistance Consultant
Overview
The City of Rochester issued a Request for Proposal(RFP)to secure the services of a transit management
company to provide managerial,operations,and maintenance services on behalf of the City's public
transit system.The necessity for this procurement was predicated on a finding contained in the City's
most recent Federal Triennial Review.
The Triennial Review Is one of the Federal Transit Administration's(FTA)management tools for
examining grantee performance and adherence to current FTA requirements and policies. Mandated by
Congress in 1982,the triennial review occurs once every three years. it examines how recipients of
Urbanized Area Formula Program funds meet statutory and administrative requirements of the grant;
the process is authorized under 49 U.S.C.§5307(h)(2).
In the City's most recent review,FTA cited the City for failure to meet required Third Party Contracting
Guidelines in FTA Circular 4220.1F that requires the City to provide full and open competition In all of its •
third party contracting opportunities. FTA evaluated the City's agreement with the existing transit
service contractor and determined it failed to meet these requirements.The City agreed to remediate
this finding by competitively letting this contract in the future.
The City developed an RFP and issued the document to prospective vendors on December 28,2011.This:
procurement opportunity was posted on the City's website and advertised in:.(a)Passenger Transport,a
widely read industry trade publication;(b)the Rochester Post Bulletin;and(c)Transit News and
Commentary(a web-based trade newsletter).
On January 18,2012,the City executed an agreement with a technical assistance firm, RLS&Associates,
Inc.of Dayton,OH,to ensure that the City was following FTA Third Party Contracting guidance In this
procurement.
Key Procurement Events and Schedule
The procurement followed an established schedule,as follows:
RFP Release Date: December 28,2011
Pre-Proposal Conference: January27,2012
Fleet Review: January28,2012
Final Date for Receipt of Written Questions: February 3,2012
Page j 1
Official Responses to Questions/Issuance of Addendum #1: February 13,2012
Proposal Due Date: February 22,2012
Vendor Interviews March 6,2012
Evaluation &Recommendation:
Technical Proposals February 23-March 7,2012
Financial Ability March 6—7,2012
interviews with Key Staff March 7,2012
Past Performance March 7,2012
During the solicitation phase,the City provided prospective offerors with opportunity to become
familiar with the RFP's requirements. Key activities during this phase Included:
• Hosted a pre-proposal conference and facility tour on January 27,2012—Twenty-five attendees,
presenting seven potential vendors,attended the pre-proposal conference.City staff welcomed
attendees and gave a brief PowerPoint presentation regarding key RFP elements.After the
presentation,City staff conducted an escorted tour of the new transit facility.Following the pre-
proposal conference,the City responded on February 3,2012 (in writing)to 23 questions posed
during the conference.
• Arranged for RCL to make City-owned equipment(buses) available for inspection for prospective
offerors on January 28, 2012.Thirteen attendees representing six potential vendors were in
attendance.
• Responded to an additional 129 questions submitted in writing by potential offerors on
February 13,2012 and also provided:(a)on-time performance sample results;(b)an updated
vehicle inventory; (c)an audit report on fixed route operations;and(d)updated Information on
route revenue hours.The City issued Addendum No.1 modifying the RFP,providing additional
Information and clarification to the specifications.
Procurement Method
The City used the"competitive proposal"method of procurement. FTA permits use of a type of
competitive proposal process known as"best value"selection.Under this type of process,the City is
permitted to award the contract to the offeror whose proposal provides the greatest value to the City.
This may be used when: (a)the City informs potential offerors that the award will be made on a"best
value"basis;(b)the City identifies what factors will form the basis for award;(c)those factors are
specific to the procurement(Le.,management,operations,and maintenance of public transit services);
and(d)the City indicates which factors are most Important.When a best value approach is used,the
City determines the offeror whose proposal represents the"best value"on an analysis of the tradeoff of
qualitative technical factors and price/cost factors.
Evaluation Committee
Prior to the issuance of the RFP,the City established a proposal Evaluation Committee of eight(8)
members.The Committee's representation consisted of four members In City government(3 individuals
Page 12
5
from the Department of Public Works and one individual from the Finance Department)and four transit
professionals from outside organizations(2 individuals from Minnesota DOT and 2 individuals from
other publicly-owned transit systems)..
Evaluation Process
The evaluation process followed these steps:
1. Receipt and distribution of technical proposals to the Evaluation Committee;
2. Distribution of evaluation forms and instructions,including one teleconference held by the
technical assistance consultant with Committee members to ensure evaluators understood the
scoring process and Instructions;
3. Collection of technical proposal scores by the technical assistance consultant;
4. Reference checks conducted by the technical assistance consultant;
S. Conduct of vendor interviews by the Evaluation Committee,including interviews with vendor's
key staff persons conducted by the technical assistance consultant,and subsequent evaluation
by the Committee;
6. Evaluation of financial ability, assisted by the preparation of a report by an independent CPA
firm retained by the City to assess financial statements;
7. Evaluation of reference checks conducted by the technical assistance consultant;
8. Compilation and ordered ranking of vendors by the Evaluation Committee;
9. Opening of price proposals;and
10. Determination of the best value offer by the Evaluation Committee.
It should be noted that FTA does not require any specific factors or analytic process in evaluated
competitive proposals.
Distribution of proposals was accomplished via Interoffice mall and/or overnight express mail.More
Information about each step Is outlined below.
Receipt and Distribution of Technical Proposals
Five proposal packaged were received by the City of Rochester prior to the proposal deadline of 11:00
a.m.CST,on February 22,2012.Proposals were received from:
0 First Transit
• McDonald Transit
0 MV Transportation
Rochester City Lines
Veolia
Based on the City Clerk's documentation noted at the proposal opening,each of the five proposals
contained errors classified either as:(a)errors of construction;or(b)errors of omission(missing
element).Consistent with the BPPM and FTA Third Party Contracting guidelines,and after consultation
Page j 3
• with the City Attorney,the City opted to waive these errors as minor,correctable irregularities. By taking
this position,FTA's overriding goal of maximum "open and full competition"was maintained.
One firm,however,opted not to take advantage of this opportunity to cure its error of omission.
McDonald Transit,when contacted by the City Clerk regarding the firm's submission of the wrong
number of copies,indicated that they would not correct the error,as their only Intent In submission was
to get the firm on the City's vendor lists for possible future procurements.This firm was then deemed
nonresponsive and removed from further consideration in this solicitation.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Forms and instructions
The proposal outlined the four following evaluation factors:
Evaluation Criteria Weight
Percentage
Technical Proposals 40%
Interviews with Key Management Staff 30%
Past Performance—Reference Checks 20%
Financial Ability 10%
Additionally,for evaluation purposes,the RFP stipulated six elements under the review of the technical
proposals and the relative importance of each of these factors,totaling 100 points.Based on technical
scores being worth 100 points,point scores were assigned to the other three factors accordingly:
• Interviews with Key Management Staff—75 points
• Past Performance—50 points
• Financial Ability—25 points
The 100 points for technical proposals were broken down as follows:
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Weight
Percentage
Qualifications 20%
Proposed Personnel 20%
Transition Plan 10%
Proposed Management and Operations Plan 20%
Risks and Added Value Assessment 10%
Proposed Maintenance and Equipment Plan 20%
Thus,the maximum number of points any proposal could be awarded by a single reviewer was 250
points.
A copy of the forms and instructions can be found in Attachment A.
Page 4
� o
Colfection of Technical Proposal Scores
Evaluators were given until 5:00 p.m.CST on March 5,2012 to complete review and evaluation of the
technical proposals.Evaluators were instructed to transmit via e-mail all score results to the technical
assistance consultant.The consultant tabulated the scores,but maintained the scoring results as
confidential. Evaluators were unaware of total scores or the Individual score of other evaluators at this
stage of the process.Thus,evaluation of the other three factors was performed without knowledge of
technical proposal scores.
Reference Checks
Based on submitted reference forms included in the proposal submissions,the technical assistance
consultant conducted the reference checks of all supplied references.The reference,checks were done
via telephone interview,using a standard set of 12 questions posed to all references.Responses were
compiled in a standardized format but not distributed to the Evaluation Committee until after
completion of interviews(March 7,2012).
Vendor Interviews
The City Interviewed the four remaining firms.Each firm was contacted a week In advance and
Interviews were scheduled for Tuesday,March 6,2012. interview time slots were randomly'selected and
assigned to the firms by the City Clerk.The interview order was:
I 9:007a.m. MV Transportation
11:00 a.m. Veolia
1:00 P.M. First Transit
3:00 p.m. Rochester City Lines
Interviews followed a strict 75 minute agenda,as follows:
1. Introduction of Vendor Panel(5 minutes).
2. Proposal Overview—Vendors were asked to discuss highlights of their written proposal(without
reference to cost/price information)and requested to focus on specific services proposed to be
offered to the City of Rochester.Vendors were further asked to Identify risks and proposed
mitigation strategies for this engagement(25 minutes).
3. Questions and Answers—This time was dedicated to questions and answers,as follows:
a. Questions for Key Personnel—A series of standard questions were posed to the key
personnel from all four firms to ensure fairness during the interview process.Key
personnel included the General Manager,Operations Supervisor,and Maintenance
Supervisor.The technical assistance consultant conducted the interviews for all four
firms(30 minutes).
b. General Questions—Any question from the Evaluation Committee designed to
elaborate on or qualify Information-contained In the technical proposal(10 minutes).
Page ( 5
' V
• 4. Closing Comments—Vendors were given time to provide closing remarks and were asked to
focus on why their proposal represented the"best value"to the City of Rochester(5 minutes).
The technical assistance consultant officiated the interviews and enforced time limits.
Following each Interview,the Evaluation Committee met to discuss favorable and unfavorable elements
of each offeror's presentation.The technical assistance consultant compiled these comments and
prepared a written summary,distributed to the Committee on March 7,2012.
The Evaluation Committee agreed that the 75 points assigned to the interviews with key staff would be
distributed as follows:
• General Manager candidate's performance 30 points
• Operations Manager candidate's performance 25 points
• Maintenance Manager candidate's performance 20 points
The Evaluation Committee adjourned. Evaluators were permitted to consider all interview results
overnight and agreed to re-convene at 8:30 a.m.on Wednesday, March 7,2012 to continue evaluation
deliberations.
Tabulation of Scores from Interviews with Vendor's Key Staff
The Evaluation Committee met again on March 7,2012 and announced their individual evaluation
• , scores for interviews with key personnel.
Evaluation of Financial Abllity
As part of the proposal process,offerors were requested to provide Information to demonstrate
financial ability to undertake the contract.The primary measure used to conduct this evaluation was .
defined In the proposal as:
(Cash/Cash Equivalents)+(Accounts Receivable<90 Days—Accounts Payables)+(Stand-by
Letter of Credit)=25%of annual contract amount.
The basis for this evaluation was documentation Included In the proposals,Including audited financial
statements,letters from financial Institutions,and vendor representation of any past bankruptcies and
pending litigation.
To assist in this phase of evaluation,the City retained the services of McGladrey&Pullen, LLP
(McGladrey). McGladrey was requested to evaluate all financial data and render an opinion as to
whether the offeror meet the working capital requirements contained in the RFP and to identify any
other element In the financial statements that could be of concern to the City in the performance of this
contract.
McGladrey provided a written report which was distributed to the Committee.The City Finance
Department representative on the Evaluation Committee discussed the report.The Evaluation
Committee determined that a pass/fail type assessment(i.e.,the vendor either exceeded or failed to
Page 16
exceed to pass the contract threshold for 25 percent of the contract amount In working capital)would
be rendered and scored accordingly.
Total financial ability points were then award by each Committee member and added to the interview
totals.
Evaluation of Reference Checks
The technical assistance consultant distributed a report detailing the results of the telephone reference
checks.The City requested five references for each firm with their technical proposal.Based on a total of
50 points in this evaluation category,each reference would be scored based on a maximum of 10 points
per reference.Evaluators were given opportunity to consider the reference statements and score this
criterion.Each member then provided their scores were combined with the other two categories
already tabulated.
At this stage,the scores for the technical proposals were read aloud and added to the three previous
scores.
Compilation and Ordered Ranking of Vendors
All scores in each of the four categories were tabulated and finalized.Additionally,it was agreed that
rank order finish of each vendor would also be prepared.
The results of this analysis were: •
Firm Evaluation Points Ranking
Veolla 1,413 3
First Transit 1,613 1
MV Transportation 1478 2
Rochester City Lines 1 1,175 4
Note:Maximum possible points=2,000(8 X 250 points).
In evaluating First Transit as the top-ranked firm,Evaluation Committee members cited the following
key characteristics about the firm,Its proposal,and personnel:
• Superiority in the technical proposal in terms of fully addressing all operation elements;
• Strong corporate support that adds additional expertise to local managerial capabilities;
• Extensive Minnesota experience with more management contracts in the state than other
offerors;
• Outstanding Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)deployment experience;
0 Only vendor with experience with the City's asset management software;
• Excellent strategies for transition and building community goodwill;and
• Use of performance benchmarks in all areas of operations and maintenance.
7
Page g
• '
Open7na of Price Proposals
Price proposals were opened only after completion of technical scoring.At no time during the technical
proposal review were evaluators aware of any pricing information.To ensure uniformity in pricing
approaches,all costs were based on a single pricing standard—annual revenue vehicle hours of 70,000
hours.
Total costs for each firm over the 54-month period of performance under the contract were computed
as follows:
Firm 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Rank
Veolia 2,664,550 5,339,800 5,511,000 5,672,700 5,846,800 25,034,850 3
First Transit 2,157,7SO 4,198,800 4,315,300 4,438,500 4,564,400 19,674,750 1
MV Transportation 2,968,000 5,360,000 5,569,900 5,788,500 5,981,800 25,668,200 4
Rochester City Lines 2,265,200 4,599,800 4,758,800 4,911,700 5,077,600 21,613,100 2
Best Value Determination
The firm that was ranked first In the evaluation of technical proposals also submitted the lowest price
proposal.The Evaluation Committed determined that the proposal submitted by First Transit was the
proposal which represented best value to the City of Rochester.Given the price proposals from the
three firms,First Transit's price proposal offers a potential savings of almost$1.94 million over the
second ranked price offer during the 54-month contract period.
Based on all of the evaluation factors,the Evaluation Committee determined that the offer submitted by
First Transit was the proposal that represents the best value to the City of Rochester.
Page 8
Request for Proposals:
Rochester Public Transit Service.Operations & Maintenance
Evaluation Scorin,g'Summary:
Technical Proposal_.RP st Performance,Finand.,l.Ability,and Interviews with Key staff
ti
•
Teehrilcal Prb'o5ah(40%);
Qualifications(20✓) 160 .128 142 125 1131
Proposed Personnel(20 F) 160 110 129 103' 114'
Transition Plan(10%) 80 59 77 49 57
Proposed Managerneot;and 160 126 129 113 1OT'
Operations Plan,fZ6%)
Risks and Added Value:Astessment 86 57 65.5 52 51)
(10°l0)
Proposed Maintenance.and 119 130 108 1D5
E uiprnerit'Plan(20% 160
Subtotal-Technical 800 599 666.5 550 546
..�.as�;,.c;:,. ,.:.:mac .,..i:;� ,;: .': _: 1:..•:. ..,.....4, ..x. +c,.: '1 r.t�-a ?
Past Performance(20%) 4D0 1 148 1 289.5 1 283 103
Financial Ability(10%) 200 1 20.0 1 200 200 100
Interviews with Key Staff(30%) 1 660 1 466 457 445 1 426
TotaLPoints Z OOD I,413 1,613 1,478` 1,175
Evaluation Scoring Summary:
Price Proposal
r r r r r
Veolia. $z,664,550 1 $5,339,800' .$5,511,b00 $5,672,700 $5,846,8i1D '$251034,850 3`
First.Transit $2,157,750 :$4,198,800 :$4,315,300 $4,438,500 $4,564,400 $19,674,750 1;
MVTransportaticn $2,968,000 $5,360,000 $5,56990D $5,798,500 $5,98Y,860, $25,668,200 4
Rochester Ci Lines $2,265;200 $4,599,800 $4,758 800 $4,911,700 $5,077,600 $21,1613,100: 2.
\IV
• Request for.Proposals:
Rochester Public Transit Service:Operations & Maintenance
Evaluation 5coring.5ummary.
Technical Proposal,Past.Pe.rformance,Finan.c(a1 Ability,and lntervie arswith Key Staff
a y.,.:. r � 3' zt3 sa- Fu;�:; . •a�;°•, �h� p � � ,ur s,w,r-.:. '�t^=e.. rr" ,.� �.. �' ...
-
z
Technical Proposals 40%
Qualificafions(20%) 160 .2 1 3 4
Proposed Personnel(20J) 160 3 1 4 __ 2
TransitionPlan(10.%). 80 2 1 4 _ 3 ..
Proposed'Managementand 160 2 1 3 4
Operations Plan(10%)
Rlsks.:and Added Value.Assessment 80 2 1 3 4
Proposed-Maintenance and 160 2 1 3 4
Equipment Plan(20°/*)
'Subtotal-Technical 800 2 1 3 4
Past.Performance(20%) 400 3 1 2 4
t r r e Y T r F:.•:C s s , : ; '.s s "k s",�'f
Financial.Ablllty(16%)2 200 1 1 1 Z
Interviews with Key Staff(30VO) � 600 1 2 3 4
Total Points 1 21000* '3' 1 2 4
Evaluation Scoring Summary
Price Proposal
w
Veolla $.2,664,550 $5,339.,800 $5,511,000 $5,672,700 .55,846,800: $25,034,850 3
First Transit $2,151,750 $4,198 800 $4,315,30D` $4,438,500 $4,564,400 $10,674,750 1
MVTransportation $2,96S,000. $5,360,600 $5569,400 $5,788,500 $S;981,800 $25 668,200 4
Rochester:Gitytines $2,265,200 $4,599,800 $4,758,80D $4,911,700 $5,077,6.00 $21,618,100 2
Attachment A: Instructions to Evaluators: •
Procurement Method
The selection of a contract operator for"Rochester Public Transit Service : Operations&Maintenance"is based on a
competitively negotiated method of procurement.Guidance from the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)defines this
type of procurement as the most appropriate procurement method when:(1)price alone is not the determinant factor in
selection;and(2)discussions are expected with prospective offerors after proposal submission.Further,the City of
Rochester has employed the`Best Value"approach in this type of procurement.FTA defines this process as follows:
Best Value describes a competitive, riegotialed procw-errzent process in which the recipient reserves the right to
select the most advantageous offer by evahiating and comparing factors ill addition to cost or price such that a
recipient may acquire technical superiority even if it must pay a premium price.
A "premium"is the difference between the price of the lowest priced proposal and the one that the recipient
believes offers the best value. The tern "best value"also means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in
the recipient's estimation,provides the greatest overall benefit in response to its material requirements.
To achieve best value in fire context of acquisitions for public transportation proposes, Are evaluation factors for
a specific procurement should reflect the subject matter and the elements that are most important to the recipient.
IPhile FTA does not mandate any specific evaluation factors, the recipient ill list disclose those factors in its
solicitation. Evaluation factors may include, but are not limited to, technical design, technical approach, length of
delivery schedules, quality ofproposed personnel,past per forniance, and management plan. This definition is
intended neither to limit nor to dictate qualitative rrreasut.es a recipient pray employ, except that they Hurst support
the pin poses of the Federal public transportation program.
FTA requires the City to base its determination of which proposal represents the"best value"on an analysis of the
tradeoff of qualitative technical factors and price or cost factors. -
In the event that two or more proposals are considered by the Evaluation Committee to be basically equal in their
technical merit,the evaluated cost or price becomes more important;in such a case,cost or price may ultimately be the
deciding factor. Accordingly,the Evaluation Committee may not necessarily make a recommendation to award to the
CONTRACTOR with the highest technical ranking nor make a recommendation to award to the CONTRACTOR with the
lowest Price Proposal,if doing so would not be in the overall best interest of the City's public transit program.
Evaluation Approach
Technical proposals will be evaluated first.The technical evaluation will include evaluation of the offeror's:(1)technical
ability;(2)past performance(reference checks);(3)financial ability;and(4)interviews with key management staff.
Evaluators should use the attached form to evaluate the technical proposals.Some elements of the technical evaluation
will rely on reports from other individuals.For example,evaluators will not need to conduct reference checks;this will be
done by the City's technical assistance consultant.Evaluation of financial documentation will be done by Finance
Department.Each will provide a report to the evaluation team so that you can score each proposer. -
Thus,complete only the first category or scoring factor(Technical Ability)until these other experts provide their
analyses.The final scoring category will be completed after interviews with the vendors.
1 Scoring Proposals
osals
It is recommended that each evaluator read each proposal first.Then,do your scoring during a second read of each
proposal.
In each category,the maximum number of points that can be awarded is listed in the second column.The Department of
Public Works recommends:
• If an offeror met all the technical standards required in the proposal,one-half of the points should be awarded.
• If a proposer excels in addressing each requirement and offers the City superior value,award up to the maximum
number of points,at the evaluator's discretion.
• If a proposer-fails to achieve a level of accomplishment in describing how it will perform under the contract,
award less than one-half of the points at the evaluator's discretion.
To assist in the evaluation process,we have attached Section 7.0 of the RFP.Section 7.2 contains specific factors that you
should use in determining the score to be awarded in each category under Technical Ability.
You may use the attached blank sheet to record key notes during your review. It would be particularly helpful if you
added notations regarding superior scores or scores that are lower than average.As the written procurement file will
contain both your evaluation score sheet and notes,please return both documents/pages when complete.
Timeframe
In order to maintain our procurement schedule,we ask that you return your completed evaluations and submit via e-mail
by 10:00 a.m.,Friday March 2,2012.Submit your responses to richa(_cris.com with a cc: to
vlangsetlh(?rochesterm n.gov
City of Rochester Public Transit Operations and Maintenance
RFP Evaluation Scoring Sheet
.,e s x s ,� f a� � a `r' Pt'O oSCI COIL] 9p �r � � -�•^ '
_ ,? oil, Inc or 4 Pnints .�,�',cEtli 1 l'ilxt°TrBrislt ; „i4 3(7i is"Urlftfinil '` :Lines s_y, _
SKINT£sw �{'�
TTecl�n►celAbillty�� Q la} h W 7 p: 5 � ,� '�92 .» _ s �: . �T }:;"` L hb. 3
:8�^nttintelh£�`TriNiir..6rueifon �rucslel]�nllJietech»tcul iti"osa7sifistrib►rreiihrlheCl'�Cler��- ..� _.� �.,,� r _.« fix- ,_,.�.>:_ �:�-,=�:T�. .. ,
2 ' 1'rpposed Parsbllltel{2(1'%} �� 20 � � ,�
d' I'. opOSed?vlanlgemifi nad : r's k,�i- x ••� ,�..� c
i '�peltigns"Plati {�% mfi 20 t .f t �' &nF„•.. * s �""a 3" a :c r
° fi
i Ri$Irsxa]]d fldded Yi3�tlC `� i mt'2 .C..t r 'a s a x`" 2 �.3"`
al� c x
ebissesstneat'�ID%'� � "� �"
G' 4 Proposed h3a]ntcnnnce a-d
iE ui ment,Pltul 20°Co)' �,�=+
«, ,.i¢*.,>:•. :.:� ,� ry 1..us -•ry ,.0 f m 5
3 �
-:
'Itl]�ola TCCI]F]ICt)1 ��03 a a s rCi`
{:,t h a k" e°i Bx `+`i t 6 # } ,t ,:i• r..t ?" i t {
PaStPcrformstncc(2D°1o� ,�
„Ev`rrlgate.'tl8s7acton'basert�ttlteiv�e�rs�ivltliitiereli�Yllarras•fU'bP' rnvi�Icil,671reaec9rntcalnss7uonc¢coliiidrnnG-���,c���..°s',��...,:.-.�`�`_�,,_,.9 �, � � _�"„�>•�
s r�/'� ,{�� x.,,, a :. x� a a � .a� � r. � 9..7y t x r s y x t a � 6v"• -"£N'
Re CfCOCCic
k
pm "' `$" v B" '.r"
xm x- ty c 23 �""
SllbCpfal {]$ 1'CL01tl1aI1CC .�(� r� s v 1 xrE � �
k 7
4 ,-...�...._ r_ s,e-k. ..$'-,r.x, "�s....,a.s` ..r. «e,: x ..n�kr, +�"+v*`v.:ct.scn .r d_ "
38- .,-.' s '4• k - ta"ix _ s �''w. �n a,� e. : �rz x� y� w t y +r:-xr:� 3 r :.t X z
Tu Ana16 A.G9Ufy �
.x°i_:i ,_ .. ,keu•t .�xi-.,<'? as �o m., kY'' y< asx _..c,"-tea ;`„_,.i ..B'r9 Pa s-»+s.� ., 3 _.ns
itiUrntw'tlits arotbasedizr 17o:be arerlli'tlt ,Cttl+;Fiulnrc:Oa rhil�rll _r, is
y+,"✓_:a W'--�Y. g� 3 g:.:r �.s;.3,....$- & t m € "" �. w c v , ,t"j"f4
<..,.t-�`a.Guwu�s�a'i�'aM.,,<,s�;w_�P..�na..•".ti r^,"�Aa ::�,.ri ..r;'.F„«i a.f��e+aa• ,.�«,.. §. .r'�.�...�..M<.t.... a✓'�?k.Y�.r',v.�x..� �w. _f t<L,.,'�'.,'��""w,a"'A:�'
� ..;" xx.•.. � r wr a3 s r. .r*z!-m#s,t sottt`Sl1�ii.la.��-a�:::�1 ivSx,P�wCEP:fuO:#�t<2t.I I,i:r1„1xC.C„k,rx:•.k,t .x 3i ,...:-x':rf_ 2,s,� «.. w:-,rP".Yda+.m«'rw.?e-€a es*"�t."ti:-m``i»».k.'-,r��'�rR`-`e,,m€"°a- .r3•.a "s .:.::s:`"ks-E'7;:tay.x-,''��x� �ar1 a�4_F+'r 34a�s"
At x a,sg ".sr"TiFuuk-
- xk �,.:x.s.t k .i.. �`,h, }hs•Dt X A »ti m' cN 3 d :: 7 &Sh Z� a ,.'c S' aq g'-�„x` °� iwY ro`4 T @ iY iil1teryt��+sxs'�}Yifil Ktnff(3Uo� r "
>rE r,f,k,., "•r]n. y;.•,>az„_, ?br"*c � a. F a54 v � tk�. x P �. s� r 8 a .}rg
�gten�Eo]vs tiv]tE1 Kcy Manngemel]t StafT'"` 7S � 4 ,� e�
-x,[-.Y ...Li�we-�.ir z.r4. ,?'•.ft,.«'xwrv"we,.-�.i a.v,u-+u�—v^.Yer.. .........,a v���.....«rmw�.S a+.�t tma. �+:� .N.. k k, )) rt
+s' f ..w w>..'�}a u^°� �cx a �,a:.; 'Y"'"`r. � Y arv`r $p �r.�,R.�i�'#:4 .•h*."s,F"`' tt',.a'r'"9�' r+, i 3 r r u,rt.� V 3
C ,, 4 , q..- r''e `uhtQtal }I1CCFt'lP.t15: - x F t 7.{S �'ia ��i`.f � '+,,.w s=*.�. `'yam- .,'`,r `'�aer�. i„9, 6'M,;e �,� ;.: r I"2rx
2 � �fka� � {�
a.=vk,k
a.Toh►tr�A11s'�Ittltf�n�P�snfs�4. �250�s�, ���` r � . ��'� ��� ����.� �_ ��. �`'�" ,t�"'�-�`�y-�.�`�t•
���.�4x,.".A-.4�s7r.t" 'i�'�'t r.x �;.w.«�vx.�.s.t,..a� ,.,.;;,: .> ,Mr{3.„„ ..,a..L-:.,t;n."L"��a:'�" .C: ..t a• :.,t5.4xr x_ .:..�.'�N ;� t.+„
ReAmver Name: Title:
• Reviewer Notes
Use this sheet to record any notes while you read and evaluate proposals.All notes become part of the City's procurement
history file.
7.0 GENERAL
Proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be evaluated and scored by the Evaluation Committee
established by the CITY,in accordance with the criteria outlined in Section 7.1.
The primary desire of the City for this procurement is to ensure an award will be made based on the highest
quality of service that best matches the City's requirements using the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA
approved Third Party Contracting Guidance(FTA C 4220.1F)`Best Value"methodology. Per FTA's Third Party
Contracting Guidance,Best Practices Procurement Manual `Best Value"is defined as follows:
"Best Value"is a selection process in which proposals confahi,both price and qualitath a components, and alvard
is based upon a combination of price and gualitath a considerations. Qualitative considerations may include
technical design, technical approach, quality of proposed personnel, and/or management plan. The mf,ard
selection is based upon consideration of a combination of technical and price factors to determine(or derive)the
offer deemed most advantageous and of the greatest vahie to the pr•ocw-ing agency.
The Evaluation Committee will make a recommendation to award to the Rochester Common Council,based upon
the Evaluation Committees' determination of the responsible Contractor whose proposal is most advantageous to
the City of Rochester.
7.1 OVERALL RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Technical Proposal is of greater importance than the Cost Proposal.
The following items constitute the evaluation criteria (and their respective weights), which the CITY will use in
1 evaluating proposals submitted in response to this RFP.
Evaluation Criteria Weight
Percentage
Technical 40%
Interviews with Key Management Staff 30%
Past Performance—Reference Checks 20%
Financial Ability 10%
I i
• 7.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Selected Evaluation Criteria mdthin Content of Technical Proposal
Technical(40%),
• Qualifications(20%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Experience with providing Public Transit Fixed Route Service of similar size and scope to the City
o Experience with operating and maintaining a fleet of similar size
o Capacity to perform contract requirements
o Experience with operating other types of alternate powered transit buses
o Experience with implementing and maintaining Intelligent Transportation Systems Technologies
o Creative ideas offered to improve service
• Proposed Personnel(20%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Qualifications and Experience of proposed General Manager
o Proposal to comply with 13C Requirements, Experience with Collective Bargaining Agreements &
Negotiations,and proposed Wage&Benefit Plan
o Qualifications and Experience of proposed Maintenance Manager
o Qualifications and Experience of proposed Operations Manager
o Recruiting,hiring,training,and retraining program for Drivers
o Organizational Chart detailing organizational structure and reporting relationships
• Transition Plan(10%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Mobilization plan and schedule
o Facility move in plan
o Recruitment/hiring plan
o Tool and equipment assessment
o Handling of Environmental requirements and permits for operation
• Proposed Management and Operations Plan(20%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Proposed Approach and Methodology
o Proposed Road Supervision Approach
o CONTRACTOR's experience with the FTA Uniform System of Accounts and with National Transit
Database reporting
o Proposed Fare Collection Plan including equipment to be used for collection of fares (farebox, fare
registers,etc.),and relevant fare collection experience.
o Proposed training program for maintenance personnel,vehicle operators, schedulers/dispatchers and
supervisors
o Proposed Customer Service Approach
o Proposed Safety, Security and Risk Management Plan
o Proposed Internal Communications Network, including methods of communicating instructions to
supervisors and vehicle operators and the approach to routing/dispatching functions.
• Risks and Added Value Assessment(10%)
o Understanding of risks and mitigation
o Value added and innovation
• Proposed Maintenance and Equipment Plan(20%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Proposed Vehicle Maintenance Plan
o Proposed Bus Nash Plan and Interior Cleaning Plan
o Approach to Road Call Management
o Experience with Fleet Management Software
o Safety Record
o Proposed Warranty Plan
o Proposed plan for intended utilization of the on-board video system from an operational perspective
(i.e.operator training,improvement and reinforcement)
• Cost(Tradeoff Evaluation)
The CONTRACTORS cost proposals will be evaluated alongside the Technical merit offered by each
CONTRACTOR in a tradeoff fashion as per Federal Transit Administration "best value selection methodology"
as detailed within the FTA Best Practices Procurement Manual.
As required by the FTA Best Practices Procurement Manual, Chapter 4, Methods of Solicitation and Selection,
the City of Rochester declares the following: tilt e►�alitatiou criteria factors other than cost,when conmbilted, are
significantly more iniportant than cost alone.
In the event that two or more proposals are considered by the Evaluation Committee to be basically equal in their
technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important; in such a case, cost or price may ultimately
be the deciding factor. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee may not necessarily make a recommendation to
award to the CONTRACTOR with the highest technical ranking nor make a recommendation to award to the
CONTRACTOR with the lowest Price Proposal, if doing so would not be in the overall best interest of the City's
public transit program.
Selected Evaluation Criteria within Past Performance
• Past Performance—Reference Checks(20%)(Listed in order of importance)
o Applicability of Past Performance Reference
o Overall services provided by the CONTRACTOR
o Responsiveness of CONTRACTOR in addressing and correcting problems
o Management Staffs ability to meet the expectations and needs of the transit agency •
o CONTRACTOR's Customer Service as provided by Bus Operator Staff
o Would you choose to renew a contract with this CONTRACTOR
Selected Evaluation Criteria within Interviews with Key Management Staff
• Interviews with Key Management Staff(30%)
Section 1—Proposed Key Management Staff (Listed in order of importance)
o General Manager's responses to scenario questions
o Maintenance Manager's responses to scenario questions
o Transportation Manager's responses to scenario questions
o Qualifications and Experience of General Manager
o Qualifications and Experience of Maintenance Manager
o Qualifications and Experience of Operations Manager
Selected Evaluation Criteria within Financial Ability
• Financial Ability(10%)
Financial Ability and Risk Ranking by third-party independent accountinglauditing firm. The review shall
include an analysis of.
a) Cash and percentage of cash to total current assets and total assets of the Contractor
b) Quick and Current Ratio analysis
c) Net Sales Volume and Accounts Receivable Turnover
d) Sources which produced the prospective vendors operating capital
e) Availability and amount of short-term working capital financing
f) Debt structure and leverage
g) Working Capital Measures(cash,equivalents and receivables less current liabilities
h) Working Capital Ratio to Total Annual Contract Revenue
R
1
The CONTRACTOR'S financial statements will be reviewed as noted above to determine the Contractor's
ability to complete a contract of this value, financial risks associated with the Contractor, cash and credit line
availability, sources of operating capital, review of Dunn and Bradstreet reports, and a review of pending
litigation. Additionally other factors including but not limited to whether the financial statements and
information provided were audited,comments and notes included with the audit report or management letters,
the auditing firm itself and potential quality issues and variations from report to report and the translation of
all financial information into U.S. currency for comparison purposes may be considered.
In determining the Contractor's compliance for sufficient working capital,the following formula will be used to
determine if the Contractor has sufficient working capital:
(Cash/Cash Equivalents)+(Accounts Receivable<90 Days—Accounts Payables)+(Stand-by Letter of Credit)_
25%of annual contract amount.
7.3 NOTIFICATION TO UNSUCCESSFUL CONTRACTORS
Unsuccessful CONTRACTORS shall be notified of CITY's Evaluation Committee's recommendation of award to
the successful CONTRACTOR within five(5)working days of said recommendation
r .�