interurban transit partnership€¦ · the evaluation team was composed of itp’s coo, the...

Interurban Transit Partnership

Board Members Barbara Holt, Chair George Heartwell, Vice-Chair

Charis Austin Jack Hoffman Carole Pettijohn Aaron Smith

Rosalyn Bliss Steve Kauffman Terry Schweitzer Cynthia Stek

Gary Carey Stephen Kepley Amna Seibold Michael Verhulst

Tim Cochran

INTERURBAN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING

June 24, 2015 - 4:00 p.m.

Administrative Office Board Room, 300 Ellsworth Ave SW

AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENT

MINUTES

1. Minutes of May 27, 2015 Board Meeting

CONSENT AGENDA

Performance Oversight Committee

2. Monthly Financial Statements for May 2015

3. April 2015 Ridership and Productivity Report

4. April 2015 Paratransit Ridership Report

REGULAR AGENDA

Performance Oversight Committee

5. Marketing and Web Services Contract Award

6. Contract for Final Engineering Services for the Laker Line BRT

7. Contract with Gillig Corporation for Purchase of CNG Buses

Governance Committee

8. Fare Increase Recommendation for Public Hearing

EXECUTIVE SESSION

9. Land Acquisition for CNG Fueling Station (information to be provided at the meeting)

2

CEO REPORT

10. CEO Monthly Report

CHAIR’S REPORT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS

ADJOURNMENT

Enclosures:

A. Minutes of 6-10-15 Governance Committee Meeting

B. Minutes of 6-17-15 Performance Oversight Committee Meeting

C. Minutes of 6-16-15 Consumer Advisory Committee Meeting

D. Communications


5

Date: June 9, 2015 To: ITP Board From: Jennifer Kalczuk – External Relations Manager Judy DeVries – Senior Procurement Specialist Subject: MARKETING AND WEB SERVICES CONTRACT AWARD ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests that ITP award a contract for marketing and communications services to Güd Marketing for a five-year period. Additionally, staff recommends that a five-year contract be awarded to DDM Marketing & Communications for web-based and interactive services. Both contracts would be effective on July 1, 2015. BACKGROUND For more than ten years, we have had a contract for marketing services, which has expanded to include web services, to ensure consistency across our messaging and branding platforms. Our current contract with DDM Marketing & Communications expires at the end of June. PROCUREMENT PROCESS The marketing and web services procurement was sent out as a Request for Proposal (RFP) since ITP was looking for both creativity and expertise. While cost was a factor, ITP was primarily concerned with finding the work products, experience, and capability to implement a successful program. The marketing and web services RFP was sent to 12 marketing firms. The RFP was also advertised in the Grand Rapids Press. Eight firms responded with proposals. BID ANALYSIS/PROPOSAL REVIEW The evaluation team was composed of ITP’s COO, the External Relations Manager, both Public Outreach Coordinators, and the Senior Procurement Specialist. Proposals were evaluated and scored on pre-determined weighted criteria, in order of importance: experience – 50 points, proposal response – 40 points, and cost – 10 points. Based on this evaluation, a short list of four firms deemed to be competitive were invited in to make presentations.

2

Round 1 Firm Location Total Score

ddm Grand Rapids, MI 455/500

Gud Lansing, MI 451/500

The Image Group Holland, MI 423.5/500

ECP Lansing, MI 440/500

Reagan Grand Rapids, MI 371/500*

LFK Kalamazoo, MI 324/500*

The C2 Group Grandville, MI 254/500*

Lead Marketing Grand Rapids, MI 273/500*

Note: * denotes elimination from further evaluation.

During the second round, an oral presentation and interviews were given. Proposers were scored on their performance during the interview – 25 points.

Round 2

Firm Location Total Score


The Image Group Holland, MI 76/125


ECP Grand Rapids, MI 80/125

The combined scores for the first two rounds of evaluation were as follows:

Total Scores Round 1 & 2

Firm Location Total Score


The Image Group Holland, MI 499.5/625


ECP Grand Rapids, MI 520/625

As a note on pricing, a cost analysis using the rates bid for each labor category applied to the proposal sample project showed $579 difference in project price between the top two firms. Based on the scores following the second round of evaluation, the committee determined that a split award was in ITP’s best interest. This was identified as a possibility in the RFP, so all firms were aware that this result could occur. The committee is recommending that the marketing services portion be awarded to Güd Marketing and the web services be awarded to DDM Marketing &Ccommunications, the incumbent firm. The committee was very impressed with both firms’

3

experience and presentations and felt a split award allowed for ITP to choose the more qualified firm for each portion of the desired services. DDM has successfully supported the design and development of our website for close to ten years. They have performed two previous major site overhauls as well as overseen a number of technology and functional improvements, including the integration of ticket purchasing, trip planning, and the Avail suite of rider tools into the website. They are currently wrapping up a third major site overhaul, including a transition to responsive design, a more streamlined user experience and navigation structure, and an upgraded content management system. With smartcards and mobile ticketing, an upgrade to our purchasing database, and developing the ability to receive on-line employment applications on the horizon, the committee felt it was in our best interest to remain with the proven experience of DDM to continue to support our interactive and web-based platforms. Güd’s advertising and communications portfolio was very impressive, including work for other transit systems and other public entities in Michigan. The committee was most impressed with Güd’s ability to take programs that can be very dry and bureaucratic and make them fun and engaging (for example, a state of Michigan tax amnesty program) that also delivered impressive results for their clients. Their team brought a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to the presentation and it is clear they value excellent client relationships, a high quality of creative work firmly grounded in research, and measuring results. The committee felt that giving a fresh look to our advertising and communications, while maintaining our brand strategy, was in ITP’s best interests. We asked firms during the interview process how they would approach a split award. We are confident that both firms are committed to collaboration where appropriate and necessary, with staff coordinating activities to ensure work is delivered efficiently and cohesively. FUNDING Funding for marketing activities is derived from two sources:

1. The operating line items for marketing and community outreach as approved by the Board as part of the annual operating budget, and

2. grants for public information and community education that are included in the Board-approved UPWP grant request each year.

The funding available for marketing and web services is a set amount and all efforts must be completed within these budgeted parameters. For both contracts, a similar process will be used. All services performed are procured on a project basis. For each project initiated, ITP staff prepares a project outline and budget guidelines. The firm then provides an estimate for services. Once the estimate is accepted, a purchase order is issued for that particular project. This is not a retainer for services and does not represent any financial guarantees to either firm. Because a split award is being recommended, staff will manage the budget line items as appropriate for the work being provided from each firm.

4

INTERURBAN TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP BOARD

RESOLUTION NO.

Fiscal Year 2015

Moved and supported to adopt the following resolution: Approval to execute an agreement for web and interactive services and an agreement for marketing and communications services. BE IT RESOLVED that the CEO is hereby authorized, on behalf of the ITP Board, to award and execute a five-year agreement with DDM Marketing & Communications to provide web and interactive services, and a five-year agreement with Pace & Partners, Inc., dba Güd Marketing to provide marketing and communications services, in accordance with the information presented to the ITP Board on June 24, 2015.

CERTIFICATE The undersigned, duly qualified and acting secretary of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board, certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board. Robin Crothers, Board Secretary Date


6

Date: June 1, 2015 To: ITP Board From: Mark Fedorowicz, Purchasing Manager Nick Monoyios, Project Manager Subject: CONTRACT FOR FINAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

FOR THE LAKER LINE BRT ACTION REQUESTED Authorization of a contract with CDM Smith and Associates (CDM) for $3,902,773 to perform project development, final design and engineering work and construction administration for the Laker Line BRT project. BACKGROUND After the successful completion of the Silver Line project, we began to conduct the necessary analysis to determine if a second BRT line was feasible in the Lake Michigan corridor. A contract with URS (now AECOM) was let in January 2013 to conduct the Advanced Conceptual Engineering (ACE) work necessary to determine whether a second corridor was feasible. That study was completed and a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was developed and approved by the Board in 2014. At the same time, Parsons-Brinckerhoff was commissioned to conduct the Categorical Exclusion (CE) environmental work on the Project. That work is well underway and we hope that with the completion of the CE work that Federal approval for the Project Completion Grant Agreement (PCGA) will be obtained shortly. PROCUREMENT ITP's Procurement staff used a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for this project since the FTA requires all engineering contracts to be awarded on a “most qualified” basis using the Brooks Act methodology. Once the most qualified firm was determined, ITP would then negotiate a contract with that firm. If negotiations failed, the ITP could then begin negotiations with the next most qualified firm until such time that a successful contract was negotiated. In May 2015 procurement staff advertising the Request for Qualifications in the Grand Rapids Press. The procurement was also posted on the ITP Purchasing Website which has many planning and engineering firms registered on it. A total of 6 bid packets were sent out to both local and national firms. Those proposals were sent to CDM SMITH, AECOM, HDR, HNTB, STV and LSL Planning. Only one proposal was received, that being from CDM Smith. However, CDM Smith also partnered with AECOM and HDR on their proposal. Procurement staff performed their due diligence to determine why other firms did not pursue the RFQ. Staff believed that going into this procurement that there were six firms nationwide that were capable of performing this work. Those firms were CDM Smith, AECOM, HDR, HNTB, STV and Parsons-Brinckerhoff. The three firms mentioned above partnered on one proposal. A fourth firm, Parsons-Brinckerhoff was already performing the categorical exclusion environmental work for the project.

2

That precluded them from bidding on this project. Staff contacted the other two firms that were sent proposals and both had legitimate and valid reasons for not submitting a proposal. Purchasing staff believe that despite only receiving one bid that competition was adequate and in no way restricted. Furthermore, additional proposals are unlikely to improve the quality of the team or reduce the cost of the project. Most importantly, the CDM team is highly qualified. NEGOTIATIONS After determining that CDM Smith was well qualified to perform the work, staff opened their price proposal. Staff believed that their budget of $4.266 M was high based on our past experience with the Silver Line. Through negotiations, staff was able to reduce the price of the proposal to $3,902,773. We believe this agreed to price will allow all critical areas to be left intact without reducing quality for the overall project. This included $1,731,189 to get to the 30% design level at which time a built in hold will be applied to make sure required Federal approvals and funding have been received. Once these approvals have been obtained, the remainder of the project valued at $2,171,584 will be allowed to continue. The total cost for the A&E component of this project is approximately 20% of the overall construction budget. This includes more than $750,000 in expenses that were performed by HDR, ITP staff and City of Grand Rapids staff for other work related to the Silver Line project such as traffic signal design and FTA project development. Without the added tasks, costs for the Laker Line are virtually identical to those incurred on the Silver Line project. Looking at what other agencies paid for comparable work, prices vary from 15 to 23% of total construction costs. Given the requirements of the work and the cost of the overall project, staff believes that our negotiated cost is well within industry norms. SCHEDULE FOR DELIVERY OF SERVICES The CDM Smith team anticipates that they expect that 30% level of design should be completed in November, 2015. Final engineering will be completed in May 2016 with construction anticipated to be completed by August, 2017. This schedule presumes that funding from the FTA will be available by the first quarter of FY 2016. FUNDING The A/E work will be completely funded through federal and state grants.

3


RESOLUTION NO.

Fiscal Year 2015

Moved and supported to adopt the following resolution: Approval to award a contract to perform final engineering for the Laker Line Bus Rapid Transit project. BE IT RESOLVED that the CEO is hereby authorized to award and execute an agreement with CDM Smith on behalf of the ITP Board for final engineering services for the Laker Line Bus Rapid Transit project in the amount of $3,902,773, in accordance with the information presented to the ITP Board on June 24, 2015.

CERTIFICATE The undersigned, duly qualified and acting secretary of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board of Directors, certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board of Directors. Robin Crothers, ITP Board Secretary Date


7

Date: June 1, 2015 To: ITP Board From: Mark Fedorowicz, Purchasing Manager Rod Ghearing, Manager of Grants and Capital Projects Subject: CONTRACT WITH GILLIG CORPORATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF CNG BUSES ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting Board approval to enter into a five-year agreement with Gillig Corporation for the purchase of up to 106 40-foot, CNG fueled, low-floor buses. The initial purchase off this contract will be for twenty-eight (28) buses, with a unit price of $467,175, for a total amount not to exceed $13,080,900. BACKGROUND ITP staff is requesting Board authorization to enter into a five-year agreement with the Gillig Corporation for the purchase of up to 106 CNG fueled, low-floor buses. Of the 106 buses, 99 will replace existing fleet vehicles, while the remaining 7 are potential expansion buses. These are replacements for buses that have exceeded their useful lifespan according to FTA regulations. Prices for future year buses are pegged to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index (PPI) 1413 for Truck and Bus Bodies and cannot vary from that amount based on the requirements of the original proposal. Board approval will be requested for each additional purchase off this contract. As an aid to smaller transit agencies, the ITP conducted this procurement as a “joint” or “consortium” procurement, which allowed other agencies to benefit from our procurement. The other agencies included in the joint procurement are Flint, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and Galesburg, IL.

METHOD OF PROCUREMENT Staff believes that a Request for Proposal (RFP) is a better approach than purchasing buses on a “low bid” basis. With significant changes in bus technology available since our last pure procurement in 2004, staff believed it was best to look at a number of factors, not just price, before we determined which vehicle was best for us. The RFP selection criteria were crafted with 40% of total points going towards bus construction, 30% of total points towards the manufacturer’s reputation and performance, 15% for warranty coverage and the last 15% based on the cost of the bus. The RFP was sent to all four domestic bus manufacturers, including Gillig, New Flyer, Nova and NABI. The procurement was advertised in the January 23, 2015 electronic edition of The Grand Rapids Press. An advertisement was also placed in Transit Talent, an industry newsletter, on February 10, 2015. Proposals were received from Gillig LLC and New Flyer.

2

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS AND SCORING OF THE CONSORTIUM BASE BUS The evaluation team consisted of ITP staff members Schipper, Ghearing, Azzoli, DeVries-Eppinga and Fedorowicz. In addition, both Flint and Kalamazoo provided members to the evaluation team. It was agreed when the RFP was put together that that the base bus would be a 40’ diesel bus. All scoring was based on that model from both Gillig and New Flyer. The Final Scores are shown below:

BUS SCORING

UNIT PRICE COMMENTS GILLIG NEW FLYER

40’ Diesel bus $380,066 $421,335

TOTAL POINTS (less price) 565 490

AVG. POINTS plus price 95.7 83.5

ITP Procurement staff conducted an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) prior to receiving the proposals. The ICE was based on buses purchased by the AAATA last July and inflated to match current construction costs. Based on this analysis, the bus we are buying today is significantly less expensive than the CNG bus quoted to AAATA just last July. With an initial purchase of this many CNG buses, we predict that we will see in excess of $500,000 in fuel savings in 2017. ITP BUS PURCHASE FROM THE CONSORTIUM BID Since each transit agency that is part of the consortium is actually purchasing a bus that is somewhat different from the base bus used in the proposals, each agency will actually have a different price for its bus based on the additional features or equipment it will add to the base bus. In our case, the additional features and equipment come to a total of $87,109 per bus. The majority of the additional cost is for the CNG fuel system ($54,769). The buses will be delivered in early 2017. FUNDING Funds are contained in available federal and state capital grants for this project. No local money is required.

3


RESOLUTION NO.______

Fiscal Year 2015 Moved and supported to adopt the following resolution: Approval to award and execute a five-year contract with Gillig LLC for the purchase of CNG fueled low-floor buses. BE IT RESOLVED that the CEO is hereby authorized to award and execute a five-year contract with Gillig LLC on behalf of the ITP Board, with the initial purchase off this contract for twenty-eight (28) 40-foot, CNG fueled, low-floor buses, in an amount not to exceed $13,080,900, in accordance with the information presented to the ITP Board on June 24, 2015.

CERTIFICATE The undersigned, duly qualified and acting secretary of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board, certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board. ________________________________ Robin Crothers, ITP Board Secretary ________________________________ Date


8

Date: June 1, 2015 To: ITP Board From: Nicholas Monoyios/Planning Department Subject: FARE INCREASE RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING

ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests approval of the proposed fare increase recommendation to be presented for public hearings in July 2015. Staff will return to the Board in August 2015 with collected public feedback and a fare restructuring recommendation for final adoption effective in October 2015. BACKGROUND There are many factors to justify the increase of fares. The Rapid’s last fare increase was in 2007. Since then, property tax revenues and state operating assistance have decreased while annual operating expenses continue to increase. In February 2014, the Board adopted The Rapid’s first Fare Policy which proactively established guidelines for evaluating existing fares and outlining methodologies and rationales for revisiting the fare structure. FARE POLICY The recommendation to present a fare increase to the public is based on transparent justification provided in The Rapid’s Fare Policy. The outlined goals and objectives illustrate the need to ensure financial requirements to cover operating expenses as well as maintaining a minimum farebox recovery threshold (see Figure 1). Maintaining the existing fare structure will continue to negatively impact The Rapid’s financial security.

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

31%

33%

Fare

bo

x R

eco

very

Fiscal Year (Oct-Sep)

Annual Farebox Recovery (Fixed Route Only)

Caution threshold

Warning threshold

Average %

Figure 1 – Annual Farebox Recovery

2

FARE EQUITY ANALYSIS In conjunction with collecting public feedback, staff will conduct an updated fare equity analysis to ensure that the proposed fare increase does not have a 20% disparate impact against minorities and/or low-income riders. A fare equity analysis is required by the FTA for Title VI compliance for any proposed fare change. If The Rapid finds that either low-income and/or minority populations will bear a disparate impact and/or a disproportionate burden of either existing and/or proposed fare changes, The Rapid will take steps to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts where practicable. ELASTICITY MODELING IMPACT According to the Transportation Cooperative Research Board (TCRP), every 10% increase in fares will result in a 3.8% decrease in ridership. Based on applying this formula to every individual fare category, it is anticipated that The Rapid would potentially lose 440,000 annual trips while gaining $428,000 in additional revenue. However, these margins could fluctuate based on ridership impacts. PROPOSED FARE STRUCTURE Staff recommends an increase in all fare categories. This maintains structural equitability and minimizes potential negative impacts to Title VI protected riders. Below is the recommended fare structure for submission to a comprehensive public outreach campaign to include public hearings, website and social media information, and hard copy postings at various Rapid facilities.

FARE CATEGORY CURRENT PROPOSED % CHANGE

Cash Fare $1.50 $1.75 16.67%

Recuced Cash Fare $0.75 $0.85 13.33%

Adult 1-Ride Ticket $1.50 $1.75 16.67%

Adult 10-Ride Ticket $11.50 $13.50 17.39%

Student 10-Ride Ticket $9.00 $10.50 16.67%

Senior/Disabled 10-Ride Ticket $7.50 $8.75 16.67%

1-Day Pass $3.00 $3.50 16.67%

7-Day Pass $14.00 $16.00 14.29%

Regular 31-Day Pass $40.00 $47.00 17.50%

Reduced 31-Day Pass $26.00 $30.00 15.38%

Go!Bus $3.00 $3.50 16.67%

Go!Bus (non-disabled senior) $7.00 $8.00 14.29%

P.A.S.S. $3.00 $3.50 16.67%

3


RESOLUTION NO.

Fiscal Year 2015

Moved and supported to adopt the following resolution: Authorization to take a fare increase recommendation to public hearing.

BE IT RESOLVED that the ITP Board hereby approves holding public hearings in July 2015 for the fare increase recommendation, in accordance with the information presented to the ITP Board on June 24, 2015.

CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, duly qualified and acting secretary of the Interurban Transit Partnership, certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Interurban Transit Partnership Board. Robin Crothers, Board Secretary Date


C

Consumer Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes

June 16, 2015

Attendance

Committee Members Present Rapid Staff

Bob Barnes Kevin Wisselink

Steve Burke Laura Madison

Sister Jean Reimer

Laura DeJong MV

Tammy Yeomans Michelle Willis

Toni Moore

Joe Sibley

Robyn Saylor

Anne Larson

Absent

Sandra Ghoston-Jones

Robyn called the meeting to order.

1) Introductions

ACTION ITEMS

2) Minutes of May 19, 2015 meeting (attached).

Robyn asked this committee for approval of the minutes of May 19th. Steve motioned

to approve the minutes, Sister Jean second the motion.

Motion carried.

INFORMATION ITEMS

3) April Paratransit Ridership & Productivity Reports (attached)

Overall ridership decreased 4.3% comparing April 2015 to April 2014. NDS ridership

increased by 86.7%, all other services decreased in ridership. The Rapid provided

1,047 RideLink trips during the month of April 2015. On-time performance was

96.87%.

4) April Fixed Route Productivity Reports (attached)

Fixed route ridership showed a decrease of 3.9% in April 2015 compared to April

2014. Total ridership decreased 1.5% with Contracted/Specialized services showing a

decrease of 15.7%. Kevin reported gas prices and the improved economy as possible

2

reasons for the overall decrease. He also noticed that Grand Valley had reported the

number of freshmen registering cars for the campus had increased over previous

years.

5) Strategic Planning Committee Minutes for May 20, 2015 (attached)

No questions or comments.

6) Strategic Planning Committee agenda for June 17, 2015 (meeting canceled no quorum)


7) New Business

Outlet Mall in Byron Township.

Toni asked if The Rapid had been approached to provide service to the mall, Kevin

said it has not.

Membership

Joe asked about new members. Laura reported that the last person had not

responded to Meegan after filling out the application and no other new applicants had

come forward. There are two openings on this committee at this time.

There were no further questions or comments.

8) Old Business

Townships

Steve asked if any of the townships had expressed interest in contracting with The

Rapid for service. Kevin and Laura said they were not aware of any interest by the

townships. It was also mentioned that The Rapid can offer services but cannot

promote them.


9) Public Comments


Next Board Meeting: June 24, 2015

Next CAC Meeting: August 11, 2015

interurban transit partnership€¦ · the evaluation team was composed of itp’s coo, the...

Documents