Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority - 06/04/2008 - Workshop J .1920212 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIT .0 T'W' BOARD OF DIRECTORS' WORKSHOP MEETINGf� �s 011 Gail � 5 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2008 ? e.)--,, 8 C;11 Cinif SEW' rt co SUMMARY OF ACTIONS °PEKE � 1. Heard Presentation on Contracted Fixed-Route and Deman Responsive Transportation Services �'E L L' The Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors met at 11:30 a.m. in the Regional Transportation Authority Facility located at 5658 Bear Lane, Corpus Christi, Texas. Board Members Present: Crystal Lyons (Board Chair), Dr. Maurice Portis (Board Secretary), John Longoria, Mike Rendon, Sara Salvide, Judy Telge Board Members Absent: Anna Flores (Board Vice-Chair), Mannti Cummins, David Martinez, Ricardo Ramon, John Valls Staff Present: Ricardo Sanchez (General Manager), David Seiler, Linda Fallwell- Stover, Ed Carrion, Sylvia Castillo, Beth Vidaurri, Linda Socha Public Present: John Bell, RTA Legal Counsel; Elias Sissamis, RTA Consultant; Mary Saenz, DRS; Maricela DeLaFuente, MHMR; Eloy Soza; Brenda Fernandez, Carlos Vargas, Delila Lazos, Nova Shields, Edna Arredondo, Dana Smith, MV Transportation; Chris Langmayer, Veolia; Abel Alonzo, Ruben Fernandez; David Garcia, Laura Salas, S. Morales, Connie Blanton, Juan Hernandez, John Lee; Teamsters Call to Order The Board of Directors' meeting was called to order by Ms. Lyons at 12:26 p.m. Presentation on Contracted Fixed-Route and Demand Responsive Transportation Services Mr. Seiler stated that the presentation would be on the primary evaluation criteria used by the Review Committee to analyze and score the submitted proposals. Members of the Review Committee were Ms. Linda Fallwell-Stover, Manager of Purchased Transportation; Eduardo Carrion, Director of Planning and Development; David Seiler, Director of Operations; Lamont Taylor, Director of Business and Compliance; Sylvia Castillo, Manager of Contracts and Grants; Elias Sissamis, Financial Consultant; Deb Hovda, and Fernando Acosta, RCAT. Mr. Ricardo Sanchez, General Manager, had helped by facilitating the group. He noted that a presentation had been made to RCAT on May 29, 2008. but that it had not included information on the contract pricing since the RTA's Board of Directors had not been provided with this information. SCANNED _ Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 2 Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Seiler reviewed each of the evaluation criteria elements which had been identified in the RFP. Service Management/Delivery Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements which consisted of the delineation of the work plan; how the work would be coordinated with the RTA, primarily conducted through the Manager of Purchased Transportation; and customer service — satisfying performance standards. He stated that MV Transportation was ranked first in this category. They had provided the best delineated work plan. Veolia had identified a strong ADA culture and a "Go for Green" public service training/service delivery. First Transit failed to designate a full-time customer service staff person as well as a full management team. Company Experience/References Ms. Fallwell-Stover identified the ranking elements as performance with similar contracts, proactive or reactive to ADA issues, and client satisfaction. She stated that Veolia was ranked first in this category. Their reference checks had indicated a strong corporate availability and assistance. The references were asked to rank the performance areas. Employee turnover in key management positions was a significant issue. Employee Benefits/Retention Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as proposed wages and benefits; adequacy and retention of employees; and providing a balanced benefits plan relative to the RTA plan. He stated that First Transit was rated first in this category: They had detailed a balanced benefits plan structure. Veolia had a similarly balanced plan, but with a higher premium. MV Transportation had much higher insurance premiums and a tiered plan. Staffing/Administration Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as the proposed General Manager, key staff, and employee training. He stated that MV Transportation was rated first in this category. They were the only proposer to identify all key positions. Veolia's GM and Operations Manager had limited ADA/Paratransit experience. First Transit did not clearly identify their proposed staff, and had a contracted staff person which was a part- time ombudsman. Vehicles/Fleet Management Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as the capability to manage the paratransit fleet in the most cost-effective manner. He stated that First Transit rated first in this category. Even though both First Transit and MV Transportation had indicated that they would be using maintenance information software to provide managerial reports, First :Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 3 Transit was rated higher because they had a very strong corporate management program to assist in problem solving. Interviews Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as the presence of key staff, quality of their presentation, and how the questions were answered. He stated that Veolia was rated first in this category. Their presentation was very clear and concise and was led by their Regional Vice President. First Transit had a limited presentation by the Regional Vice President and limited presence of key staff. MV Transportation had a good presence of key staff but the presentation appeared scripted, and somewhat more limited in substance. Responsiveness to RFP Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as providing detailed information; satisfying the goals and directives of the RFP; understanding the local conditions; and being clear and concise. He stated that both Veolia and MV Transportation were tied in this category. MV Transportation's proposal was very well structured, Veolia's had detailed information, and First Transit's was not as responsive. Finance Procedures/Data Collection/Reporting Mr. Seiler noted that all proposers had been ranked with 9 out of 10 points in this category. Start up Plan Mr. Seiler identified the ranking elements as whether a "start up" phase would be necessary and the related costs; and their critical task timeline. MV Transportation had been rated first in this category since they would not have "start up" costs. Veolia had a "start up" cost of approximately $184,000 and First Transit's "start up" cost was approximately $260,000. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal Mr. Seiler stated that the proposers were ranked on their commitment to comply with RTA's DBE goal of 15 percent. Veolia was ranked first in this category. First Transit had identified their DBE participation at less than 15 percent, and MV Transportation had not identified their DBE goal commitment. Ms. Lyons inquired why MV Transportation had received 5 points. Mr. Seiler explained that the ranking was provided by Mr. Lamont Taylor. Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 4 Overview Mr. Seiler pointed out that the slide summarized the points awarded to the three proposers. The floor was opened for comments from the Board Members. Ms. Salvide inquired about how much weight each of the Review Committee members had placed on the proposer's presentations/interviews. Ms. Fallwell-Stover replied that the interviews carried different weights within different elements. There was information that was gathered from the interview that had not been in the proposal. In response to Ms. Telge, Mr. Seiler stated that the total possible points listed for each category had been identified as part of the RFP process. Mr. Rendon asked which of the three proposers did more paratransit business. Ms. Fallwell-Stover replied that First Transit had more paratransit contracts nationally. They had 130 Paratransit contracts nationally and 5 in Texas. MV Transportation had 70 Paratransit contracts and 1 in Texas. Veolia had 37 Paratransit contracts and 1 in Texas. In response to Mr. Rendon inquiring why First Transit had received the lowest points in the Company Experience/References category, Ms. Fallwell-Stover explained that all three proposers had adequate experience to deliver service. The variables were in client/customer satisfaction responses received, as well as the company's ability to disseminate and deliver ADA compliance information throughout the organization. Also corporate support and the turnover rate in key management at the local level were taken into consideration. Ms. Fallwell-Stover, responding to various questions, stated that references contacted were transit agencies that were generally comparable to RTA in size. They operated between 25-125 vehicles. She had called over 36 transit agencies and had spoken to approximately 15 of them. Ms. Telge inquired about what the prospers did in terms of their customer satisfaction process. Ms. Fallwell-Stover replied that this level of detail had not been addressed. She had asked them to quantify their customers' level of satisfaction with the service provided. Regarding employee retention and benefits, Ms. Willey stated that the proposers current plans had been reviewed. She stated that the plans had been analyzed based on affordability of both premiums and plan design. First Transit had a very well-balanced Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 5 plan; Veolia had a very good benefit plan but was somewhat more expensive; and MV Transportation had higher out of pocket expenses, and a tiered system. Ms. Salvide asked if MV Transportation's current plan was not comparable to the RTA; why a plan similar to the RTA plan was not negotiated; and if the paratransit contractor was not required to provide a plan comparable to the RTA's. Ms. Fallwell-Stover replied that all contractors were asked to provide benefits that were adequate to recruit and retain employees. She noted that benefits were a function of the collective bargaining agreement between the paratransit contractor and the union. An exchange was held regarding the feasibility of negotiating with the contractor and requiring them to provide benefits comparable to the RTA benefit plan. Ms. Sanchez noted that any item could be negotiated. Ms. Lyons pointed out that the company's had submitted their best and final offers and that she felt that this did not leave much room for negotiation. Mr. Longoria stated that he felt that requiring a comparable benefit plan would result in added cost which would be passed on to the RTA. Ms. Willey pointed out that the proposers had a richer time off plan by one or two weeks due in part to the number of part-time employees. There were other additional benefits. Ms. Lyons stated that the benefits category had been added to the RFP to ensure that the paratransit contractor provided good health insurance to the employees to reduce the burden on the hospital district. This was more important than providing days off. Ms. Telge inquired if part-time employees were offered insurance benefits. Ms. Willey stated that she would provide this information at the next meeting. Ms. Lyons asked if it was equitable to score the proposers based on the benefit plan they were currently providing instead of on the plan they were proposing. Ms. Fallwell-Stover noted that MV Transportation could not indicate the type of benefit plan they would be able to provide since it would be part of the collective bargaining agreement. In response to Ms. Lyons, Ms. Willey stated that she did feel that she had been able to adequately compare the three proposed plans based primarily on follow-up discussions. Mr. Sissamis explained that the three companies had determined their health benefit package based on different employee enrollment numbers. The difference between plans was the total dollars needed to fund the program according to the projected number of plan participants. Ms. Salvide, Ms. Telge, and Ms. Lyons asked that staff provide the retention rates for each of the proposers. Mr. Rendon inquired if the benefit package could be negotiated Regional Transportation Authority hoard of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 6 but with no increased cost to the agency if the contractor provided a better health plan. Mr. Sanchez replied that staff would look into this. Ms. Lyons expressed the opinion that based on the best and final offers submitted, there would not be a large room for negotiation. Responding to Ms. Telge, Mr. Sissamis replied that currently 60 percent of MV Transportation's employees participated in the health plan. MV's proposal was based on 85 percent participation. There was a varied discussion on plan structure. Ms. Lyons asked why MV Transportation was the only proposer that had to base their health plan structure on the results of the negotiations under collective bargaining. Ms. Telge asked what constituted a full-time employee compared to a part-time employee. Regarding staffing and administration, Ms. Lyons asked what the requirements were, as outlined in the RFP. Mr. Seiler stated that the request was for identification of the local key staff members. Ms. Lyons asked why MV Transportation has received 16 points instead of 20 points since they had identified all of their key staff members. Ms. Fallwell-Stover stated that training for the key management staff, the organizational structure, and turn over ratio were also considered Ms. Fallwell-Stover stated that Veolia had proposed a full representation of local staffing and First Transit had a limited local staff proposal consisting of the Maintenance Manager and General Manager. Ms. Lyons asked why there was just a one point difference between the two companies. She stated that she felt that the Board needed to be provided with the detail in this area because the Board felt that customer service was a priority. She noted that during the interviews, First Transit had proposed a part- time customer service ombudsman for a cost of approximately $11,000 per year. She felt that customer service should be weighted heavily. Ms. Fallwell-Stover noted that under the service delivery category, First Transit had lost points because of their planned process to handle customer service and the Review Committee felt that First Transit should not lose points in both categories. Ms. Lyons expressed the opinion that this rating should be reviewed. Discussing the category of vehicles/fleet management, Ms. Telge asked what was meant by "strength in corporate management assistance." Mr. Seiler explained that the companies had identified outside staffing assistance. Ms. Fallwell-Stover stated that this had been verified through discussions with the proposers. Ms. Lyons and Mr. Rendon expressed concern about the subjective manner that this category was ranked. Ms. Fallwell-Stover explained that there were eight Committee members who ranked the firms based on their perspective. Regional Transportation Authority • board of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 7 It was clarified by Ms. Fallwell-Stover that the RFP did not require the proposers to have maintenance software. Mr. Sissamis pointed out that on page 7 of the Board document, detailed elements of cost for all of the cost centers for the full range of services to be provided by Veolia, MV, and First Transit, was available for review. Mr. Seiler stated that the four proposers were First Transit, MV Transportation, Veolia, and McDonald. Regarding the Responsiveness to RFP category, Mr. Seiler noted that this was the least subjective area. Each proposer had to respond to the identified criteria. Under the finance procedures/data collection/reporting category, Mr. Rendon asked how Veolia had received a 1 ranking when they had not identified additional software that would supplement Trapeze in order to provide specific managerial reports, and that during the interviews he remembered that Veolia's IT manager had been unable to answer some questions. Ms. Lyons noted that providing proprietary software was not required in the RFP, and was not required to produce reports directly from Trapeze. Referencing the "Start Up" plan, Ms. Lyons noted that MV had mentioned some changes they would make if they were awarded the contract. She asked whether additional costs would be incurred by the RTA. Ms. Fallwell-Stover stated that the proposed changes would be considered as added value items. Mr. Sissamis explained that "added value" items were services or features that were deemed above the base proposal. If a service or feature was proposed with additional costs, then it was deemed as an option and not as "added value." Mr. Sissamis explained that First Transit and MV had received credit under Service Management/Delivery for providing the proprietary software. Ms. Salvide asked why First Transit was rated the lowest. Ms. Fallwell-Stover pointed out that there were other various elements used to evaluate this category. Ms. Salvide noted that the proposed manager for First Transit had 15 years experience in emergency management, as well as experience in a variety of paratransit management areas. She questioned the ranking method used by the Review Committee. She noted that she had not seen the submitted proposals, and that this was based on what she had heard during the interviews held with each proposer. • Regional Transportation Authority rsoard of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 8 Ms. Telge questioned why MV was ranked high on their "start up" plan, when this did not apply. She expressed that the current contractor should be ranked on their "transition out" plan. She asked where that information was provided. Ms. Lyons asked whether a transition plan was addressed in the RFP. Ms. Fallwell- Stover stated that transition was discussed with each proposer through verbal communication. RTA staff was responsible for a smooth transition. Ms. Lyons stated that another option would be to hire a third party to oversee the transition. RTA could also require that the new contractor and the former contractor share the transition costs. Concerning the ranking in the DBE category Mr. Sanchez stated that he was comfortable with the ranking provided based on his discussions with Mr. Taylor. There was a brief discussion of the percentage of DBE participation proposed by each company. Mr. Sanchez stated that detailed information on what each proposer submitted in the RFP to identify their DBE participation would be provided. Ms. Lyons remarked that input had been received from RCAT. She stated that the RCAT Chair Deb. Hovda, after viewing the pricing and tabulated scoring information provided to the RTA Board of Directors, had changed her position. Continuing with the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Seiler reviewed the slides showing the tabulated scoring less pricing, the pricing, and tabulated scoring charts. Mr. Sissamis stated that the final tabulation of scoring with consideration of pricing was as follows: Veolia had 218 total points; MV had total points of 214; and First Transit had total points of 203. He stated that the Board would be voting on a three-year base contract with two 1 year options. Mr. Sissamis detailed each of the cost items listed on the chart on page 7 of the Board document. The total proposed five-year cost was $23,914,028 for Veolia; $22,406,272 for MV; and $24,017,066 for First Transit. Ms. Telge asked if the prospers had been asked to breakdown the operational costs per year. Mr. Sissamis stated that request had been made. Ms. Telge inquired if a numerical value was assigned to the added value items. Mr. Sanchez explained that no values were attached to these items but they were included to show what additional services the companies could provide at no additional cost to the agency. The Board could use these items to assist in their decision of which company should receive the contract. tegional Transportation Authority -hoard of Directors Meeting Minutes June 4,2008 Page 9 Referring to her notes from the interviews, Ms. Salvide noted that the proposed First Transit manager's 15 years of experience in hurricane evacuation and his agency's receipt of an award from APTA for safety was not mentioned. Also, she stated that the Ambassador Program for customer feedback; and the "Going for Green" program should be considered for the other proposers. Ms. Lyons noted that First Transit's proposed manager's experience did not appear to be taken into consideration. The consensus was to provide detail on the "added value" items by the next meeting. There was a brief discussion on the Training and Development category; Ms. Lyons pointed out that RTA could not request from the other proposers that they provide re- training for all staff members comparable to what was being proposed by MV Transportation. In summary, Mr. Seiler stated that the final scoring was Veolia with 218 points; MV Transportation with 214 points; and First Transit with 203 points out of a possible 250 points. Ms. Lyons asked Board members to identify their priorities relevant to the contract and analyze the information provided by RTA staff. A meeting for action to award this contract would be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. Ms. Lyons asked that it be noted that for future contracts that the RFP include a category for transition. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. Dr. Maurice Po s, Board Secretary Le t Date