Loading...
11 November 18, 2005 SR-91 Advisory74745 NK/JS/HS/EH/CB N. Kopenhaver • STATE ROUTE 91 ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA Date: Time: Where: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:00 a.m. NOV 14 2005 .� RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Orange County Transportation Authority - Headquarters 600 South Main Street, First Floor, Room 164 Orange, California 92863 ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bill Campbell Chairman Jeff Miller Vice Chairman Art Brown Committee Member Bob Buster Committee Member Carolyn Cavecche Committee Member Michael Duvall Committee Member Frank Hall Committee Member Bob Magee Alternate Committee Member Ameal Moore Committee Member Curt Pringle Committee Member John Tavaglione Committee Member Michael Perovich Caltrans District 8 Cindy Quon Caltrans District 12 Alan Wapner SANBAG For further information, please call Wendy Knowles, OCTA Clerk of the Board, at (714) 560-5676. HH.35.02 AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Orange County Transportation Authority - Headquarters 600 South Main Street, First Floor - Room 154 Orange, California 92863-1584 Friday, November 18, 2005 Note: Start Time 10:00 a.m. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting should contact the OCTA Clerk of the Board, telephone (714) 560-5676, no less than two (2) business days prior to this meeting to enable'OCTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. Call to Order Chairman Campbell Agenda Descriptions The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a general summary of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Committee may take any action which it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any wayby the notice of the recommended action. Public Comments on Agenda Items Members of the public wishing to address the Committee regarding any item appearing on the agenda may do so by completing a Speaker's Card and submitting it to the Clerk of the Board. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman at the time the agenda item is to be considered. A speaker's comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. Special Matters There are no Special Calendar Matters. Consent Calendar (Item 1) 1. Approval of Minutes Of the July 15, 2005, State Route 91 Advisory Committee meeting. Page 1 of 2 AGENDA State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting Regular Calendar 2. Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Lanes Daryl Watkins, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes Overview On October 24, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Board of Directors authorized the Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement between the Orange County Transportation Authority and Cofiroute USA, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $30,800,854, to operate and manage the 91 Express Lanes for a five-year term. Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. Other Matters 3. Possible Managed Lane Changes Considered in Major Investment Study Daryl Watkins, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes 4. 91 Express Lanes Toll Policy as it Relates to Hybrid Vehicles Daryl Watkins, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes 5. General Manager's Report 6. Committee Members' Reports 7. Public Comments 8. Adjournment The next regularly scheduled meeting of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, March 3, 2006, at the Eagle Glenn Golf Meeting Facilities, Pinnacle Room, 1800 Eagle Glen Parkway, Corona, California 92883-0620. Page 2 of 2 Item 1. OCTA MINUTES State Route 97 Advisory Committee Meeting Committee Members Present Bill Campbell, Chair Jeff Miller, Vice Chair Art Brown Bob Buster Carolyn Cavecche Michael Duvall Frank Hall Bob Magee Ameal Moore Curt Pringle Cindy Quon Committee Members Absent Carolyn Cavecche Patty Romo John Tavaglione Staff Present Arthur T. Leahy, OCTA Chief Executive Officer Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, Division Head, Planning Steve DeBaun, RCTC, Legal Counsel Paul Taylor, OCTA Executive Director Laurena Weinert, OCTA Assistant Clerk of the Board Mary Burton, OCTA Deputy Clerk of the Board OCTA and RCTC staff and members of the General Public The July 15, 2005, regular meeting of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee was called to order at 11:25 a.m. at the Orange County Transportation Authority Headquarters, First Floor - Room 154; Committee Chairman Campbell presided. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Committee Member Duvall led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the July 15, 2005, 9:00 a.m. Riverside County — Orange County Major Investment Study Policy Committee meeting which was held at the same location. Special Matters There were no Special Calendar Matters. Consent Calendar (Items 1 and 2) 1. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Committee Vice Chair Miller, seconded by Committee Member Magee, and declared passed unanimously by the Committee Members present, to approve minutes of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee meeting of March 4, 2005. Committee Members Hall and Magee abstained on this item. July 15, 2005 Page 1 of 3 OCTA MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting 2. 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports A motion was made by Committee Vice Chair Miller, seconded by Committee Member Magee, and declared passed unanimously by the Committee Members present, to receive and file the 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Reports for the months of January through May 2005. Regular Calendar 3. Mid -County Parkway Project Cathy Bechtel, RCTC Division Head, Planning, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the corridor strategy, process for moving forward, schedule, funding, and this is a nationally recognized project for environmental streamlining. No action was taken on this item. 4. 2005 State Route 91 Implementation Plan Kurt Brotcke, OCTA Department Manager of Planning and Analysis, gave opening comments, and he provided a PowerPoint presentation of the project area, recent accomplishments, short-term, mid-term and long-term plans, as well as next step recommendations. A motion was made by Committee Member Duvall, seconded by Committee Member Buster, and declared passed unanimously by the Committee Members present, to approve submitting the 2005 State Route 91 Implementation Plan to the Orange County Transportation Authority's Regional Planning and Highways Committee meeting on July 18, 2005. Other Matters 5. General Manager's Report Paul Taylor, OCTA Executive Director of Planning, Development and Commuter Services, introduced Daryl Watkins, General Manager of 91 Express Lanes. Mr. Watkins gave a brief introduction due to time constraints. July 15, 2005 Page 2 of 3 OCTA MINUTES State Route 91 Advisory Committee Meeting 6. Committee Members' Reports Committee Chairman Campbell stated that the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has identified OCTA as the number one transportation system in North America, and OCTA will be recognized at APTA's annual meeting in Dallas this September. Committee Vice Chair Miller inquired about congestion related refunds. Paul Taylor, OCTA Executive Director, responded that when a toll customer complains about extraordinary congestion on a trip, their account is credited with a refund once it has been confirmed that the congestion was caused by an incident/accident. 7. Public Comments There were no public comments. 8. Adjournment The July 15, 2005, meeting of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee adjourned at 11:50 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the State Route 91 Advisory Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on September 9, 2005, at Eagle Glen Golf Club Meeting Facilities, Pinnacle Room, at 1800 Eagle Glen Parkway, Corona, California 92883-0620. ATTEST Laurena Weinert Assistant Clerk of the Board Bill Campbell Committee Chairman July 15, 2005 Page 3 of 3 2. Item 2. 011 M OCTA November 18, 2005 To: State Route 91 Advisory Committee From: Daryl Watkins, General Manager, 91 Express Lanes Subject: Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Lanes Overview On October 24, 2005, the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors authorized the Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement between the Orange County Transportation Authority and Cofiroute USA, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $30,800,854, to operate and manage the 91 Express Lanes for a five-year term. Recommendation Receive and file as an information item. Attachment A. Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Lanes Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) •m OCTA ATTACHMENT A October 20, 2005 To: Finance and Administration Committee From: ichard J. Bacigalupo, Deputy Chief Executive Officer Subject: Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Lanes Overview The current agreement for operation and management of the 91 Express Lanes expires on January 3, 2006. The Orange County Transportation Authority issued a Request for Proposals and received offers in accordance with procurement procedures for professional and technical services. Recommendation Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute Agreement C-5-0300 between the Orange County Transportation Authority and Cofiroute USA, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $30,800,854, to operate and manage the 91 Express Lanes for a five-year term. The recommended agreement would include two, 24-month option terms to be exercised at the conclusion of the initial five-year term at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. Background On January 3, 2003, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) acquired the assets and franchise rights to operate the 91 Express Lanes toll road from the California Private Transportation Company (CFTC). As a condition of the purchase, OCTA entered into an operating and management agreement with Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute). The OCTA Board of Directors (Board) approved a three-year operating and management agreement for .the 91 Express Lanes with an initial term from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2006. The agreement included two, 12-month renewal options, which OCTA elected not to exercise. On July 16, 2004, the Board directed staff to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new operating agreement to determine whether OCTA could Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O. Box 14184/Orange/California 92663-1584 / (T14) 560-OCTA (6262) Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 2 Lanes achieve savings and efficiencies through a competitive procurement process. Two firms submitted proposals by the procurement deadline. of June 9, 2005: Firm and Location Cofiroute USA, LLC Irvine, California VESystems Irvine, California Staff has completed the competitive procurement process (Attachment A) and is returning to the Board with a recommendation to award the contract for operation and management of the 91 Express Lanes. Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy recused himself from the procurement and selection process. Discussion The evaluation committee recommends award to the firm demonstrating the best overall capability and performance assurance using the four areas evaluated during the procurement process: • Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror • Proposed Staffing and Project Organization . Approach to Operations ▪ Cost and Price Proposal Based on the proposals, interviews, site visits, and Best and Final Offers (BAFO), the evaluation committee recommends the following fimn for selection and contract award: Firm and Location Cofiroute USA, LLC Irvine, California Following is a discussion of the key items that differentiated the offerors in each of the areas evaluated by the committee. • • Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 3 Lanes 1. Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror Percentage of overall score: 15 percent Cofiroute: 93 out of a possible 100 VESystems: 76 of 100 Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror accounted for 15 percent of the offerors' overall score. Both firms and subcontractors have impressive toll industry credentials. However, the evaluation committee judged Cofiroute to have the more favorable presentation of their firm's credentials, capabilities, and understanding of comprehensive toll road operation and management. This was particularly borne out in the presentations, interviews, and site visits (Attachment B). Cofiroute Global Mobility (CGM), Cofiroute's corporate parent, is a multi -billion dollar international corporation and has the depth of staff necessary to provide replacement staff if needed. CGM was part of the original consortium that financed, built, and operated the 91 Express Lanes and has comprehensive' knowledge of every facet of past operations. In contrast, VESystems would have to increase its staff level considerably to be able to perform the 91 Express Lanes work. 2. Proposed Staffing and Project Organization Proposed Staffing and Project Organization Percentage of overall score: 20 percent Cofiroute: 82 of 100 VESystems: 70 of 100 The evaluation committee graded Proposed Staffing and Project Organization for Cofiroute higher than for VESystems. The Cofiroute management personnel demonstrated a thorough understanding of their individual areas of expertise. Key personnel of VESystems and their subcontractor TransCore's management teams, other than the project manager, did not participate extensively in the presentation, questions, or site visits. The VESystems team recommended a Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 4 Lanes project staffing level that was 5.85 full-time equivalent employees less than the staffing proposed by Cofiroute. The committee felt that the Cofiroute staffing level was consistent with the level necessary to continue the high level of service the 91 Express Lanes currently provides our customers. VESystems did not demonstrate or explain how they would maintain equivalent service with fewer employees. Consequently, the evaluation committee more favorably rated the Cofiroute approach to Proposed Staffing and Project Organization (Attachment C). VESystems proposed an alternate project manager, violations processing manager, and customer service supervisor in their BAFO. These substitute managers represent VESystems' primary area of expertise. They were evaluated based only on their resumes, as they did not participate in the interviews and site visits conducted by the evaluation committee. Furthermore, the BAFO contained no discussion of the impact of this substitution on the remainder of the VESystems' proposal. 3. Approach to Operations Approach to Operations Percentage of overall score: 40 percent Cofiroute: 87 of 100 VESystems: 75 of 100 Both proposals were responsive to OCTA's request and documented a wide range of capabilities_ VESystems was strong in their abilities and record for providing excellent customer account services and violations enforcement for the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA). However, VESystems' experience in operational components critical to the day-to-day operations of the toll facility was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the evaluation committee. A comparison of the details and responsibilities between the proposals is provided in Attachment D. The evaluation committee's review of the proposals, oral interviews, and on -site visits determined that Cofiroute's personnel demonstrated a more thorough understanding of OCTA's requirements for toll road operations on the 91 Express Lanes. • Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 5 Lanes 4. Cost and Price Proposal Cost and Price Proposal Percentage of overall score: 25 percent Cofiroute: 73 of 100 VESystems: 85 of 100 In evaluating the price proposals, the committee was looking for price' competitiveness, reasonableness of the costs of proposed services, , understanding of the requirements of the 91 Express Lanes, attention to detail, and the presence or absence of factors that might serve to increase the cost of the services over time. The evaluation committee conducted in-depth financial analyses of the two proposals against the existing contract in an attempt to achieve accurate and' defensible comparisons. A summary of the price proposals for each firm is presented in Attachment E. VESystems' proposed costs for year one are $5,068,126 compared to $5,743,786 for Cofiroute. VESystems proposed costs for years 1-5 are $26.6 million compared to $30.8 million for Cofiroute. The evaluation committee graded the VESystems price proposal to be more competitive, based on its total cost being lower by $675,660 in year one and $4.2 million over the base contract period. The evaluation committee did express concerns that the VESystems price proposal missed cost elements captured in the Cofiroute price proposal. Consequently, the committee judged that VESystems' cost advantage would be less than represented above. The Cofroute proposal accurately described the expenses that OCTA expects, . the contractor to carry. The cost estimates clearly and accurately carried from each worksheet to the summary pages. In essence, Cofiroute's proposal demonstrated an attention to detail, which satisfied the evaluation committee that the cost proposal was sound. The evaluation committee was not able to gain a similar level of comfort with the VESystems proposal. The lack of attention to detail in the pricing portion of the proposal was of concern to the evaluation committee. Certain expenses were missing altogether; some were misunderstood by the proposer; and others did not flow from worksheets to summary charts. The evaluation committee noted several discrepancies that may result in an increase in the base cost of Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 6 Lanes VESystems' services, as they pass those costs on to OCTA, or may result in VESystems' operating at an unrealistically low profit margin or at a loss. Specific areas of concern in VESystems' pricing are: • not including specific expenses related to office equipment and maintenance, utilities, and phone service in their pricing. • omitting costs for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) mandated Average Vehicle Occupancy reports. The Project manager stated that he did not understand the cost, so he left it out of the proposal. • proposing unreasonably low workers' compensation expenses ($17,000) at only 0.6 percent of payroll. • proposing $1 million crime insurance for the contractor instead of the $5 million required by the RFP. Furthermore, the evaluation committee calculated the average cost per unit of labor for each proposal. Annual Cost Per Labor Unit (Base Labor Cost / Full -Time Employee) Cost FTE $/FTE Cofiroute $ 2,818,273 / 58.75 = $ 47,971 VESystems $ 2,658,206 / 52.90 = $ 50,250 Additional cost for 5.85 FTE at $50,250 = $293,960 If the VESystems' staffing needed to be increased to achieve a higher level of performance, at their proposed average, the increase in cost would be $293,960. Finally, the evaluation committee also looked at the costs of transitioning operation and management services from Cofiroute to VESystems and noted: • VESystems proposed transition costs of $137,354 to offset costs incurred to start work. • the current operation and management contract with Cofiroute allows for severance payments to Cofiroute employees. The amount of severance depends on a range of variables outlined in the current operation contract. Preliminary estimates range from $500,000 to $700,000. • other transition costs, but the fiscal impacts of these costs are unknown. These transition costs would include the costs associated with vendor and • Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 7 Lanes staff time to bring VESystems current on existing systems, policies, procedures, and practices. . also unknown is the potential indirect impact to other 91 Express Lanes stakeholders — customers, bond holders, commuting public. Summary of Evaluation OCTA should be willing to accept transition risk to a new vendor to achieve significant operating efficiencies and savings. Considering that only two bids were submitted, with one bid from the incumbent, the question becomes: did the challenger present a convincing proposal demonstrating that they could operate and manage the road better and cheaper? The challenger did not present a proposal that unequivocally said yes to that question. The evaluation committee judged the Cofiroute proposal to be stronger in Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offer, Proposed Staffing and Project Organization; and Approach to Operations. The evaluation committee judged the VESystems' Cost and Price Proposal to be more competitive with the notable caveat that the proposal was missing cost elements. Most importantly, the evaluation committee believed that the Cofiroute proposal carries less risk and contains fewer unknown elements. In the event of a significant disturbance in the lanes, the experience of the operator can have major operational, customer service, and revenue implications. The operator is responsible for running and assisting with traffic breaks, removing debris from the lanes, responding to customer queries, notifying customers of issues, managing and responding to crises from the traffic management center, assisting disabled vehicles, and managing the systems for continued revenue collection. The operator cannot fail in these functions without creating the potential for a breakdown in customer service and revenue collection. Cofiroute's experience and involvement in past operation led the financial community to highlight it as a favorable influence in their rating determination during the acquisition by OCTA. During the current evaluation process, the Cofiroute team successfully demonstrated their dedication and ongoing commitment to the 91 Express Lanes. Furthermore, their proposal offers a nearly risk -free transition to a new operating contract that will save nearly $1.15 million per year (over the status quo pricing) while simultaneously increasing the scope of services. By contrast, the only major contract for VESystems at this time is for certain functions at the Transportation Corridor Agencies. VESystems' staff lacks direct experience performing some of the critical operations that the contractor will be Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 8 Lane.s expected to perform. This presents greater financial risk for OCTA in the event of a VESystems' operational failure. Some evaluation committee members were very concemed that the VESystemslfransCore personnel did not clearly demonstrate that they could make a smooth transition to operation and management without significant potential for service disruption. Functional Options The Board also directed staff to determine if the operating and management contractor could feasibly and cost effectively take over certain functions currently performed by OCTA. The evaluation committee sought input from Accounting, Marketing, Information Systems, and Toll Road and Motorist Services departments to evaluate the effectiveness and fit of each proposed option with OCTA objectives. Based upon the RFP process, staff recommendations and justifications for the options are presented in Attachment F. Staff proposes the following determination regarding these options: • Do not exercise the accounting or technology options. • Exercise a limited scope of the marketing option. Staff recommends the operating contractor be limited to providing routine marketing services and that other marketing and communications be competitively procured separately. Fiscal Impact The Board approved the project in the OCTA Fiscal Year 2005-06 Budget, Planning, .Development and Commuter Services Division, Account No.0036-7350-B0100-A5H. The account is funded through the SR91 Enterprise Fund. Summary Staff recommends award of Agreement C-5-0300 to Cofiroute USA, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $30,800,854, to operate and manage the 91 Express Lanes for a five-year term. The recommended agreement would include two, 24-month option terms to be exercised at the conclusion of the initial five-year term at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. Agreement for Operation and Management of the 91 Express Page 9 Lanes Attachments A. B. C. D. E. F. Procurement Process for Request for Proposals 05-300 Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror Proposed Staffing and Project Organization Approach to Operations Cost Analysis for Request for Proposals 05-300 Options Analysis for Request for Proposals 05-300 Prepared by: Daryl Watkins Manager, Toll Road and Motorist Services (714)560-5406 Approved by: Paul C. Talgtbr, P.E. Executive Director, Planning, Development and Commuter Services (714) 560-5431 STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT A Procurement Process for Request for Proposals 05-300 In September 2004, staff released a Request for Information (RFI) to members of the toll trade industry. The goal was to gain additional perspectives from toll industry experts on the scope of services and operating approaches that might be successful in the 91 Express Lanes environment. Staff prepared an RFP that included several refinements to the existing operating and management approach, including information gleaned from the 11 responses to the RR. The RFP requested vendors provide optional proposals for accounting, marketing, and software services. The proposed term of service for the agreement is January 3, 2006, through January 2, 2011, with two, 24-month option terms, potentially extending the agreement through January 2, 2015. The Board approved issuance of the RFP on February 14, 2005. OCTA advertised the procurement on February 24, 2005, and March 8, 2005, in a newspaper of general circulation and on CAMMNet, the OCTA online procurement website. Ten firms attended a pre -proposal meeting on March 9, 2005. Two firms submitted offers by the procurement deadline of June 9, 2005: 1. Cofiroute USA, LLC, Irvine, California 92618 2. VESystems, Irvine, Califomia 92618 The procurement process was managed as a competitive, negotiated procurement in accordance with intemal procedures for professional and technical services. The process included the following key steps: • Notice to the worldwide community of toll road operators of the procurement; • A comprehensive RFP document; • A pre -proposal conference where OCTA personnel were available to elaborate and respond to the vendors' questions about the procurement; • Responses to written questions submitted by potential vendors regarding the procurement; all responses were distributed to the attendees of the pre -proposal conference; • Review of the submitted proposals by an evaluation committee consisting of OCTA personnel involved in the 91 Express Lanes program, a representative from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and representatives from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Riverside County Transportation Commission who are familiar with toll road operations. The committee evaluated the offers based on qualification of the firm (15 percent), staffing and project organization (20 percent), approach to operations (40 percent), and cost (25 percent); Page 1 • Presentations by and interviews with the two proposers; • Requests for Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), which were responded to by each offeror to further define and refine their proposals; • Site visits to toll road operations currently under the management of each proposing team; • Negotiation meetings with both proposers to clarify certain responses to the BAFO requests and to explore further refinements that might be pursued in final contract negotiations. For example, both firms agreed to an innovative performance management approach developed by OCTA; • Reference checking of both proposers; and • Financial and operational analysis of both proposals by OCTA staff to assess the relative benefits of both proposals. • Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy recused himself from the procurement and selection process Page 2 • Qualifications, Related Experience and References of Offeror Comparison of proposal content* STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT B Cofiroute USA, LLC Management Experience VESystems, LLC Cofiroute — Global presence in the tolling industry performing every aspect of toll road management. • Operations • Program management • Engineering Additional experience: • Maintenance services • System design, development, and maintenance • Financial management • Research and development • Ownership VESystems — National presence in tolling industry performing certain aspects of toll road management. • Operations • Program management • Engineering (software) TransCore (subcontractor) Additional experience: . Maintenance services • Toll system design; integration and installation Operational Support Cofiroute Global Mobility — multi -billion dollar company was part of original private consortium that financed, built, and operated the 91 Express Lanes (prior to OCTA's acqusition). TransCore — Global provider of operational support is offered in this proposal to provide personnel and management for in lane maintenance and the Customer Service Patrol Range of operational experience specific to 91 Express Lanes • Incumbent operating and management contractor with direct, relevant experience with unique aspects of the 91 Express Lanes . Current business base consists of contract with the TCA and software development contracts. Observations made by evaluation committee • Current staffing levels sufficient • Proposal demonstrated full range of experience and capabilities within tolling industry and responded specifically to RFP requirements • Presentation and site visit were consistent with written proposal • Obtaining the 91 Express Lanes operation and management contract would nearly double the staffing and financial requirements of the company • Proposal demonstrated a range of experience and capabilities; however, RFP requirements regarding traffic operations management and customer assistance patrol were not adequately addressed in either the presentation or site visit . Presentation and site visit were not consistent with written proposal *Organization and headings are provided for the reader's understanding. Staff has attempted to organize data sequentially for comparison purposes. Content is drawn from offerors' proposals. • Emphasized experience working with 91 Express Lanes customers: Customer service staff has an aveage of 3.5 years of service on 91 Express Lanes Violations processing staff has an average of 5.5 years of service on 91 Express Lanes STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT C Proposed Staffing and Project Organization Demonstrated by Offerer to Evaluation Committee* Cofiroute USA, LLC VESystems, LLC Supports 91 Express Lanes Operation and Management in Proposal ▪ Emphasized effective maintenance program for cash collection machines; however, this is not useful to OCTA since 91 Express Lanes is an all electronic tolling facility Customer service center function supplied by TCA, and by SANDAG & Caltrans for operation at 1-15 Interview • Project Manager demonstrated strong leadership and appropriate delegation skills o Demonstrated understanding of each functional area o Allowed individual managers to discuss own areas and offered detailed answers demonstrating areas of expertise at interview • Project Manager offered in proposal, but later substituted, answered most questions • Key managers were substituted during BAFO response: o Project Manager o Violations Processing Manager o Customer Service Supervisor ▪ Capabilities of substituted personnel remain undocumented • TransCore personnel did not contribute significantly in discussions and presentations at oral interview Site Visit . Tours of the Cofiroute-managed facilities (91 Express Lanes offices in Anaheim, Corona and Toll Zone) . Emphasized comprehensive understanding of range of services necessary to operate and manage the lanes • Tours of the VESystems properties (TCA office in Irvine, corporate office in Irvine), and TransCore operation at 1-15. • Showed reliance on TCA, SANDAG, and Caltrans for operation services • Substituted Violations Processing Manager & Customer Service Supervisor did not contribute during site visit • Substituted Project Manager not present during site visit *Evaluation Committee's judgments made on vendor -supplied personnel and information offered in proposal and observed during interviews and site visits. Approach to Operations Demonstrated by Offerer to Evaluation Committee" STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT D Cofiroute USA, LLC VESystems, LLC Supports 91 Express Lanes Operation and Management in Proposal • Emphasized continuity of existing high level of customer service, violations processing, interoperability, and traffic . Emphasized "[Nordstrom -level customer service" at an affordable price operations management • Proposed TransCore as subcontractor . Proposed continuity of experienced key personnel knowledgeable in the full range of 91 Express Lanes operational and governance requirements to handle lane level equipment maintenance and customer assistance patrol Interview • Project Manager demonstrated detailed understanding of governance requirements • VESystems President (proposed Project Manager) introduced team, made presentation, and responded to • Each key manager introduced himself most questions. or herself and responded to functional questions . Responses to road operations questions lacked detail, were • Responses to road operations questions were thorough, specific, and superficial, and occasionally did not answer the specific question asked. relevant . VESystems co-founder discussed • Answers generally included examples of operations issues to back up their proposed approach technology options and demonstrated deep understanding of tolling technology issues Site Visit • Cofiroute President and Project Manager introduced themselves and accompanied evaluation team • VESystems President (previously proposed as Project Manager) discussed customer service and • Functional managers discussed each violations processing functional areas funtional area in detail and presented performance criteria and current results to highlight staff performance • TransCore personnel demonstrated the physical model system TransCore uses to lab test their in -lane equipment . Traffic Operations Center manager described roadway operations, described importance of experienced . TransCore maintenance personnel demonstrated maintenance on cash machines (not used on Express Lanes) patrol personnel and "right -side" safety procedures • TransCore manager demonstrated software and explained 1-15 customer • Traffic Operations personnel demonstrated initial and secondary reviews of license plate images service procedures "Evaluation Committee's judgments made on vendor -supplied personnel and information offered in proposal and observed during interviews and site visits. 91 Express Lanes' OCTA Cofiroute Ca'trans Administration x x Human Resources Management x Training z x Quality Control x x Disaster Recovery / Business Resumption x x Toll Operations x Violations Processing x Imeroperability x Customer Service x x Accounting x x Security and Investigations x x Customer Assistance Patrol x Incident Management x x Safety Program x Customer Account Management x Traffic Operations Center x Lane Equipment Maintenance x Variable Message Sign Management x Coordination with CHP and Caltrans x 2411261/133/73 ** TCA VESvstems Transcore Caltrans Administration x x x x Human Resources Management x x x x Training x x x x Quality Control x x x x Disaster Recovery / Business Resumption x x x x Toll Operations x x x Violations Processing x x x Interoperabitity x x Customer Service x x Accounting x x x Security and Investigations x x x Customer Assistance Patrol Incident Management x x x Safety Program x x x Customer Account Management x Traffic Operations Center x Lane Maintenance x Variable Message Sign Management x x Coordination with CHP and Caltrans x x x I� ." Administration Human Resources Management Training Quality Control z Disaster Recovery / Business Resumption Toll Operations Violations Processing Inleroperabilily x x Customer Service x Accounting x x Security and Investigations Customer Assistance Patrol x Incident Management x Safety Program Customer Account Management z Traffic Operations Center Lane Maintenance Variable Message Sign Management x Coordination with CHP and Caltrans x x Tranacore Caltrans CHP SANDAG x x x x x x x x x x x x `- Completed by OCTA " - Completed by TCA "" - Completed by SANDAG The charts represent the range of services requested in proposal C-05-0300. Representatives from each toll road were asked to place an "x" in each column to describe what organization was responsible for each activity. 2of2 i Base Period Cofiroute Cost Analysis for Request for Proposals 05-300 BAFO Marketing Option Total VESystems Base BAFO Marketing Option Transition Cost Total Option Period One Cofiroute BAFO Marketing Option Total Year 1 $ 5,443,786 $ 300,000 $ 5,743,786 $ Year 2-5 $ 23,748,328 $ 1,308,740 $ 25,057,068 4,598,008 $ 20,058,656 332,764 $ 1,451,670 137,354 5,068,126 $ 21,510,326 Year 6 Year 7 $ 6,527,456 $ 356,306 $ 6,883,762 $ 6,821,033 $ 368,777 $ 7,189,810 STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT E Total $ 29,192,114 $ 1,608,740 $ 30,800,854 $ 24,656,664 $ 1,784,434 $ 26,578,452 Total $ 13, 348,489 $ 725,083 $ 14,073,572 VESystems BAFO Marketing Option Total $ 5,460,990 $ 395,219 $ 5,856,209 $ 5,652,127 $ 409,051 $ 6,061,178 $ 11,113,117 $ 804,270 $ 11,917,387 Option Period Two Cofiroute BAFO Marketing Option Total Year 8 $ 7,128,224 $ 381,684 $ 7,509,908 Year 9 $ 7,449,684 $ 395,043 $ 7,844,727 Total $ 14,577,908 $ 776,727 $ 15,354,635 VESystems BAFO Marketing Option Total $ 5,849,951 $ 423,368 $ 6,273,319 $ 6,054,698 $ 438,187 $ 6,492,885 $ 11,904,649 $ 861,555 $ 12,766,204 BAFO - Best and Final Offer Mktg. - Marketing STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT F Options Analysis for Request for Proposals 05-300 The Board directed staff to determine if the operating and management contractor could feasibly and cost effectively take over central functions currently performed by OCTA. The evaluation committee sought input from OCTA Accounting, Marketing, Information Systems, and Toll Road and Motorist Services to evaluate the effectiveness and fit of each proposed option with OCTA objectives. 1. Marketing Option • Exercise a limited -scope marketing option. Both firms proposed a broad scope of marketing services to be conducted by the offerors and subcontracted through professional marketing firms. Staff recommends that we negotiate a scope of routine marketing services that will limit the amount of subcontracted services. • Using this approach, OCTA will competitively bid future 91 Express Lanes marketing and communications programs as annual needs, budgets and work plan elements evolve. • Staff recommends focusing the operating contractor's marketing services on routine program elements such as customer communications, newsletters and statements, toll updates, website maintenance, customer roundtables, annual customer satisfaction surveys, and outreach support for Riverside County and Corona Chamber of Commerce and other meetings, and 91 Express Lane tours. • Exercising this approach will provide OCTA with basic support for ongoing 91 Express Lanes marketing programs while offering flexibility to adapt, grow, or limit marketing activities as needed. 2. Accounting Option • Staff recommends that the Board not exercise the accounting option. Both firms proposed a level of accounting in their base proposals similar to the level of accounting that has evolved over the past few years. • The Accounting Department demonstrated that it would be infeasible for the contractor to perform many oversight functions that OCTA currently performs due to the unique reporting and governance requirements of fund accounting. 3. Technology Option Staff recommends that the Board not exercise the technology option. Each firm proposed infrastructure support as part of their base proposal. Each firm proposed replacing the account management software. The current software (Toll Pro) was implemented and enhanced over the past three years. Current operational needs do not warrant immediate replacement. A technology change coupled with the operator transition would unnecessarily complicate the transition process and increase risk in key areas of revenue collection, customer service, and violations processing. • • 11 •