july 6, 2020 re: rfp-2020-06-02 item: integrated fare ... · 700 ne 2nd street, suite 100 •...
TRANSCRIPT
700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 • Meridian, ID 83642 • p: 208.846.8547 • f: 208.846.8564 • 1.855.345.7433
July 6, 2020
RE: RFP-2020-06-02
ITEM: Integrated Fare Payment System
Closes: July 24, 2020, 5:00 PM MDT
ADDENDUM #2
Questions and Answers
Addendum #2 for Valley Regional Transit Request for Proposal RFP-2020-06-02, Integrated
Fare Payment System is hereby made part of the project requirements and contract
documents for the referenced project. Please note, failure to acknowledge this
Addendum does not relieve you from fulfilling the Addendum requirements.
The following questions have been addressed and are now part of the procurement
process:
1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic stay at home orders, the majority of our staff
(and those of other bidders) are working remotely, requiring additional time for
proposal development coordination and approval. In order to provide a
response that thoroughly addresses Valley Regional Transit’s requirements, we
request a two week extension of the submission deadline. We also request that
the deadline for questions remain on June 19 and that agency responses be
provided within three calendar days, so that bidders have ample time to review
those responses and update their proposals, as needed, prior to submission.
Answer: Yes, VRT will extend the proposal due date to July 24, 2020.
2. Please confirm if Valley Regional Transit provides a general transit feed system
real-time (GTFS-RT) data feed that identifies the real-time status and route
assignments of its fixed route and/or other vehicles. If not, please confirm if Valley
Regional Transit’s CAD/AVL provider offers an application programming
interface (API) that can be use by the new Integrated Fare Payment System to
acquire vehicle route assignment and status information.
Answer: VRT can provide a static GTFS data feed and the API from our CAD/AVL
provider.
3. The Price Proposal form includes a row to list the “On-going revenue share for
mobile ticketing costs”. The requirements of the RFP include support for smart
cards and/or other, non-mobile forms of fare media such as employee and
student ID cards. Is this row intended to be used to record prices exclusively for
the mobile ticketing solution? If not, please revise the form to include all fare
mediums.
Answer: The cost proposal should include any costs incurred for the fare media
types your solution provides.
4. The Price Proposal Form includes a row for “On-going revenue share for mobile
ticketing costs”. This implies that bidder fees are expected to be calculated as a
percentage of revenue and expressed as a dollar value. Although we can
propose our pricing in this manner, we typically offer a pricing model that we
believe will be more attractive to Valley Regional Transit. Please confirm that
bidders may offer alternative fee structures, provided that those structures are
clearly described in the proposal.
Answer: Yes, bidders may offer alternative fee structures as long as they are
clearly described in the proposal.
5. The Price Proposal Form includes a row for “On-going revenue share for mobile
ticketing costs”, however, these fees must be expressed as a dollar value only. If
fees are to be based on a percentage of fare revenue collected, some bidders
may use a low, unspecified amount of revenue to calculate their fees, thus
providing a price that can’t be fairly compared to other proposals. If bidders are
required to use a percentage of revenue as their cost basis, we recommend that
the Price Proposal Form be amended to require that each bidder records the
percentage of revenue proposed and the total dollar value of revenue
expected to be processed through its system during the contract term.
Answer: Bidders may provide a revenue share model that is based on a
percentage and not a dollar amount. VRT recognized that each bidder may
have a different solution that has a different price structure. All bidders need to
make sure that all costs, both capital and operating, are included in their pricing.
Other pricing models are acceptable as long as they include all the costs
associated with the proposal.
6. We recently responded to a procurement that limited responses to
twenty pages and found that, in order to comply with this restriction, were forced
to omit information that would have been valuable to the agency. We request
that the page limit restriction for bidder responses be removed or increased to
thirty (30) pages.
Answer: Yes, VRT can extend the page limit to 30 pages.
7. The summary table on the first page of the RFP lists the term as “approximately
one (1) year…with an option to renew…for two (2) additional one-year periods
of time” a total of three years. Section 3. Submittal Requirements, subsection E.
Price Proposal requires pricing for a “one-year period”. Article 2- Duration of the
Professional Services Agreement lists a duration of two years with options for
three, one year renewals (a total of 5 years). Please confirm the base term and
the number of option years for the agreement and the requirements for pricing
both the base term and option years (if any) in the Price Proposal form.
Answer: Contractor shall provide services for an initial term of approximately one
(1) year commencing on September 1, 2020 and expiring on August 31, 2021
with an option to renew for two (2) additional one-year periods of time.
8. Please provide all required forms in an editable (Microsoft Word) format.
Answer: See attached document titled Required Forms for Addendum #2
9. Can VRT extend the submittal page limit from 15 to 25-30 single sided pages?
Answer: Please see question number 6.
10. What needs to be included in the pricing model?
Answer: All prices need to include all costs for capital and operations. Other
pricing models are acceptable as long as they include all costs.
11. Should payment processing be included in pricing?
Answer: Yes, VRT needs to see all costs.
12. For electronic validation, does rear door boarding need to be included?
Answer: Yes, pricing on both the front and rear door should be included. Please
break these out into two separate line items. VRT originally scoped only front
door boarding’s. However, in light of recent circumstances VRT would like to
consider adding rear door options to all of our buses.
13. For parking garage validation, will VRT be providing any documentation on the
hardware that is installed in the garages that this system will need to integrate
with?
Answer: Please see question 28 and question 29.
14. Due to COVID19 our bid team members are working remotely and trying to put a
competitive proposal. We humbly request you to extend the due date by
2weeks.
Answer: Please see question number 1.
15. The RFP reference text states - The ticket validation solution will provide a means
to modify validation rules without the need for an app update of the ticket
inspection app on inspection devices. Are there existing inspection devices in
service with VRT? If yes, kindly share the details of devices.
Answer: No. The statement would apply to all devices used in the proposed
solution.
16. The RFP reference text states - The system will be easily scalable to support
growth and system integration based on customer adoption of the system. Kindly
share the expected details.
Answer: Many on the public transportation providers included on this project are
continuing to grow as the Treasure Valley grows. VRT wants a solution that will
grow with us. As VRT procures additional vehicles or adds additional services, VRT
wants to have the flexibility to grow within the solution. VRT also wants the ability
to add more options into the integrated fare payment over time. Bikeshare
would be the next service VRT would like to see added. Additionally, over time
VRT would like to see other private modes potentially added.
17. Kindly advise whether VRT would opt for Cloud based installation or On-Premise
based Solution?
Answer: VRT is open to different solutions and would consider a proposal with
either solution.
18. Would VRT opt for SAAS (transaction based model)?
Answer: Yes.
19. Kindly share CAPEX & OPEX of your budget?
Answer: VRT intentionally did not share the budget parameters for the RFP. VRT
would like to receive proposals based on the functionality they are looking for
and not a price point.
20. Kindly share the existing platforms, software and licenses in use?
Answer: In the buses, VRT uses android tablets with software RMmoblie
application (Route Match), which is the software that our CAD/AVL provider
utilizes. For parking see question 28 and question 29.
29. Kindly share whether any existing computing and networking hardware in VRT
facilities can be reused?
Answer: We need more information to answer this question. We are not sure
what type of hardware you would be looking to reuse and for what.
30. "Kindly share the Internet connectivity facilities at your data center (on-
premises)?
Answer: VRT has internet connectivity and Wi-Fi in all of its facilities and buses.
The vanpools do not have Wi-Fi___33 onboard.
31. Can we assume that VRT ensures that it will provide adequate band-with for
implementation?
Answer: Yes.
32. Kindly specify Training requirements?
Answer: Bidder needs to provide adequate training for VRT to run all parts of the
system they are responsible for running.
33. Will VRT consider a one-week extension for the proposal deadline due to Friday,
July 3, 2020 is a public holiday?
Answer: Please see question number 1.
34. Please provide VRT’s last five (5) years of fare revenue/parking fee collected and
ridership/number of transactions information for buses, shuttles, vanpool vans
and parking garages. In addition, can VRT also provide the monthly fare
revenue and number of transactions since May 2019 from your current pilot
mobile ticketing system?
Answer: VRT has provided information from the past year (see below) for the
modes VRT currently has data for.
Mobile Ticketing:
Valley Regional Transit
ParkBOI:
35. Can VRT provide the exact number of validators required for each vehicle or
garage, so we can provide the accurate price in the Price Proposal?
Answer:
ParkBOI Garages: 2 each
Boise State Garages: 1 each
VRT buses front door: all buses
VRT buses back door: 47
Bronco Shuttles: 1 each
Commuteride vanpools: 1 each
36. Please provide the parking garages layout, location of the validator and any
interface documents for the gated parking equipment.
Answer: Validators would be adjacent to entrance and exit devices of which
there are; The first six (6) locations device software is Scheidt & Bachmann
Entervo version V2 R5 P0 M4. The 11th & Front location is Amano Overture x-parc
V 3.5.3.7.
Capitol & Main – 1 EN, 2 EX (one of which is a booth lane in which the equipment
is installed in the booth itself. This would be difficult to accommodate a stand-
alone validator. Optional Pay on Foot device locations are (3). Recommend
that these transactions happen at EN/EX devices only.
9th & Main - 1 EN, 2 EX (one of which is a booth lane in which the equipment is
installed in the booth itself. This would be difficult to accommodate a stand-
alone validator. Optional Pay on Foot device locations are (3).
Capitol & Myrtle – 2 EN, 2 EX. Optional Pay on Foot device location is (1).
9th & Front - 1 EN, 2 EX (one of which is a booth lane in which the equipment is
installed in the booth itself. This would be difficult to accommodate a stand-
alone validator. Optional Pay on Foot device locations are (2).
10th & Front - 1 EN, 2 EX. Optional Pay on Foot device locations are (1).
11th & Front – 4 EN, 2 EX. Optional Pay on Foot device locations are (2).
37. Please provide the manufacturer(s) of all the parking equipment that our
validators have to interface with.
Answer: Scheidt & Bachmann Entervo V2 R5 P0 M4, Amano Overture x-parc V
3.5.3.7.
38. How do the current VRT customers pay their parking fee, for example, pay at
entrances/exits, etc.? Are there any personnel on duty to take payment or verify
vouchers or permits onsite?
Answer: Guest pulls a ticket at entry and inserts same ticket at exit. Once fee is
displayed they insert validation ticket provided by City Go. This should be done
at exit and the Pay on Foot devices should be bypassed.
39. How does VRT validate these parking vouchers or permits at these parking
garages?
Answer: They are pre-paid validations and are redeemed at exit. They are good
for one-time use. VRT could set up a separate article in the system to track usage
but I do not see the value with that. This would require a re-issue of all validations
and a separate cost of adding to the S&B cashier module. They are controlled
by City Go.
40. The fare table only shows the parking fee for the ParkBOI parking garages. How
about the parking fee for the 2 Boise State parking garages?
Answer: Boise State parking varies depending on the use, time, and who is using
it. VRT still needs to determine what fares for this system it wants to integrate.
41. How do the VRT bus operators confirm if rear-door boarding customers have
paid their fares or will VRT rely on the mobile inspection staff?
Answer: There will not be mobile inspection staff. VRT will have to decide how to
handle this if VRT chooses to move forward with rear-door boarding.
42. Please clarify smart cards solution implementation is out of scope in this
procurement.
Answer: VRT would like to see at least two fare collection types in a proposal –
mobile ticketing and smart cards or paper passes.
43. Does VRT prefer proposers to provide portable handheld validators for the 20
ACHD CommuteRide vanpool vans?
Answer: VRT would prefer a solution that does not require installing equipment in
the vans.
44. Our assumption is VRT prefers to install on-board validators for the 8 Boise State
Bronco Shuttles. Can VRT confirm this statement?
Answer: VRT would prefer a similar solution to the vanpools. If it is possible to
provide validation without installing equipment in the shuttle, that would be
preferred. VRT is open to other solutions.
45. The ability to integrate VRT’s electric bike share program operated though Drop
Mobility is for the future only. Can VRT please confirm?
Answer: Yes. This would not be part of the original scope. The Drop Mobility
bikeshare system will launch in March of 2021. VRT would like to start the process
of integrating bikeshare in 2021.
46. Do proposers require to provide portable fare inspection devices for VRT’s mobile
inspection staff? There is no line item and quantity identified in the price
proposal for the portable fare inspection devices. Should VRT add that to the
price proposal?
Answer: VRT does not plan to have mobile inspection staff in the buses. The only
modes that would need handheld devices or a solution on a phone would be
Commuteride vans and potentially Bronco Shuttles. The handheld devices would
be run by the driver.
47. Page 6 Value Added
System will have the capability to run promotions through the system.
Integrated fare payment system is available in multiple languages.
System allows for both ticket purchases, as well as stored value.
Include marketing support for integrated fare payment system.
System includes a telematics program to track vehicle data.
Question: Please confirm these are not requirements in this procurement and
proposers don’t have to provide pricing for any of these items.
Answer: These are not requirements and proposers do not need to provide
answers to them unless they can provide them with their solution.
48. RFP p. 2 For the purpose of this procurement, VRT is seeking a solution to
integrate Valley Regional Transit’s fixed-route buses, Boise State Bronco Shuttle,
ParkBOI parking garages, and CommuteRide vanpools into one account-based
ticketing system with electronic validation. VRT plans to expand on the system
and integrate more modes and services in the future.
According to the website, the garages are operated by CCDC and there is a
fare collection system in place.
What are the requirements on integrating the ParkBOI garages into the new
system?
Answer: Please See Question 29.
Is the purpose of the new system to integrate with it? If so, please provide more
information.
Answer: Yes, the validators/application would have to interface to the extent
that is allows the gates to open and close. Currently, VRT works with ParkBOI to
provide discounted parking vouchers through City Go for sustainable
commuters. Those that commute by bus, bike, carpool, etc. can purchase four
daily parking vouchers per month. Currently, the vouchers used are paper
vouchers. City Go also administers the ParkBOI carpool program that we would
like to transition over to the integrated application. We would also like to explore
having daily parking a part of the application as well, but knowing that their
current system will still stay in place as well.
Is the new system to provide a new separate solution?
Answer: The solution will need to work with the current parking payment system.
What are the requirements related to the garage validation equipment (also
partially related to question below)?
Answer: The validation equipment needs to work with the current parking system
and be able to be in open air parking garages.
49. RFP p. 5 Ticket Electronic Validation Minimum Requirements
The ticket validation system will be usable across multiple modes including bus
transit, vanpool, university shuttle, and parking
AND
RFP p. 4 Minimum System Requirements
Provide a validation system for vanpools that does not need equipment to be
physically installed in the vans.
Can you confirm that you don’t require the same electronic validation
equipment across the system?
Answer: Yes. Ideally the validators in the buses and garages will be physically
installed and useable without an attendant. For the vans, the preferred solution
will not have to be permanently installed into the vans. However, all validation
equipment needs to work within the same system and app.
50. RFP p. 5 Ticket Electronic Validation Minimum Requirements
A ticket validation solution will be provided for mobile inspection staff to scan
tickets to establish their validity.
Does the ticket validation solution across the system have to be a performed by
staff (operators of devices), or is unattended solution (fixed validators) also
acceptable?
Answer: An unattended solution is preferable for the fixed-route bus system and
parking.
51. RFP p .4 Project Goals
Provide electronic validation across modes for mobile ticketing and smart cards;
Is smart cards validation part of the base implementation or future
development?
Answer: VRT would like to see at least one other type of fare usable in the
system, either smart card or paper passes.
Can we assume that the smartcards (media) and smartcards management and
distribution system is not in scope of the proposal?
Answer: Yes.
Or, does the current system include smart cards and is it required that the new
system integrates with the existing system only for electronic validation?
https://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/fares-and-passes/
Answer: VRT does currently use smart cards for our annual passes. VRT is not
opposed to using a different type of smart card or pass that works with the
proposed solution. It does not need to integrate with the current smart cards VRT
uses.
52. RFP p. 4 Minimum System Requirements
Does a validation system for vanpools (that does not need equipment to be
physically installed in the vans) mean that hand held devices could be used for
validation, using a Mobile Android based application?
Answer: Yes. VRT prefers a handheld solution. It could be a device or software
that is added to the driver’s phone. We are open to different types of solutions to
meet this need.
53. In Section 9 “Price proposals” you mention “Front door buses” and “Back door
buses”.
How many “Front door buses” do you have?
Answer: All buses have front doors.
How many “Back door buses” do you have?
Answer: 47
What installation differences do you expect for “Front door buses” and “Back
door buses”:
• For “Front door buses” a validator installed at the front door?
Answer: All
• For “Back door buses” a validator installed at the back door?
Answer: No, buses will be only back door.
• For “Back door buses” two (2) validators installed - one at the back door
and one at the front door?
Answer: Potentially all with back door.
54. RFP p. 5 Ticket Electronic Validation Minimum Requirements
Do you have or plan to have Fare Inspectors?
Answer: No, not in the VRT buses
55. RFP p. 5 Ticket Electronic Validation Minimum Requirements
What is the preferred system of validation:
• Electronic validation using on-board devices (installed at the front and/or
back door)?
• Electronic validation performed by a Driver or Fare Inspector using a
handheld device?
• Visual validation by a Driver or Fare Inspector?
Answer: Electronic validation and a combination of both. On the VRT
buses and parking garages on board devices are preferred. On the
vanpools and shuttles handheld devices are preferred.
56. RFP p. 5 Ticket Electronic Validation Minimum Requirements and RFP p. 2.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE
Does this mean “Pay-As-You-Go” fares with payment from a stored value
“wallet”?
Answer: Yes. The stored value is used to pay as you go and can be used for
singe ride and daily passes.
Which fares can be paid using Stored Value cards ($27 & $13.5)? Only the
following fares or which other fares?
• Valley Regional Transit Single Ride local $1.50
• Valley Regional Transit Single Ride Universal $4.50
Answer: Singe rides and daily passes
Can Reduced and Discounted fares such as those below be paid using a Stored
Value card ($27 & $13.50)?
• Valley Regional Transit Single Ride Youth/Senior/Disabled local $0.75
• Valley Regional Transit Single Ride Youth/Senior/Disabled universal $2.25
Answer: Yes
Can City Go fares (discounted of certain above fares for our transportation
management association members) be paid using Stored Value cards ($27 &
$13.50)? Which fares are discounted for City Go holders?
Answer: No. Fares for City Go cannot be paid for using stored value. Most of the
current fares for City Go are monthly or annual. We may add to this once we
can transition those payments to app based. These City Go products can be
found here: https://www.citygoboise.com/shop
57. Would an integration of mobile ticketing purchase, storage, and validation into
an existing mobility-as-a-service smartphone app that provides multimodal trip-
planning be a desirable outcome for Rapittransit (in other words, offering a single
customer-facing platform for both trip-planning, agency-customer
communications, and fare payment)?
Answer: Yes.
58. How does the Agency propose to distinguish local vs. universal tickets and rides?
Answer: Ideally something in the system would be able to distinguish this. For our
currently mobile ticketing system with visual validation it is easy for the drivers to
see if it is Universal or Local.
59. Page 4: RFP calls for “Electronic validation system that can utilize both mobile
ticketing and smart cards and or other printed materials”. Is the intent of the RFP
that the proposer includes fare validation equipment themselves, or presents a
capability to integrate to electronic validation equipment?
Answer: For the intent of this RFP, VRT would like to see a fully integrated system
and all of the equipment needed, i.e. validation equipment.
60. Page 4: RFP calls for” Ability to integrate in the future (with the proper agreements)
private sector modes including micro-mobility vendors and Transportation
Network Company’s (TNCs). In addition, the ability to integrate VRT’s electric bike
share program operated though Drop Mobility.” Can the Agency provide more
detail on the integration desired with the electric bike share program operated
through Drop Mobility? Please will the agency provide a contact at Drop Mobility
to approach regarding obtaining necessary documentation for such integration
as is required?
Answer: VRT is not sure what this integration needs to look like. However, for
functionality, VRT would like the customers to be able to pay for their bikeshare
through the integrated app. This may be as simple as deep linking the drop
mobility app.
Qiming Weng - [email protected]
Dipesh Dar – [email protected]
61. Page 5 of RFP calls for vendor to: “Provide adequate customer service and
support including but not limited to, refunds and ticket reissuance”. Is it the
Agency’s desire for vendor to provide capability to the Agency to undertake
these activities, or for the vendor to undertake these activities on behalf of the
Agency directly?
Answer: Either is acceptable.