December Request for Proposal COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OPERATION AND

Document Sample
December Request for Proposal COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OPERATION AND Powered By Docstoc
					December 22, 2008


                           Request for Proposal
                               09-41-53-00
                    COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
            OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT SERVICES


The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) received the following
questions in response to Request for Proposal 09-41-53-00, Commuter Assistance
Program Operation and Implementation Project Services.

The questions and RCTC’s responses are provided for your information. All potential
consultants are reminded that in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the RFP entitled
Request for Clarification the period to submit questions, requests for equals or
clarifications closed on December 19, 2008.

Q.1.    How many commuters are currently registered in the ridematching
       database?
A.1.   The regional ridematching database that RCTC administers on behalf of Los
       Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura County contains over
       450,000 Commuters on file.

Q.2.   How many new people were enrolled in the database on 2008, 2007, 2006,
       2005 and 2004?
A.2.   (A) Regionwide (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Counties)
       FY 2007/2008 – 345,332 records were added / 476,227 Total Commuters on File
       FY 2006/2007 – 662,154 records were added / 438,342 Total Commuters on File
       FY 2005/2006 – 680,558 records were added / 438,955 Total Commuters on File
       FY 2004/2005 – 553,559 records were added / 514,102 Total Commuters on File

       (B) Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
       FY 2007/2008 – 16,814 commuters
       FY 2006/2007 – 17,602 commuters
       FY 2005/2006 – 12,384 commuters
       FY 2004/2005 – 6,411 commuters


Q.3.   What are the target figures for new enrollments for 2009, 2010, 2011, and
       2012?
A.3.   Per the RFP (Program Goals and Objectives section): Over the course of the
       contract period, an annual growth factor of 2% will be applied to the program
       goals and deliverables.
Q.4.   What percent of people in the database are actively taking an alternative
       commute and how is this verified?
A.4.   Refer to Question and Answer #2(B). Verification occurs with the employers
       Employer Transportation Coordinator and with the rideshare contractor.

Q.5.   What was the reduced VMT produced by commuters who were registered
       in the ridesharing database in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004?
A.5.   The reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled produced by Inland Empire commuters that
       participated in the $2/day incentive and/or RidesharePlus programs are:

       FY 2007/2008 – 99,887,710 reduced VMT or miles saved
       FY 2006/2007 – 94,072,597 reduced VMT or miles saved
       FY 2005/2006 – 68,594,67 reduced VMT or miles saved (This was the first year
       total VMT was calculated.)

Q.6.   Which contractors are currently providing the services specified in the
       RFP?
A.6.   Inland Transportation Services located in Riverside, California

Q.7.   The RFP is written such that a contractor will be paid for performing
       specific tasks that RCTC believes will result in reductions in driving and
       emissions. This is akin to paying the farmer for planting seeds rather than
       buying corn that the farmer has actually grown. Furthermore, the RFP
       states that "The goal of the CAP is twofold, first to mitigate traffic
       congestion and secondly to reduce auto emissions". If these are indeed
       the goals then would RCTC give serious consideration to an arrangement
       whereby the contractor was paid based on actual reductions in driving (e.g.
       $/reduced VMT)? In this arrangement there would be no billable hours, no
       overhead, no direct or indirect costs and no cost overruns. RCTC would
       simply buy reduced miles of driving from the contractor with an agreed
       upon price, budget and timeline at no risk and RCTC could audit the
       results.
A.7.   There is a conflict between Paragraph 7 entitled: Type of Contract to be Awarded
       in the Instructions to Consultant and the Draft Contract in the Request for
       Proposal. An Addendum will be issued to correct this conflict. It is the intention
       of the Commission to award a Cost plus Fixed Fee contract.

       As stated in Paragraph 5 entitled: Requests for Clarification, “RCTC will not
       entertain alternative proposals”.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:8
posted:4/17/2009
language:English
pages:2