The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07. 15-440OCTOBER 13, 2015 15-440 RESOLUTION (CARRIED___6-0___LOST________LAID OVER________WITHDRAWN________) PURPOSE: APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR PARATRANSIT SERVICES FOR NON-AMBULATORY PERSONS FOR TRANSIT TO RUNNING, INC. INITIATED BY: PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Purchasing and Transportation staff sent out a request for proposal to solicit paratransit services for non-ambulatory riders within City of Oshkosh; and WHEREAS, an evaluation team reviewed the proposals based on background, experience and references, vehicles and maintenance, employees and training, service delivery, data collection and technology, and WHEREAS, the evaluation team concluded that the following service provides the best benefits for GO Transit riders: RUNNING, INC. 318 W. Decker Street Viroqua, WI 54655 2016 estimated city cost $78,336 2017 estimated city cost $81,143 2018 estimated city cost $83,992 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officials are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an appropriate agreement in accordance with the Request for Proposals and Proposal received from Running, Inc. for the purpose of same. Money for this purpose is hereby appropriated from: Acct. No. 511-1728-6449-00000 Transit Utility – Purchased Transportation �� CITY HALL 215 Church Avenue P.O. Box 1130 Oshkos 5 903-�1130 City of Oshkosh � � O.IHKOlH TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Jon G. Urben, General Services Manager DATE: October 5, 2015 RE: Award Contract for Paratransit Services- Transit BACKGROUND As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), GO Transit offers paratransit service to individuals with disabilities that are unable to access bus routes. GO Transit's current paratransit service is provided through contract with Cabulance, Inc for non-ambulatory riders and Oshkosh City Cab for ambulatory riders. GO Transit's paratransit system consists of 5 main programs. This procurement only included one paratransit program that provides service to non- ambulatory riders within the city of Oshkosh. The remaining paratransit services will be procured in a separate process next summer. The current contract for this service expires on December 31, 2015. In preparation for this procurement, Transportation and Purchasing staff began formulating a request for proposal (RFP) to solicit contractors to provide paratransit service for non-ambulatory riders within the City of Oshkosh. As part of this process staff reviewed recent similar RFP documents used by the cities of La Crosse, Madison, Eau Claire, Green Bay and Appleton. Additionally, staff took into consideration comments received from local riders, a local advocacy group and other facilities that utilize this service. These stakeholders desired a contractor that would provide: newer vehicles; more formal identification of drivers; more employee training; reduced driver turnover; and good customer service and communication. All of these issues were incorporated into the RFP document for consideration and review during the evaluation process. The RFP listed the length of the contract to be for three years commencing on January 1, 2016 with options to extend for two, one-year periods. The RFP was advertised in the local paper. It was also posted online with the State of Wisconsin's VendorNet system. Proposals were received on September 1 l, 2015. Two proposals were received from the following firms: Cabulance Inc. and Running Inc. Both proposals met the minimum requirements necessary to move forward in the review process. ANALYSIS An evaluation team was assembled to review the proposals. The team was comprised of representatives from GO Transit, Valley Transit, Winnebago County and East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. All members had experience in the area of transportation for individuals with disabilities. Each vendor's proposal was evaluated based on background; experience and references; vehicles and maintenance; employees and training; service delivery; data collection and technology; proposal organization and cost. Below are some of the key proposal differences by criteria that were highlighted by the evaluation team. Vehicles & Maintenance: Both vendors proposed utilizing ten accessible vehicles. Running Inc proposed ten model year 2013 minivans. Cabulance proposed a combination of ten minivans and vans with model years ranging from 2000 — ZO10. Cabulance indicated that some vehicles would be replaced at the start of the contract to reduce their average fleet age to seven years, but did not include any more specifics. For accessibility, Running proposed ramps that could carry weights of up to 800 pounds for all vehicles. Running's proposal listed ramp widths of 34" for all vehicles. Cabulance's vehicles could carry weights of up to 600 pounds with 32" ramp/lift widths. Both proposers met the ADA standard (600 pounds & 30" wide). However, the evaluation team noted that there is a growing demand for higher weight capacities and the ability to carry wider mobility devices. Overall, Running proposed a newer fleet with higher weight and width capacities. Employees & TraininQ: Running's responses concerning driver training program were very detailed. There was a listing of all required training sessions and Running also included a performance improvement plan that identifies goals and expectations for employees. Running also stated that al( employees receive an annuat evaluation to ensure proper feedback is provided. Cabulance's response to driver training was brief and listed rnost of the required training sessions. The evaluation team noted that Cabulance's list of training did not include passenger sensitivity for new hires, which is a required component. The RFP asked each proposer how they would ensure that all personnel are knowledgeable of and enforcing GO Transit polices. Running stated that their general manager and local supervisor would hold quarterly meetings with employees. Running stated that their local supervisor would monitor employees and operations to heip ensure staff understand responsibilities. If policies change, Running indicated that they would issue a memo to all employees and the local supervisor would meet individually with staf£ Cabulance's response was very brief, lacked detail and did not identify who in the organization would ensure employees remain knowledgeable of policies. Service Deliverv: Both vendors proposed using two dispatchers during peak service periods. However, Rumiing proposed having two dispatchers available for an AM and PM peak, which was two hours longer than Cabulance. Running proposed two dispatchers during peak service M- F from 7 am — 9 am and again from 2 pm — 6 pm. Cabulance proposed two dispatchers during peak service M-F from 1 pm — 5 pm. The RFP asked each proposer to describe procedures to handle challenging behaviors that could be exhibited by some riders. Cabulance response was brief and stated that the driver would fill out an incident report and call OPD, if required. Running noted that each situation is unique and some disabilities require different approaches from drivers. They stated that their objective was safety and communication of issues with GO Transit. Running stated that their drivers would use their passenger sensitivity training to work through these situations. The evaluation team appreciated the thought in Running's response and understanding of the customer. Data Collection & Technolo icg al Capabilities: Both vendors proposed scheduling and dispatching software that communicates with tablets mounted in the vehicles. Both vendors noted that they have plans to install cameras in their vehicles in 2016. Running's proposed a future install of swipe card readers in the vehicles, but was not specific on when this would occur. Cabulance's proposal included a discussion on redundancy of the data system to ensure seamless transition if there was a power outage or loss of internet connection. Proposal Or�anization: The evaluation team felt that Running's proposal was very professional, detailed, easy to follow and comprehensive. The team felt that Cabulance's proposal lacked detail in most key areas. Several of Cabulance's responses were comprised of very brief responses that required further explanation. Cost: The cost proposal was evaluated using each vendar's per trip rate and any future escalator costs. For 2016 (contract year-one), Running's cost was $21.95 per trip and Cabulance's cost per trip was $20.50 per trip. Running Inc's cost proposal was 7% higher for 2016. For years 2-3 of the contract, Running's cost included an annual adjustment equal to the percent change in Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for "All Items" as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cabulance's cost proposal included a one-time per trip increase to $21.00 per trip for contract years 2-3. Using an estimated CPI increase, the table below shows a per trip rate comparison between the two proposals. Contract Year Runnin ( er tri rate) Cabulance ( er tri rate) 2016 $21.95 $20.50 2017 $22.28* $21.00 2018 $22.61 * $21.00 '" 1.J% C;Yt increase (5-year avg.) After reviewing the RFP's stated criteria against both proposals it was the unanimous consensus of the evaluation team that the proposal from Running, Inc. provided the best service for GO Transit riders. The evaluation team also concluded that the benefits of Running's proposal outweighed their added cost. FISCAL IMPACT The Transit Utility budgeted $525,000 for this service in the purchased transportation account (511-1728-6449-00000) of their 2016 operating budget. The estimate cost for this service in calendar year 201b would be $519,754. Federal and state grant funding would cover about 54 percent of the service cost ($280,677), Winnebago County covers about ZO percent (108,775), passenger fares cover about 10 percent ($51,975) and the remaining 16 percent ($78,336) would be covered by City funds. The estimated cost of this service in 2017 is $527,550 ($81,143 city) and $535,464 ($83,992 city) in 2018. RECOMMENDATION Purchasing reviewed the proposals and supports the evaluation team's recommendation that the Common Council award this contract to Running, Inc., 318 W. Decker Street, Viroqua, WI 54665. Respectfully Submitted, �� Jon G. Urben, General Services Manager Approved: �.,� ��-� Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager