COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. Introduction
The City of Lawrence, Kansas, a city of the first class under the laws of the State of Kansas (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in cooperation with the University of Kansas, an educational institution, public body, and independent agency of the State of Kansas (hereinafter referred to as the “University”), are seeking the services of a qualified transit planning, research and design firm (or team of firms) to prepare a “Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan”.
It is the desire of the City and University to explore the feasibility of implementing a coordinated and/or consolidated system for delivering public transportation services to members of the University and Lawrence community by coordinating and/or consolidating existing Lawrence public transit services and University transit services for the best interests of the City and University.
The purpose of the Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan completed by the selected firm(s) will be to perform a comprehensive analysis of the operations of each of the following with regard to a potential coordinated and/or consolidated transit system: (a) the city’s current public transportation system, called “T”, and (b) the University’s current transportation system, operated through “KU on Wheels”:
· provide feasible and potential operational models and alternatives;
· identify the efficiencies;
· identify service and/or performance standards that guide the design of the system;
· identify operational models and alternatives for possible fare structures and staffing levels;
· provide alternatives and a recommendation for governance of the system based on the perceived willingness of the parties to cooperate; and
· quantify the benefits and costs of coordination and/or consolidation for both the City and the University including an estimate of ridership for a five year period, sources and uses of funds for the initial undertaking (cash flow analysis) and for a five year operating and capital (vehicles, parts, facilities and preventative maintenance) budget and include recommendations for financial participation by the City and University based on the perceived willingness and capacity of the parties to cooperate.
This Request for Proposal (RFP) describes the study location, study background, organizational profiles and provides proposal information that includes scope of work, performance period, general information, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria.
II. Study Location and Background
· Study Location
The City of Lawrence, Kansas, is located in the Northeastern region of the state, approximately 40 miles west of Kansas City and 25 miles east of the City of Topeka (State Capital). Lawrence, with an estimated population of 81,000 covering 29.6 miles, is the county seat for Douglas County. The total estimated population for Douglas County is 102,000. The City is the home of University of Kansas (KU) and Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU). These universities have student populations of approximately 28,000 and 1,000 respectively and are the hubs for academic, cultural and recreational activities for the community. KU is geographically located in the center of the City of Lawrence. The area’s economic base embraces a diverse range of public sector and private entities including higher education, finance, medical and social services, publishing, distribution, and manufacturing (including paper, chemicals, asphalt, pet-food, and motor parts). The area’s labor force is nearing 61,000 workers with unemployment hovering around 3.9 percent which is lower than other metropolitan areas in the state and well below the national average of 5.1 percent. The City’s cost of living index for second quarter of 2005 was 97.6, which is lower than the national average set at 100, but higher than all other participating comparative cities in the area.
· Study Background
In May of 2005 under direction from the University of Kansas Provost, a Transit Task Force was appointed to include representation from students, faculty, staff, and KU on Wheels. The City of Lawrence was also invited and encouraged to participate in the Task Force.
The Task Force was given the charge to conduct a transportation study to review legal issues, options for providing services, proposed routes, estimated costs, and methods for recovering costs. The review included consideration of the various possibilities for the coordination of transit efforts between the University, KU on Wheels (KUOW) and the City of Lawrence Transit System “T”.
The Task Force met on a weekly basis throughout the summer, meeting with representatives of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), the Lawrence/Douglas Country Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City, and five university transit systems to gather information and evaluate the possible options. The Task Force went through an intensive process to identify core values and a vision for the expanded transit system at the University.
At the end of the summer the Task Force submitted a final report to the University Parking Commission and the Provost for review. After reviewing the recommendations contained in the Task Force Report and input received from University Administrators, the Provost approved various recommendations, including further consideration of the possibility of a coordinated or consolidated transportation system with the City of Lawrence. A Transportation Implementation Task Force was appointed by the Provost to further the recommendations.
In October 2005 at a City Commission Meeting, the City of Lawrence Public Transit Administrator (PTA) presented the University’s Task Force Report to the Mayor and City Commission informing them of the recommendations of the report and the directive made by the University Provost towards implementation. Upon receiving the information, the Mayor and City Commissioners informed the PTA that they were open to idea of coordination but before they would decide on how to proceed they wanted more information on the specifics of the coordinated system and how that would impact the residents of Lawrence. The Mayor and City Commission then directed the PTA to continue to work with the University, to continue to gather information seeking expertise if needed, and report back to them when more details were worked out.
Since October, the City of Lawrence has been meeting routinely with the University, participating in the Transportation Implementation Task Force, as well as gathering information from peers that operate transit systems in University communities. Upon mutual agreement the City of Lawrence and University have agreed to work together in having a “Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan” completed.
Additional information on the Lawrence Transit System can be found at www.lawrencetransit.org
Additional information on “KU on Wheels” can be found at www.ku.edu/-kuwheels
Additional information on the City of Lawrence can be found at www.lawrenceks.org
Additional information on the University of Kansas can be found at www.ku.edu
III. Transit System Organizational Profiles
· Lawrence Transit System
On December 16, 2000, the City of Lawrence began providing public transportation services to its residents by providing access to various medical, employment, retail, public, social service, job training, recreation, and educational facilities and residential areas throughout the city.
The Lawrence Transit System is owned by the City and is administered as a City Department. Management of the transit system is handled by an administrative staff of three people, with the Public Transit Administrator (PTA) reporting directly to the City Manager. The PTA is accountable to Lawrence’s Mayor and City Council who provide policy guidance and funding support. The City owns its buses and contracts with MV Transportation, Inc. to operate the system and maintain the fleet. The City does not own a maintenance facility but is currently working towards completing a bus maintenance feasibility study to design and construct a facility.
A nine member appointed Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC) comprised of Lawrence citizens serving in an advisory capacity, also provide general oversight of the system including forwarding recommendations to elected officials on operating and service policies, procedures and standards such as fare rates, route configuration, service levels, and transit amenities.
LTS currently provides approximately 1,400 passenger trips per day on eight (8) fixed-routes and 200 complementary paratransit trips per day throughout Lawrence utilizing a bus fleet of twenty-six (26) (12 fixed-route/14 paratransit) ADA-accessible, radio equipped vehicles. The fixed-route fleet, acquired new in 2001, are 35 foot medium duty buses with a service life of 10 years or 350,000 miles. The fixed-route fleet currently has an average mileage of 200,000. The age of paratransit fleet is mixed with five (5) 2004 vehicles, four (4) 2002 vehicles, four (4) 2000 vehicles and one (1) 1999 vehicle. Ten (10) fixed-route vehicles and ten (10) paratransit vehicles operate daily. LTS maintains two (2) spare fixed-route vehicles and four (4) spare paratransit vehicles.
LTS operates weekdays, Saturdays and some holidays from 6:00AM to 8:00 PM. No Sunday service is provided. Six fixed-routes operate on a 40 minute schedule with two others operating on an 80 minute schedule. There is no “peak” and “off-peak” service.
Approximately 85% of Lawrence residents and employees are located within walking distance of “T” fixed bus routes that are clearly designated with bus stop signs and transit shelters. There are six bus-route transfer locations throughout the city that link routes together. The main transfer area is located downtown. In addition to fixed-route service, complementary door to door, demand-response “T-Lift” paratransit service is provided anywhere in the City. There are currently 1,260 persons registered as T-Lift ADA-eligible riders.
Regular fares for fixed-route service is $.50 cents with $.25 cents reduced fare discounts to seniors over age 60; persons with disabilities and students. Monthly passes are available for $17.00 full-fare and $8.50 for reduced-fare. The fare for “T-Lift” paratransit service is $1.00. A monthly pass is available for $34.00. In order to use “T-Lift”, a person must first become certified based on an ADA-eligible disability.
In 2001 the transit system’s first year of operation, LTS provided a total of 200,145 trips and 60,247 revenue hours of service. Over the last five years ridership has steadily increased experiencing double-digit growth every year it has operated. For two consecutive years (2002-2003 and 2003-2004), LTS has been formally recognized by the Federal Transit Administration receiving “Awards of Excellence and Achievement” for the “Highest Percentage Increase in Ridership in the Kansas Urban Transit Program”.
In 2005, LTS provided a total of 439,131 trips and 64,700 revenue hours of service having an operating cost of $2.61 million. In addition, growth of the system has continued with ridership increasing 16.3% from the prior year mainly due to public outreach efforts aimed at educating the public about the benefits of public transportation and how to use it, as well as, providing rides of choice with an affordable transportation option due to the rising cost of fuel. LTS operates through a variety of Federal and State funding sources including a local property tax mill levy.
In July 2005, LTS underwent an FTA Triennial Review and was found to be in full compliance with all applicable federal regulations. On December 16, 2005, LTS celebrated its 5th anniversary.
· University Transit System
The University transit system has been operated through ”KU on Wheels” (KUOW) since the early 1970’s. The mission of KUOW is to transport students to and from class. KUOW operates through a Transportation Board, consisting of seven student members in addition to a University appointed Student Advisor and is one of the few student governed and operated systems in the country.
KUOW does not own any buses or bus maintenance facilities. Service is provided through a contract with a local private transportation provider, Lawrence Bus Company, Inc. to provide and maintain vehicles and to operate service. The KUOW transit system includes twenty three (23) GMC RTS buses operating on 11 routes that travel both on and off-campus, with an annual operating budget of approximately $1.4 million. The average age of the bus fleet is 21 years, with the oldest manufactured in 1979 and the newest manufactured in 1993. Mileage ranges from thirty-five thousand to five hundred thousand miles. Eight (8) of these are forty-foot in length, and fifteen (15) are thirty-five feet in length. None of the buses are lift equipped. Annual ridership between 1999 and 2005 has fluctuated between 2 million and 1.55 million. KUOW operates approximately a total of 35,870 revenue hours per year. Daily boarding’s currently total approximately 7,700. The vast majority of trips are completed on-campus with only 14.5% of total trips completed off-campus.
Additionally, the Transportation Board funds a complementary demand-response paratransit service for students with disabilities to get to class and a SafeRide taxi service program to take students home from any location in the City between the hours of 10:30PM and 2:30AM.
Funding for the system comes from an $18.00 per semester student transportation fee assessed to all students and the required purchase of a ($70 per semester or $130 per year) bus pass to use the system. The cash fare to ride the bus is $1. Bus passes are sold only to students, faculty and staff with current KU identification cards. Routes, schedules and fare structure are determined by the Transportation Board and transportation fees are ultimately approved through the Student Senate process, the KU administration, and the Board of Regents.
· Current Coordination Efforts
Current coordination efforts between the City and the University include recent agreement to begin advertising each other’s transportation services on their transit vehicles for customer convenience by making bus route maps and schedule information available. Furthermore, the City has provided reduced-fare discounts to KU students. Specifically, KU students purchasing a KUOW bus pass may purchase a T-sticker and have unlimited access to the City fixed-route transit system for $25.00 annually or $15.00 per semester. In addition, KU students with disabilities who purchase a KUOW bus pass may purchase a T-Lift sticker to have unlimited access to both the City fixed-route and T-Lift paratransit systems for $204.00 annually or $152.00 per semester. KU students with disabilities receive a 50% cost savings over what is available to the general public. 274 “T”stickers and 1 “T-Lift” sticker was purchased by KU students in the Fall 2005 semester.
IV. Project Scope of Work
The purpose of the Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan completed by the selected firm(s) will be to perform a comprehensive analysis of the operations of each of the following with regard to a potential coordinated and/or consolidated transit system: (a) the city’s current public transportation system, called “T”, and (b) the University’s current transportation system, operated through “KU on Wheels”:
· provide feasible and potential operational models and alternatives;
· identify the efficiencies;
· identify service and/or performance standards that guide the design of the system;
· identify operational models and alternatives for possible fare structures and staffing levels;
· provide alternatives and a recommendation for governance of the system based on the perceived willingness of the parties to cooperate; and
· quantify the benefits and costs of coordination and/or consolidation for both the City and the University including an estimate of ridership for a five year period, sources and uses of funds for the initial undertaking (cash flow analysis) and for a five year operating and capital (vehicles, parts, facilities and preventative maintenance) budget and include recommendations for financial participation by the City and University based on the perceived willingness and capacity of the parties to cooperate.
The Coordinated Public Transportation Plan shall also include immediate and short-term action items and shall identify mid to long-range implementation strategies.
· Nature of Consultant Services
The consultant services are intended to provide the community, City and University with the following types of planning support in developing the Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan:
Ø Consult with City and University staff and students regarding the transit planning process, issues, and other matters relating to the formulation of a comprehensive operations analysis and a coordinated public transportation development plan for the City of Lawrence and the University;
Ø Analyze and utilize existing reports, studies, and data to avoid duplication of previous efforts whenever possible.
Ø Undertake any additional necessary research into and analysis of the transit issues relating to the proposed comprehensive operations analysis and coordinated public transportation development plan;
Ø Work in an interactive manner with City and KU representatives to develop strategies and recommendations;
Ø Prepare written reports summarizing and evaluating research findings;
Ø Review research findings with City and University staff;
Ø Conduct public presentations on applicable topics;
Ø Prepare graphical and textual materials illustrating study findings and underlying transit planning concepts and principles;
Ø Provide general planning support during City/University staff and public meetings and events in relation to proposed coordinated public transportation development plan; and
Ø Prepare all necessary written and graphic documents of the process including the formulation of all interim reports, the final report and presentation materials throughout the process.
· Anticipated Study Phases
The overall work program for the Coordinated Public Transportation Development Planning process is anticipated to occur within six (6) major phases. A broad description of each phase is presented below. The City and University are looking to firms submitting proposals to offer innovative and thoughtful approaches for accomplishing the goals of this study.
The phases broadly defined in the following section summarize the work tasks and level of consultant involvement desired by the City and University. Proposers will submit a detailed work program with their proposal that encompasses all aspects of the efforts described in the following sections (Phase I – VI). In addition, the consultant should identify any additional work tasks not covered that are felt to be critical to the success of this study.
· Phase I: Comprehensive Operations Analysis
The purpose of Phase I is to complete a broad based inventory and assessment of current City of Lawrence Transit System and KU on Wheels service operations. This analysis will serve as the informational foundation for analyzing operational, management, and funding alternatives and for identifying implementation strategies. The term “Comprehensive Operations Analysis” is used to describe the general intent of this phase and not a specific methodology or approach. The Consultant will be responsible for gathering the necessary data to complete this phase of the study and survey work (if deemed necessary). To the extent possible, the consultant shall analyze and utilize existing reports, studies, and data to avoid duplication of previous efforts whenever possible.
Phase I should provide insights into the data to support the analysis of the City of Lawrence and University transit systems and their strengths and weaknesses, as well as to identify future opportunities. This effort should permit an honest appraisal of the challenges facing the City of Lawrence and University of Kansas as they strive to provide effective public transportation services for the entire community into the future either through coordination of service and/or consolidation.
For the consultant to become familiar with the project, City/University staff will provide a full assemblage of background materials that is available online. (Use of this material is not necessary to apply for this contract.) These include but may not be limited to the following:
Ø City of Lawrence Transportation 2025 (Long Range Plan), October 2003. http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/tr-t2025.shtml
Ø K-10 Transportation Study, May 2005. http://www.ksdot.org/projects.asp
Ø Lawrence/Douglas County FY07-FY09 Transit Element of Transportation Improvement Program. http://www.lawrenceplanning.org/tr-trantip.shtml
Ø Lawrence Transit System (ID Number: 7033), National Transit Database Reports 2001-2004. www.ntdprogram.com
Ø FTA Transit Program Changes, Authorized Funding Levels and Implementation of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users; Notice. November 30, 2005. http://www.fta.dot.gov/legal/federal_register/2004/16290_17929_ENG_HTML.htm
Ø FTA Fiscal Year 2006 Apportionments and Allocations; Notice, December 20, 2005 http://www.fta.dot.gov/legal/federal_register/2004/16287_ENG_HTML.htm
Ø FTA Fiscal Year 2006 Apportionments and Allocations Changes and Corrections; Announcement of States Selected for Participation in Section 5310 Pilot Program; Notice, February 3, 2006. http://www.fta.dot.gov/17973_18052_ENG_HTML.htm.
Ø Lawrence Transit System FY06 Local Operating Budget. http://www.lawrenceks.org/Budget2006/adopted/ (note: FY06 Operating Budget online only lists local funding. Federal and State funding grant sources are not included or available online.
Ø Lawrence Transit System “Guide to Ride”, August 2004. http://www.lawrencetransit.org/guide/
Ø Lawrence Transit System “How to Ride the T-Lift”, September 10, 2004. http://www.lawrencetransit.org/access/howtoride.shtml
Ø The University of Kansas “Transit Task Force Report to the Parking Commission and Provost”, September 1, 2005 http://www.dcm.ku.edu/files/TaskForceReport.pdf
Ø The University of Kansas “Ten-Year Parking Strategy Final Report” http://www.parking.ku.edu/study.shtml
Ø KU on Wheels “Bus Schedule and Route Map August 18, 2005 – May 19, 2006” http://www.ku.edu/~kuwheels/bussystem/Schedule-Full.jpg
The consultant shall develop a baseline understanding of the historical context of the Lawrence Transit System and the University of Kansas transit operations, current fixed-route and paratransit programs, and the transit needs of the community and university by meeting with and receiving input from City officials, University officials and contracted transit service providers. The consultant should plan to conduct a minimum of 4 meetings (1 with City Officials, 1 with University Officials, 1 with City Transit Provider, and 1 with University transit service provider) and a maximum of eight meetings to meet with each party twice. In addition, the consultant shall review and evaluate the following:
Ø Existing service standards and policies
Ø Bus routes and schedules
Ø Paratransit operations
Ø Days/hours of service
Ø Ridership
Ø Fare structure
Ø Existing transit amenities (i.e., transfer hubs, transit shelters & designated bus stops)
Ø Public restrooms for bus drivers to utilize along routes.
Ø Bus Fleet (fixed-route and paratransit)
Ø ADA-accessibility
Ø Current operating facilities (e.g., maintenance, dispatch, scheduling, training, fueling, and storage)
Ø Communication systems
Ø New technology that is being implemented
Ø Future service plans
Ø Current staffing levels
Furthermore, the consultant shall obtain information from similar sized university communities to develop recommended service alternatives. Summary data from Spring 2005 visits to Lincoln, Nebraska/University of Nebraska, Ames, Iowa/Iowa State University, Iowa City, Iowa/University of Iowa, and Columbia, Missouri/University of Missouri are included within the “Transit Task Force Report” noted above.
Any additional community data collection and survey work deemed necessary (i.e., to obtain demographic information about current and potential ridership, level of service expectations, distribution patterns, origin and destination information, public opinion, etc.) to comprehensively assess current Lawrence Transit System and KU on Wheels operations will be developed, collected and tabulated by the consultant. Such additional survey or data collection work shall be included in the consultant’s work plan in response to this RFP with an identified line-item cost as an add-on cost.
Final details of such additional work efforts will be developed with City and University input prior to final selection of and contracting with the consultant.
· Phase II: Review and Develop Service, Performance, Expansion and Vehicle Standards
The objective of Phase II is to apply the data and analysis completed in Phase I to the development of new standards or “best practices” that will serve as a guide for the design of an improved coordinated and/or consolidated transit system.
Four general types of standards will be developed:
Ø Fixed-route level of service design standards: These standards include availability, service directness, frequency (peak and off-peak), and span (hours and days of service).
Ø Fixed-route service performance standards: Develop standards to help assess the productivity of future services including on-time performance, passenger utilization (passenger per revenue hour), and farebox return.
Ø Fixed-route service route expansion standards: These standards would be used to determine when, where and how new service routes are created.
Ø Fixed-Route vehicle standards: Vehicle type including size, seating capacity, ADA-accessibility (wheelchair securements) to be utilized on the University campus and off-campus throughout the City.
The service, performance, expansion and vehicle standards will be reviewed and discussed with City and University officials. The consultant shall develop a concensus within the city and within the university for a set of standards.
· Phase III: Develop Transit Service Alternatives
Phase III will address deficiencies and needs in current City and University fixed-route transit service by identifying opportunities for coordinated service and/or consolidated transit system using the results of Phase I and Phase II. This task will rely heavily on service standards developed in Phase II and the data and background information studied in Phase I. Consultant will preliminarily identify a variety of coordinated and/or consolidated transit service alternatives that are new or adjusted based on current service designs. The service alternatives developed should be based on a series of service improvements that address the technical and perceived deficiencies and opportunities identified in the previous tasks and that are designed to improve the overall performance of the existing fixed-route systems. A range of improvements should be considered including but not limited to:
Ø Operating strategies such as adjusting headways, turnbacks or short-turning of buses to optimize equipment utilization particularly if an improvement in service frequency terminal-to-terminal appears impractical;
Ø Route branching (or trimming) to provide coverage and to economize on the number of buses required;
Ø Scheduling adjustments such as running time adjustments to improve on-time performance, schedule coordination to improve transfer connections, and span of service modifications;
Ø Schedule simplification and branding of services to improve legibility of services;
Ø Routing improvements such as route extensions to respond to existing and proposed development, route modifications to possibly improve service directness and on-time performance, and new routes to satisfy current and future transit markets;
Ø System redesign such as service redistribution to improve overall efficiency by re-allocating resources from less productive areas and/or routes;
Ø Adjustments in service hours and days of operation;
Ø Desirability of radial route design, grid design or express routes;
Ø Applicability of single or multiple transfer station/hub operations.
Service recommendations may range across a variety of dimensions including those suggested above. Also, suggested service alternatives will be proposed under varying funding level allotments including current funding levels and those that may result from new funding mechanisms the consultant identifies.
Each operational model and alternative provided for a coordinated and/or consolidated transit system shall:
Ø Identify proposed service design that includes routes, schedules, days and hours of operation, fares.
Ø Include a five-year estimated budget identifying the operating costs and capital (vehicle and facility) including preventative maintenance needs and costs;
Ø Detail service and/or performance standards that guide the design of coordinated and/or consolidated system;
Ø Identify possible fare structures, service policies and staffing levels;
Ø Identify and quantify the benefits and costs of coordination and/or consolidation for both the City and the University including an estimate of ridership for a five year period, sources and uses of funds for the initial undertaking (cash flow analysis) and for a five year operating and capital (vehicles, parts, facilities and preventative maintenance) budget and include recommendations for financial participation by the City and University based on the perceived willingness and capacity of the parties to cooperate.
Ø Identify critical issues and impacts of each alternative.
· Phase IV: Identify Organizational Structures, Governance Models and Funding Options
This phase calls for additional research into an examination of alternative organizational structures and governance models for a coordinated or consolidated City/University transit system. This phase is intended to provide a general explanation of the options available to the City and University. This work activity includes the preparation of a formal analysis intended to assess the viability, benefits, and costs of various organizational structures, and to identify alternative funding sources needed for operating and capital expenditures. Also, included is a formal analysis of methodologies used to equitably share in the financial obligation of operating service.
This activity is designed to place attention on the long term stability of the Lawrence and University transit systems. This will be accomplished through exploration of alternative ways to organize (system ownership and policy setting responsibility) and fund the system’s operations. Currently the Lawrence Transit System is subject to the annual city budget process.
The examination of alternative organizational structures and governance models shall identify examples for each organizational and governance option. If possible, the examination should identify other cities in which transit systems converted from agencies within city government to independent authorities or other management structures. The results from such research could include any changes in funding levels, changes in ridership, or other service level effects. Such management options that could be identified for the Lawrence Transit System may include but not limited to a City of Lawrence transportation department, a joint public agency, and a transit authority.
· Phase V: Public Outreach and Public Meetings
Upon preparation of an outline of proposed service standards, service alternatives, and management and funding options, the consultant shall schedule, provide legal notice and perform all work necessary for the City to conduct public meetings. These meetings shall be held for the purposes of obtaining public input, providing the public an opportunity to hear a summary of key draft findings, the proposed service goals and objectives and a presentation of the proposed service alternatives. The public will be invited to offer comment and observations on the proposed alternatives for consideration by the consultant, City staff, and the University in developing the final preferred alternative(s).
The consultant shall be responsible for designing the public meeting format to present study findings and proposed service alternatives, and to receive and coordinate response to public comment. The City and University will provide staff support at public meeting events as needed. The consultant shall conduct a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of six (6) public meetings. At least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted during Phase I to receive public input, at least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted during Phase II, at least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted upon completion of both Phase III and IV, and a least two (2) public meetings shall be conducted during Phase VI upon completion of the draft report and upon completion of the final report. A formal written summary of public comments and how that comment was incorporated into the final alternative(s) shall be prepared and included as part of the final study products.
· Phase VI: Draft and Final Report
The Draft and Final Report will be based on completed work and findings from the previous phases during which interim reports will be required and submitted. The Report will identify improvements that can be made with available resources and improvements that require additional funding. Topics to be provided in the Draft and Final Report include:
Ø Background information and data assessment;
Ø Public outreach and feedback summary;
Ø Clearly established and defined service standards and fare and service policies both on and off-campus;
Ø Proposed service changes both on and off-campus;
Ø Preferred alternative(s) for management options;
Ø Preferred alternative(s) that identify and quantify the benefits and costs of coordination and/or consolidation for both the City and the University including an estimate of ridership for a five year period, sources and uses of funds for the initial undertaking (cash flow analysis) and for a five year operating and capital (vehicles, parts, facilities and preventative maintenance) budget and recommendations for financial participation by the City and University based on the perceived willingness and capacity of the parties to cooperate.
Ø Immediate and short-term action items;
Ø Mid to long-range implementation strategies.
A total of ten (10) bound copies and a reproducible electronic version of the final report shall be issued to the City of Lawrence and the University.
V. Study Management and Organization
The purpose of this section is to put in place the management and organizational processes and structures necessary to successfully conduct the study on-time a within budget. This will include establishing the supervisory procedures, community oversight framework, and working schedule for the study.
· Study Management Team – It is anticipated that the day-to-day study tasks will be directly supervised by the City’s Project Manager. The Project Manager will be assisted in this effort by a team of representatives from both the City and University, who along with the Project Manager shall make up the Study Management Team. The City and the University shall be equally represented on the Study Management Team. The number of individuals serving on this study team will be determined prior to the study beginning. There shall be regular review and sharing of information between the parties.
· Consultant Project Management Team – It is critical that work tasks between the consultants, City’s Project Manager and Study Management Team composed of representatives from both the City and University be closely coordinated. Communication channels and lines of responsibility are to be clearly delineated. These communication channels and lines of responsibility will be determined at the beginning of the project and agreed upon by the consultant and Study Management Team. This includes procedures for the review of draft materials and the monitoring of the study budget relative to the completion of benchmarked tasks.
The consultant will provide a Project Manager responsible for the timely completion of the project and to work as liaison with Study Management Team. The consultant must guarantee the same Project Manager for the entire project. If a change in Project Manager becomes necessary, the consultant must obtain the City’s and University’s written approval for the new Project Manager before proceeding with the project.
· Quality Control of Work – The consultant’s Project Manager will be responsible for the timely completion of the work. The Consultant will also ensure high quality in all deliverables.
· Community Involvement Process – As part of the initial organizational phase, a clearly defined plan will be prepared and accepted by the Study Management Team to ensure timely community participation. The process should describe the techniques and timing for obtaining the community’s ideas regarding the present and future role of transit services and options in the community. The consultant shall prepare a community involvement plan and present the draft for review and comment by the Study Management Team no later than 30 days after award of the contract. The Study Management Team shall review the same and provide written comments within 10 working days. Consultant shall thereafter respond with the final plan within 5 working days.
VI. Study Schedule
It is anticipated that the Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan effort will take approximately 6.5 to 7 months to complete.
Below is the anticipated work schedule:
|
PHASE |
TIME TO COMPLETE |
|
Phase I – Comprehensive Operational Analysis including survey work |
Four (4) to Six (6) weeks (depending on completion of survey) |
|
Phase II - Review and Develop Service, Performance, Expansion and Vehicle Standards |
Four (4) weeks |
|
Phase III – Develop Transit Service Alternatives |
Six (6) weeks |
|
Phase IV - Identify Organizational Structures, Governance Models and Funding Options |
Four (4) weeks |
|
Phase V – Public Outreach and Public Meetings |
To be conducted throughout entire study process. See below* |
|
Phase VI – Draft and Final Report |
Six (6) weeks |
|
TOTAL |
Six and a half (6.5) to Seven (7) months |
* Note: Phase V – Public Outreach and Public Meetings will occur throughout the development of this plan at the beginning stages during Phase I through to the completion of the Final Report at Phase VI. The consultant shall conduct a minimum of five (5) and a maximum of six (6) public meetings. At least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted during Phase I to receive public input, at least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted during Phase II, at least one (1) public meeting shall be conducted upon completion of both Phase III and IV, and a least two (2) public meetings shall be conducted during Phase VI upon completion of the draft report and upon completion of the final report.
Upon authorization to begin the project, a detailed Project Schedule that includes the consultant’s work plan, planned interactions with the City and University Study Management Team, and project milestones will be assessed and approved.
A kickoff meeting will be held at Lawrence City Hall before commencement of the project. Meeting attendees will include the consultant and designated City and University representatives or staff. The purpose of the meeting will be to clearly identify project goals including the work plan, schedules, lines of responsibility and project deliverables, as well as provide background information for use in subsequent portions of the project.
The consultant will prepare and submit a monthly management level Progress Report. The Progress Report will contain a summary of progress, listing areas of concern and actions, status of each milestone of the project schedule and an update of the Project Schedule. The monthly Progress Reports shall also be made available in an electronic reproducible format.
The consultant Project Manager and any other necessary consultant staff will attend regular project meetings with the Study Management Team. Meetings will be scheduled as necessary to fulfill the consultant Scope of Work and will be included on the Project Schedule. Meeting will occur no less than once a month. In addition, weekly meetings will be required at key points during the process. Those key points in the process shall be identified by the City, University and Consultant prior to work commencing. Teleconferencing may be used for the monthly meetings as appropriate and as agreed by Study Management Team, but during critical phases or key points in the study process on-site meetings will be required. The consultant shall anticipate that impromptu meetings may have to be scheduled and conducted on short-notice to obtain information or receive direction from Study Management Team due to possible changing conditions or information that may impact study completion.
VII. Federal Contract Requirements
The proposed study is anticipated to be financed in part with funding from the United States Department of Transportation (herein after “USDOT”) and will be subject to federal requirements and regulations. The Consultant shall comply with regulation relative to the uniformed administration in federally assisted programs of the USDOT, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (herein after “CFR”), Part(s) 18 and 19, and cost eligibility reimbursement will be subject to Title 48 CFR 31.2, as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations).
All contractual provisions required by USDOT, as set forth in Federal Transit Administration (herein after “FTA”) Circular 4220.1E are hereby incorporated by reference. The Consultant shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any CITY requests which would cause the CITY to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions.
The Consultant shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies, procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in the Master Agreement between CITY and FTA, as they may be amended or promulgated from time to time during the term of this contract. Consultant’s failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this contract
· Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Participation
The City’s DBE policy requires that qualified DBEs be afforded an equitable opportunity to participate in contracts. Proposers are encouraged to involve DBEs in subcontracting or joint ventures. For this contract, the CITY has set a 1.7% race-conscious DBE participation goal.
See Attachment A for DBE program commitment form and Attachment B for DBE Vendor Information form. Completed forms for all participating DBE’s must be included with RFP submittal.
· Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension
Each proposer will be required to certify by signing the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion” form, Attachment C and shall include with RFP submittal. “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion” is a certification that the proposer is not on the U.S. Comptroller General’s Consolidated Lists of Persons or Firms Currently Debarred for Violations of Various Contracts Incorporating Labor Standards Provisions.
· Lobbying
Each proposor will be required to certify by signing the “New Restrictions on Lobbying” for, Attachment D and shall include with RFP submittal. Contractors who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more shall file the certification required by 49 CFR part 20, "New Restrictions on Lobbying."
VIII. Submittal Procedure
· Budget and Cost Submittals
Proposed fees for services outlined on the RFP must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope within the submittal package. Only one (1) copy of the fee proposal need be submitted. The envelope containing the fee proposal must be clearly marked with the firm’s name and project title. The proposals will be initially reviewed without the consideration to the fee.
The City anticipates drawing from multiple funding sources to finance this effort and final funding amounts and sources are not yet guaranteed.
· Submittal Date and Time
Each submittal must include five (5) bound copies and a reproducible electronic version of the proposal and must be received in the Lawrence Transit System administrative office at the following address no later than 3:00 p.m. CST on Wednesday, May 1, 2006:
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator
Lawrence Transit System
P.O. Box 708
933 New Hampshire St.
Lawrence, KS 66044
Mark the outside of the submittals with the titles, “Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan Proposal” and “Coordinated Public Transportation Development Plan Fee Proposal.”
· Proposal Content
All proposals at minimum must provide the following:
Services Proposal:
1. Title Page
2. Transmission Letter
3. Statement of Understanding of the Project’s Intent
4. Project Approach
· Description of work tasks
· Project schedule
· Deliverable schedule
5. Firm Qualifications
· Official firm name, address, telephone number and other pertinent contact information
· Year established and former names
· List five largest projects under contract (under contract negotiations, or projects that your firm has been selected for by Federal, State or local agencies) that are being (or will be) performed.
Include:
1. project type or name (project description) and
2. name of project manager,
3. client including contact person and phone number,
4. nature of responsibility of firm
5. project location (City and State)
6. current status or percent complete
7. actual (A) or estimated (E) completion date of contract
8. estimated cost of contract
· List all projects the firm has performed within the past 10 years that are similar or comparable to the proposed project.
Include:
1. project type or name (project description) and
2. name of project manager,
3. client including contact person and phone number,
4. nature of responsibility of firm
5. project location (City and State)
6. current status or percent complete
7. actual (A) or estimated (E) completion date of contract
8. estimated cost of contract by project phase including the total for all phases. Identify or describe each project phase.
· List all municipal and university projects that have been awarded to the firm as a prime consultant during the past three (3) years.
Include:
1. project type or name (project description) and
2. name of project manager,
3. client including contact person and phone number,
4. nature of responsibility of firm
5. project location (City and State)
6. current status or percent complete
7. actual (A) or estimated (E) completion date of contract
6. Project Management and Organization Plan
· The Prime Firm and all sub-consultants, contractors, and associates to be working on the project, including specific responsibilities and scope of work on this project, approximate % of work on this project, and identify if subcontractor has worked with prime firm before. (An outside key sub-consultant/contractor/associate not included in the proposal may be utilized on this project only after obtaining prior written concurrence from the City of Lawrence)
· Percentage of the total project that the prime firm will perform (must be greater than 50%)
· Project Organization Chart that identifies the names of key personnel proposed for the project, experience of each, and length of service with the firm(s), and their responsibilities for this project. Include labor hours by phase and by individual.
7. Listing of Key Personnel by Discipline (list each person only once, by primary function)
8. Brief Resumes of Key Proposed Personnel
· Name and title
· Assignment for this project
· Years of Professional Experience (with this firm and with other firms)
· Active registrations or certifications
· Specific experience and qualifications relevant to this project
9. Business References
· List up to five (5) names and phone numbers of transit planning business references
10. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Commitment Form (See Attachment A) and DBE Vendor Information Form (See Attachment B)
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion Form (See Attachment C)
12. Certification Regarding Disclosure to Report Lobbying Form (See Attachment D)
Fee Proposal:
1. Labor Hours*
2. Itemization of Direct Costs (including number of trips, travel and per diem costs, and days proposed on-site in Lawrence)
* Estimated hours and hourly rate information shall include a breakdown of direct and indirect costs by individual. This information shall be used to determine appropriate billing rates to assist in the evaluation of the consultant’s understanding of the work and final negotiations of a contract.
See Attachment E, to complete Cost/Price Sheet for Phase I – VI including survey work (7 pages)
IX. Consultant Selection Criteria
Consultant proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria as a measure of the respondent’s ability to successfully complete the project scope of work. Cost will not be the sole basis for selection, since it is in the City’s and University’s best interest to retain a firm/team that has significant professional credentials.
The merit of each submittal will be assessed using the following evaluation criteria:
A. Experience and Qualifications as evidenced by:
· Company background and history
· Relevant experience of proposed team with other projects
· Client references of proposed team members
B. Managerial Organization of the proposed Project Team as evidenced by:
· Appropriateness of management personnel and technical staff proposed (Who will do the work?) Include any subcontractors.
· Organizational approach to project management including work flow, reporting and quality assurance procedures
C. Quality of the proposed approach to the scope of work as evidenced by:
· Understanding and discussion of technical issues
· Methodology and technical plan of operations
· Project management plan and quality assurance procedures
· Innovation and thoughtfulness in work approach
D. Ability to successfully complete the project as evidenced by:
· Understanding of task sequencing, major milestone events, and project schedule
· Adequacy of resources
· Current workload of firm/team and the level of effort/amount of time devoted by management personnel and technical staff to the project
· Ability to complete work on a timely basis and meet deadlines
· Firm’s ability to attend on-site meetings and complete on-site work.
E. Response Characteristics
· Adherence to the required format
· Completeness of submittal
F. Proposal Cost
· Overall budget that includes estimated costs and hours to complete project.
· Budget Breakdown by phase
· Line-item budget as an add-on cost to complete survey work
Prior to final selection and award of contract, top ranking firms will conduct a formal on-site presentation to City and University officials reiterating their understanding of the study’s scope of work and their methodology for completion. It is anticipated that the on-site presentations in Lawrence, Kansas will be conducted within two-weeks of RFP submittal.
The City reserves the right to accept, reject, or negotiate any and all proposals, including the right to award the contract in whole or in part if it is deemed in the City’s and University’s best interest.
X. Contact
Questions or other inquiries regarding this Request-for-Proposal (RFP) should be directed to the following Contact Person:
Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator
Lawrence Transit System
P.O. Box 708
933 New Hampshire Street
Lawrence, KS 66044
Phone: (785) 832-3464
Fax: (785) 832-3462
Email: cgalante@ci.lawrence.ks.us
XI. Insurance Requirements
The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the University of Kansas or their representatives from all claims, demands, suits, actions, payments, liability and judgments, arising from the activities of the Consultant or of Consultant’s agents, contractors or employees. In this connection, Consultant shall carry insurance in the following kinds and minimum limits as indicated:
The Contractor shall secure insurance to protect them and the CITY and University against all hazards, as enumerated herein. All policies shall be in amounts, form and companies satisfactory to the CITY and University and:
a) Cover any or all subcontractors in their insurance policies, or
b) Require each subcontractor to secure insurance to protect themselves against all hazards enumerated herein that are not covered by the general contractor’s policies.
All certificates of insurance required herein shall state that thirty (30) days written notice shall be given to the CITY and University before the policy is canceled or changed.
No Contractor or subcontractor will be allowed to start any work on this contract until certificates of all insurance required herein are filed with the CITY and University.
Public Liability and Property Damage.
The Contractor shall maintain insurance protecting against any and all claims and demands arising from injury to person or persons not in the employ of the Contractor, and against any and all claims and demands resulting from damage to any property due to any act or omission of the Contractor, their agents or employees, in the operation of the work or the execution of this contract. Such insurance shall remain in effect on portions of the work which have been completed and which may or may not be occupied or utilized by the CITY or University prior to the completion and acceptance of all the work included in the contract.
Minimum limits for Public Liability and Property Damage insurance required are as follows:
Public Liability: (a) Each Occurrence $500,000
(b) Aggregate $1,000,000
Property Damage: (a) One Accident $500,000
(b) All Accident $1,000,000
Contractual Liability Insurance.
The Contractor shall purchase and maintain contractual liability and property damage insurance which will protect the CITY and University against any and all claims that might arise as a result of the operation of the Contractor or their subcontractor or subcontractors, in fulfilling this contract.
Employer’s Liability and Worker’s Compensation.
The Contractor shall secure and maintain employer’s liability and worker’s compensation insurance in an amount that is in conformity and compliance with the statutory requirements of the laws of the State of Kansas. In case any class of employees is not protected under the Worker’s Compensation statute, the Contractor shall provide, and shall cause each subcontractor to provide, adequate employer’s liability coverage that will protect them against any claims resulting from injuries to and death of workers engaged in work under this contract.
Contractor’s Contingent or Protective Liability and Property Damage.
In case part of this contract is sublet, the Contractor shall secure contingent or protective liability and property damage insurance to protect them from any and all claims arising from the operations of their subcontractors in the execution of work included in this contract. The coverage in each case shall be acceptable to the CITY and University.
Automobile Public Liability and Property Damage.
The Contractor shall maintain automobile public liability insurance in the amount of not less than $500,000 for injury to one person and $1,000,000 for one accident; and automobile property damage insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 for one accident to protect them from any and all claims arising from the use of the following in the execution of work included in this contract:
(a) Contractor’s own automobiles and trucks.
(b) Hired automobiles and trucks.
(c) Automobiles and trucks not owned by the Contractor.
Such insurance shall cover the use of automobiles and trucks both on and off the site of the project.
Attachment A
DBE PROGRAM AND COMMITMENT FORM
The following is the proposal commitment to the DBE goals of City of Lawrence for the service of supplies pursuant to this contract.
A. _______ The undersigned firm certifies that it is a contractor (mark N/A for non applicable answers)
A.1 For MBE, specify percentage of minority ownership_____%
A.2 For WBE, specify percentage of woman ownership______%
B. _____ The undersigned certifies that they are a joint venture in which the following (MBE/WBE) firm is a joint venture partner. (mark N/A for non-applicable answers)
B.1 The MBE/WBE firm shall have ____ % participation of employees, and shall have _____% participation in cost in this project.
B.2 Specify the percentage of minority/women ownership in the MBE/WBE firm ____%
C. _____ The undersigned commits ______% of the total bid price as a subcontract to minority business enterprise participation. The MBE firms, which are proposed as subcontractors, are the following:
Name, Address, and type of work performed by firm:
1.__________________________________________
2.__________________________________________
3.__________________________________________
D. _____ The undersigned commits _____ 100% of the total bid price as a subcontract to women-owned business enterprise participation. The WBE firms, which are proposed as subcontractors, are the following:
Name, Address, and type of work performed by firm:
1._________________________________________
2._________________________________________
3._________________________________________
E. _____ Are there DBE firms employed by your company for services that are not directly responsible for the manufacture, supply, or service that your company provides, such as: printing, cleaning, delivery, etc.? If applicable, please list the names, address, and type of work performed by the firms:
1._________________________________________________
2._________________________________________________
3._________________________________________________
F. _____ Complete (1) and (2) below if participation goals of 1.7% can’t be met.
F.1 My company cannot meet the participation goals for the following reasons:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
F.2 We have taken the following steps in an attempt to comply with these participation goals:
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Firm Name: _______________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________
By: (sign in ink): ___________________________________________
Print name: _______________________________________________
Title: ____________________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________________
Attachment B
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Age of Firm: ___________
Phone Number: ____________________ Contact Name: ____________________
DBE Status
Non DBE ____________ Certified DBE______________
<$500,000 ______
$500,000 to $1 million ______
$1 million to $2 million ______
$2 million to $5 million ______
>$5 million ______
North American Industry Classification Code (NAICS) if known:________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please return form to:
Lawrence Transit System
PO Box 708
6 East 6th Street
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785)832-3465
(785)832-3462 Fax
Thank you in advance for participating in this survey!
Attachment C
Certification Regarding Debarment,
Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion
This Certification is required by the regulation implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 29 CFR Part 98 Section 98.510, Participants’ responsibilities. The Regulations are published as Part II of the June 1985, Federal Register (pages 33, 036-33, 043)
Read instructions for Certification below prior to completing this certification.
1. The prospective proposer certifies, by submission of this proposal that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded form participating in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
2. Where the prospective proposer is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective proposer shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
__________________________ _____________________________
Date Signed - Authorized Representative
_____________________________
Title of Authorized Representative
Instructions for Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion:
1. By signing and submitting this agreement, the proposer is providing the certification as set below.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the proposer knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department, or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.
Attachment D
CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
APPENDIX A, 49 CFR PART 20
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements
(To be submitted with each bid or offer exceeding $100,000)
The undersigned [Contractor] certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for making lobbying contacts to an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form--LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions [as amended by "Government wide Guidance for New Restrictions on Lobbying," 61 Fed. Reg. 1413 (1/19/96). Note: Language in paragraph (2) herein has been modified in accordance with Section 10 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-65, to be codified at 2 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.)]
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31, U.S.C. § 1352 (as amended by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995). Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
[Note: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1352(c)(1)-(2)(A), any person who makes a prohibited expenditure or fails to file or amend a required certification or disclosure form shall be subject to
a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure or failure.]
The Contractor, _____________________ _, certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of each statement of its certification and disclosure, if any. In addition, the Contractor understands and agrees that the provisions of 31 U.S.C. A 3801, et seq., apply to this certification and disclosure, if any.
__________________________ Signature of Contractor's Authorized Official
__________________________ Name and Title of Contractor's Authorized Official
___________________________ Date
