PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET (INDIVIDUAL) EVALUATION FACTOR: ENGINEERING SERVICES PLAN (RATED)

Transcription

1 PROPOSER: _MBCR_, Evaluator number 8 DATE: 8/19/13 OVERALL RATING: Acceptable_ NARRATIVE SUMMARY: Based upon the rankings from the individual sections, the majority of them are in the acceptable area. I did like the idea of the zone management plan, the RTC model use, implementation of an advanced signal training facility in particular. An attempt seems to be made in the proposal to utilize a more analytical approach and to manage with more of an engineering focus, however I feel the overall proposal is just acceptable despite of these elements. Objective: The following are the objectives for the evaluation factor: 1) To identify Proposers that demonstrate an organizational and technical ability to inspect, maintain, repair and install the full range of right of way, bridge, signal and facility assets; 2) To identify Proposers that have an integrated approach to safety management and hazard reduction; 3) To identify Proposers that have an engineering services approach that preserves and prolongs asset lifespans; and 4) To ensure that Proposers have a plan to provide cost effective work scheduling and integration of new technologies. Evaluation Criteria: 1

2 The Proposer has demonstrated an organizational and technical ability to inspect, maintain, repair and install the full range of right of way, bridge, signal and facility assets, along with a plan to provide cost effective work scheduling and integration of new technologies. The Proposer has identified both an integrated approach to safety management and hazard reduction and an engineering services approach that preserves and prolongs asset lifespans. Instructions: Evaluators must rate each requirement outlined in the table below as one of the following: (i) Exceptional; (ii) Good; (iii) Acceptable; (iv) Potential to Become Acceptable; or (v) Unacceptable. Please note the following explanations when rating each requirement: 1) A rating of Exceptional is appropriate when the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to significantly exceed stated criteria in a way that is beneficial to the. This rating indicates a consistently outstanding level of quality, with very little or no risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. There are no weaknesses. 2) A rating of Good is appropriate when the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to exceed stated criteria. This rating indicates a generally better than acceptable quality, with little risk that this Proposer would fail to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Weaknesses, if any, are very minor. Correction of the weaknesses would not be necessary before the Proposal would be considered further. 3) A rating of Acceptable is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that is considered to meet the stated criteria. This rating indicates an acceptable level of quality. The Proposal demonstrates a reasonable probability of success. Weaknesses exist but can be readily corrected through requests for Clarification or Communications. 4) A rating of Potential to Become Acceptable is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that fails to meet stated criteria as there are weaknesses, but they are susceptible to correction through Discussions. The response is considered marginal in terms of the basic content and/or amount of information provided for evaluation, but overall the Proposer is capable of providing an acceptable or better Proposal. 2

3 5) A rating of Unacceptable is appropriate if the Proposer has demonstrated an approach that indicates significant weaknesses and/or unacceptable quality. The Proposal fails to meet the stated criteria and/or lacks essential information and is conflicting and/or unproductive. There is no reasonable likelihood of success; weaknesses are so major and/or extensive that a major revision to the Proposal would be necessary. s for each requirement must be recorded in the associated column, and a detailed explanation of why a particular rating was given to a requirement must be recorded in the associated Comments/Justification for column. The column identifies relevant sections of B (Operations and Management Proposal Instructions) to the Instructions to Proposers. 3

4 1. B6.2(A) The Proposer shall provide an Engineering Services Plan that describes in detail the Proposer's approach to providing the engineering services described in the Contract, including the engineering services described at Schedule 3.2 (Engineering Services) of the Commuter Rail Operating Agreement. The shall identify the Proposer's environmental, hazardous waste and pest control subcontractor(s) as well as describe each subcontractor(s) approach to discharging its responsibilities. Elements of the Engineering Services Plan shall include, but not be limited to, proposed approaches to the following: Acceptable Comments/Justification for 1. Inspecting, managing, repairing, replacing, maintaining and reporting on all of the 's railroad infrastructure; Presented Org chart which was very basic; divides the management of the system into geographic areas; trapeze EAM system expansion to be performed; RTC modeling, which is a great idea; talked about inspections but did not get that specific other than per standards; implement hand held devices linked to GPS, which is a good idea and input to EAM; training apprentice program for signal men program is proposed to be done; expanded scheduling software, although a good idea it should have been done by now in the last 10 years; talks about snow and weather plan and vegetative mgmt. plan.

5 - 2. Inspecting, repairing, and maintaining track, signals, communications equipment, train control equipment and railroad bridges; Will: Comments/Justification for TRACK: MBCR inspect track 2X per week; info from the inspection to be input into EAM to update track conditions sorted by each geographic section; track condition comparison against baseline for trends; plan commitments per the RFP on pg 5-18; provided years 1-8 tie replacement plan. SIGNALS: Past: development of breaking curves; retirement of Waltham tower Future: signal apprentice program; test and inspect to exceed FRA and comply with requirements; grade crossings inspected 2X per week; signal legacy design knowledge expressed; program procured to enable testing in office prior to being put into installation; conversion of mylar plans to CADD; RFP commitments on pg 5-21; install elec. Track circuits; utilize LED wayside signal and grade crossing flasher lights' gate keeper technology at 5 per year to reduce broken gates COMMUNICATIONS: Past: legacy knowledge; signs at North and South Station; WIFI Future: AEI tag reader system; PTC(when determined);replacement of radio dispatch system; introduction of 5-10 additional SCADA systems to

6 3. Inspecting, maintaining, repairing, and managing structures, buildings, stations and platforms; Comments/Justification for improve OTP. TRAIN CONTROL EQUIP.: Past: legacy knowledge; use Vital- Sim to test software in office prior to field install; powerpoint training for field personnel to be able to understand and read software printouts. RAILROAD BRIDGES: Past: continue to inspect as required; installed RIDEX miter rail on moveable bridges; committed to bridge maintenance per RFP on pg 5-24 STRUCTURES: Past: legacy knowledge Future: Continue to inspect for safety, security, cleanliness, good working condition; annual report summarizing each structural inspection; pg 5-26 lists inspections req'd by the RFP; weekly visual inspections and enter into EAM; develop risk profiles based on data. BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES: MBCR's support and facilities management plan for maintenance and repair of the CRMF; other facilities per industry standard; assign dedicated employees to each mechanical facility; Inspections per the RFP; continue to install systems to remotely monitor facility health and energy use; table on pg 5-27 documenting energy use initiatives; and planned results. Solar panel on the roof of the CRMF. STATIONS AND PLATFORMS: Legacy info; access to schedule info. Through cases and

7 Comments/Justification for info. Signs; measures specified on pg 5-28 for maximizing safety and security( std fare only); provided a cleanliness plan on pg 5-28; landscaping plan but is pretty std. fare; MBCR hubway improvement plan. 4. Operating the 's fleet of nonrevenue rail vehicles and railroad work equipment vehicles; Dedicated subcontractors based on geographic areas for PM and repairs; refurbish equip, off- season; formal training and recertification program; Trapeze - EAM to track maintenance and repair history; EAM to support end of life repair for vehicles. Just acceptable. 5. Conducting surveys and track design and construction inspection; Committed to perform these surveys as part of the required const, services; survey by MBCR forces; HDR supplements MBCR forces. Overall fairly standard fare and is just acceptable 6. Maintaining freight-only track and unused rights of way; Will continue to inspect and maintain but will now do with zone managers. Standard fare so is just acceptable. 7. Integrating new technologies and work practices as introduced by the Operator or the ; 8. Enforcing third-party warranties; Commit to work with on new technologies in the future; encourage ideas from employees; PAST wifi history; use tablets for the field and integrate with EAM. Just average. Commit to enforce 3 rd party warranties; use Trapeze

8 Comments/Justification for EAM to keep track of warranties; maintain all requirement of the warranty; enforce warranties when required. Std. fare and is just acceptable. 9. Maintaining a comprehensive and up-todate inventory control system; Expand the existing system; strategically locate materials and use Just in time delivery when appropriate; use Trapeze EAM; implement a bar coding system. Just acceptable with no special info. 10. Completing and undertaking supplemental work projects, including projects in progress by the previous contractors; List past projects they have provided support for; commit to work with us on future projects; New Engineering planning team indicated; section on wreck clearing and team member that will be part of the response team. All just acceptable. 11. Performing environmental services, including the operation, maintenance and service of all environmental systems located throughout the service property; Past legacy track record; utilize KPI's to monitor plan effectiveness; use specialized subcontractors and monitor them; 100% environmental compliance in the past; commitment to sustainability and social responsibility; align MBCR with MassDot GreenDot; Ongoing initiatives listed on page 5-37 ( some better than others- 50/50 split between standard initiatives and better ideas; perform environmental audits; 5-39 lists subs to be used; Professional and compliance services identified on pg. 5-39; no industrial waste water

9 Comments/Justification for violations since 2003; pg and 5-41 details systems measures for each category of mfrastructure( seems standard fare); sustainability plan identified in appendix 3. Would rank the overall section good. 12. Maintenance of all environmental permits, certificates and licenses; Continue to use EMS to track permits listed on pg. 5-41; also lists plans, inspections, sampling, and reporting. All seems std. fare and rate acceptable 13. Proper disposal of any waste or hazardous material; MBCR commits to properly dispose; will use clean harbors as the sub. Seems std. fare and rate just acceptable 14. All other services related to compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations; Employ 6 class A/B and 9 class C UST certified tank operators; Mgr. of Envir. Compliance is a certified clas A/B operator; continue to maintain wild life crossings; stay abreast of idling requirements; remain current with all applicable environmental laws and requirements. Just acceptable. No special items called out.

10 Comments/Justification for 15. All reporting required by the United States Department of Transportation (US DOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), MDTE, American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and other applicable laws, rules and regulations; and Continue to comply with all reporting time frames; participate in RSAC, AREMA, ETC.,with process development of new rules and stds. Just std. fare and therefore is just acceptable. 16. Providing information management, material management, performance analysis and reporting. The Proposer shall: (i) identify those portions of the information that it provided in response to Section B6.2(A)(1) - (16) of B that it considers to be innovative, best practice, beneficial to Customers and/or cost efficient, and (ii) submit information supporting or otherwise validating its position that said portions are innovative, best practice, beneficial to Customers and/or cost efficient. Good Trapeze EAM; 2X daily reports of trip data to train resources management 2 system; use info from above to plan and resolve delays; weekly management calls; LMS tracking capabilities to assign the right person for the right job; materials management system called out; KPI's and use of dashboards (see pg. 5-46). In general would rank this section as good. Includes: Zone management plan ( good) RTC model simulation (exceptional) Tablets in field linked to IT ( good) Engineereing planning team( good- should have been done earlier) Advanced signal training facility( good) Gate keeper technology (good) Bar coding system ( good) Environmental management system (acceptable) 10

11 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Comments/Justification for Sustainability plan (good) Investment in AREMA and AAR ( acceptable) # vl