MINUTES Initial Evaluation Meeting (revised April 15, 2016)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "MINUTES Initial Evaluation Meeting (revised April 15, 2016)"

Angela Welch
6 years ago
Views:

1 MINUTES Initial Evaluation Meeting (revised April 15, 2016) RFP No. V P1 Transit Mobile Ticketing and Fare Card Interoperability System March 30, 2016, 1:30 PM Governmental Center Building, 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room 430, Fort Lauderdale, FL The EC meeting was called to order at 1:31 pm by Marie Williams, the Committee Chair. Introductions were made by Princess Brown. Those in attendance were: Carlos Alvarado and Curt Johnson the Project Managers; Mitch Cohen with the Purchasing Division; Glenn Miller, Tony Halmon, and Rene Harrod with the County Attorney s Office and Lori Fortenberry with Finance and Administrative Services Department. Those in attendance via teleconference were: Robert Bruce with the Office of Economic and Small Business Development, Charles D. Cohen and Eugene M. Bitteker with Palm Tran, Palm Beach County, Mr. Brown with GlobeSherpa, Inc. and Mr. Green with Genfare, a Division of SPX Corporation. Ms. Brown stated the Request for Proposals (RFP) No. V P1 for Transit Mobile Ticketing and Fare Card Interoperability System for the Transit Division was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 5, 2016, Agenda Item 27. At the time of the RFP advertising deadline, 5:00 PM on February 12, 2016, there were three submittals. She stated the Initial Evaluation Meeting was publicly noticed. Ms. Williams stated there was a quorum present with Roberto Hernandez, Deputy County Administrator, County Administration; Tim Garling, Director, Transit Division, Transportation Department; Keith Wolf, Director, Infrastructure Services, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Finance and Administrative Services Department; and via teleconference Charles D. Cohen, Deputy Director Fixed Route, Palm Tran, Palm Beach County and Eugene M. Bitteker, Manager, Contracts, Procurement and Stores, Palm Beach County. Ms. Williams stated the responsibility of the Evaluation Committee. Ms. Williams stated the purpose of the meeting was to determine responsiveness and responsibility of the firms that submitted a proposal. Only those firms that have been determined by the Evaluation Committee to be both responsive and responsible to the requirements of the RFP will proceed to Final Evaluation and scoring. Ms. Williams stated that a sign-in sheet is being circulated and to be sure that everyone signs in. Ms. Williams stated that the Cone of Silence for this project has been in effect since January 5, 2016 and remains in effect until the County Commission or other awarding authority takes action which ends the solicitation. Ms. Williams stated that in accordance with Broward County Procurement Code all Committee Members shall be free of conflicts of interest. Page 1 of 6

2 Ms. Williams then called on the Purchasing Division to report on their findings about responsiveness and responsibility. Ms. Brown stated the three responsiveness requirements and that all three firms are recommended to be evaluated as responsive to the receipt of the Lobbyist Registration Certification Form, the submission of Pricing Sheets and the submission of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Funding Supplement, Exhibit 6, Buy America Certification. Ms. Brown stated that the RFP did not contain a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal requirement, therefore, there is no responsibility requirement to meet. Ms. Brown stated the seven responsibility requirements and stated the following, in regards: 1. All three firms have provided the required financial information. 2. All three firms have met the requirement of disclosure of three years of litigation history. 3. All three firms met the requirement to submit the Affiliated Entities of the Principal(s) form. 4. All three firms are certified and in good standing to conduct business in Florida. 5. All three firms met the requirement to provide evidence of the indicated insurance requirements deemed necessary for this project. 6. All three firms met the requirement to submit the applicable forms found in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Funding Supplement. 7. All three firms met the requirement to submit the Vendor s Opportunity List Requirement Form (for Federal funding). Ms. Brown stated that the following proposers have taken exception to the County s standard terms and conditions: Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. and Genfare, a Division of SPX Corporation. The specific exceptions taken by each firm will be addressed, for all responsive and responsible firms, prior to presentations at the Final Evaluation Meeting. Ms. Williams gave the definition of responsiveness and asked is there any discussion from the Evaluation Committee regarding determination of responsiveness of the firms. Keith Wolf stated that GlobeSherpa has provided estimated hardware costs. In their response they stated any additional costs will be passed through to the County. They are responsive to filling out the price sheets correctly. It does appear there may be additional costs. Are we accepting this as Best and Final pricing as per the RFP? Glenn Miller advised that this is not a Best and Final scenario. They are going to be getting scores on the prices they provided. They will be able to negotiate down, but not up. We are basing scoring on the pricing they provided. We will get into more specifics at the next Page 2 of 6

3 meeting. At presentations you can speak to that issue directly with them. Keith Wolf stated that was the clarification he needed. Eugene Bitteker stated that GlobeSherpa stated in their cover letter that they had not been approved yet to do business in the state of Florida. Has that changed at all? Ms. Williams stated that has changed and GlobeSherpa is now registered with the State of Florida. Ms. Williams asked for a motion with respect to responsiveness. Motion was made to find all three firms responsive and motion passed. Ms. Williams gave the definition of responsibility and asked is there any discussion from the Evaluation Committee regarding determination of responsibility of the firms. Ms. Williams asked for a motion with respect to responsibility. Motion was made to find all three firms responsible and motion passed. Roberto Hernandez stated that each Reference Verification Form for each firm contained the caption checked off as Needs Improvement for cooperation and requested Curt Johnson, Project Manager, to verify. Ms. Williams asked for a motion of determination of firms to proceed to final evaluation. Motion was made to have all firms to proceed to final evaluation and motion passed. Ms. Williams stated that since this RFP project involves software, Demonstration Meetings will be held on Thursday, March 31 and Friday, April 1, 2016 and a report from the technical review team participating in the demonstrations will be forwarded to the Evaluation Committee Members prior to the Final Evaluation Committee Meeting. The Purchasing Division selected the Order of Demonstrations by randomly pulling names from a hat as follows: 1) Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc., 2) Genfare, a Division of SPX Corporation, and 3) GlobeSherpa, Inc. Ms. Williams stated that the Final Evaluation Meeting will be held on Friday, April 15, 2016 and asked if there are questions the Evaluation Committee wishes to have included or specifically addressed in the presentations separate from the software functionality which will be covered in the Demonstration Meeting. Chuck Cohen questioned the demonstration schedule and time in regards to providing staff at the demonstrations. Ms. Williams stated that the Demonstration Script provided in the RFP allotted 90 minutes each for demonstrations followed by questions. Carlos Alvarado advised that demonstrations will take place over the two days scheduled. Ms. Williams again asked if there are questions the Evaluation Committee wishes to have included or specifically addressed in the presentations separate from the software functionality which will be covered in the Demonstration Meeting. Page 3 of 6

4 The following discussion ensued: Keith Wolf: Stated he needed to understand and see their functionality to provide a secure connection between MDT (Miami Dade Transit) and Transit vehicles. Will there be a representative from MDT to help clarify anything from their side? Carlos Alvarado: Stated that for clarification, he was not sure if all vendors will be able to demonstrate back-off functionality and questioned is that addressed during the demonstration or this session meeting? Vendors were provided the script and expected to follow/adhere to script. Glenn Miller: Requested clarification that the question now is not for questioning at the demonstrations, but it is for questioning at the presentations, subsequently. Keith Wolf: Responded he would like to see a demonstration of their ability to provide a secure connection to the vehicle back to the MDT system. Glenn Miller: Clarified that what he (Keith Wolf) is asking for is to amend the script to have that be a part of the overall can they do it/can they not review. Carlos Alvarado: Stated that each vendor will be the subject matter expert. He thought this meeting was to determine responsiveness and responsibility at this point in time, and take any actions back and try to work with the vendor. Tim Garling: Stated that as a point of clarification, the communication between the buses will be between the buses and a BCT server. There will be no direct communication between a bus and MDT. Keith Wolf: Stated he would like further explanation, as his understanding is that MDT is involved as far as the ticket sales. Tim Garling: Stated MDT will provide the Easy card. The intention of the project is to read and accept the Easy card that is presented. Info is collected on a BCT server, and on a monthly basis BCT will submit a bill for reimbursement to Miami Dade. There is no direct connection between the card or a bus in Miami Dade; it is from BCT server to Miami Dade. Keith Wolf: Stated that he thinks the card, in order to validate the card, will have to speak to MDT. Carlos Alvarado: Stated, no. The project calls for the acceptance of Easy card, then there is a batch job that runs and the file transfers to Miami Dade so they can process it. There is no real-time requirement at this time. Keith Wolf: Questioned, how will driver know that Easy card is valid or not? Carlos Alvarado/Tim Garling: Stated it has a stored dollar value and recognizes the different types. Keith Wolf: Stated he envionsed one would walk up to a kiosk, put money in it, a paper card will come out to take the bus; and if we are not in charge of those kiosks - is a Miami Dade function - somehow the validator needs to know that is a valid card. That is the only clarification he was looking for. Page 4 of 6

5 Carlos Alvarado: Stated that part of the RFP requirements were being able to read/accept the Easy card. All vendors submitted that they fulfilled that requirement. Keith Wolf: Questioned, for clarification, we will not be printing the Easy card? Carlos Alvarado: Stated, no. All the front end processing and point-of-sale Broward County does not have an interest in that. Keith Wolf: Questioned that Easy card is strictly a MDT and a Tri-rail fare mechanism; we won t be generating; we will be accepting? Carlos Alvarado: Stated we will not be generating or selling; just accepting and reading, for convenience. Ms. Williams: Asked Keith Wolf if that question still needed to be posed. Keith Wolf: Answered that if the vendor is prepared to talk about it, we don t necessarily need to see a demonstration of it. He stated his concern, from an IT perspective, that we have something that s working all the time otherwise we will be getting rejected cards. Carlos Alvarado: Stated BCT checked the vendors references and did not hear back anything negative about the way they handled mobile ticketing or reading the Easy card. Keith Wolf: Stated the only thing he would request is a brief explanation of how they would interface and provide the validator to however they are going to authenticate against. Mitch Cohen: Asked Keith Wolf if he was looking for a future application that currently isn t being contemplated with the County at this point? Keith Wolf: Replied, no. He is looking into the partnership that we are entering into with Miami Dade. Carlos Alvarado: Stated that all vendors have representation here. Rene Harrod: Asked Keith Wolf for clarification - if this is to be clarified at the demonstration meetings or the final evaluation meeting? She advised that the demonstration script included the issues that Keith raised regarding the functionality and capability of the reader/validator and acceptance of the MDT Easy card. Keith Wolf: Stated, we should be fine. End of discussion. Ms. Williams stated that the length of presentations is established by the Evaluation Committee. After discussion, motion was made to establish the length of presentations to be twenty (20) minutes with questions and answers to follow and motion passed. Glenn Miller stated that EC members must be in person for the presentations on April 15 th. The Purchasing Division selected the Order of Presentations by randomly pulling names from a hat as follows: 1) Genfare, a Division of SPX Corporation, 2) Cubic Transportation Systems, Inc. and 3) GlobeSherpa, Inc. Page 5 of 6

6 Roberto Hernandez requested proposals be provided on a jump drive or a shared drive. Mitch Cohen advised that can be accommodated. Ms. Brown repeated the order of presentations, per Charles Cohen s request. With no other business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 pm. Page 6 of 6

Addendum No. 4. Solicitation Title: SHOULD. The RFP the same. Page 1 of 1. Excellence in

Addendum No. 4. Solicitation Title: SHOULD. The RFP the same. Page 1 of 1. Excellence in Solicitation No. R1137908P11 Addendum No. 4 Finance and Administration Services Department PURCHASING DIVISION 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room 212, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 954-357-6066 FAX 954-357-8535