Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CITY OF HOUSTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT Strategic Procurement Division
Sylvester Turner Mayor
Jerry Adams Chief Procurement Officer P.O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251-1562 T. 832.393.9126 http://purchasing.houstontx.gov
Council Members: Brenda Stardig Jerry Davis Ellen R. Cohen Dwight A. Boykins Dave Martin Steve Le Greg Travis Karla Cisneros Robert Gallegos Mike Laster Martha Castex-Tatum Mike Knox David W. Robinson Michael Kubosh Amanda K. Edwards Jack Christie Controller: Chris B. Brown
February 21, 2019 SUBJECT: Letter of Clarification No. 2 to Request for Proposal No. S65-T28802 for Vehicle
Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Affairs Department
TO: All Prospective Proposers: This Letter of Clarification is issued for the following reasons:
• To revise the referenced solicitation as follows:
1) NOTICE TO PROPOSERS:
Remove Page Nos. 14 and 15 of 42 and replace with the attached Page Nos. 14 and 15 of 42 marked REVISED 2/21/2019.
2) The following questions and City of Houston responses are hereby incorporated and
made a part of the subject Request For Proposal:
1. Question: “Will the City accept alternate proposals, as in, a proposer only offering to do certain parts of the solicitation?”
Answer: “No.”
2. Question: “How many immobilization devices does ParkHouston currently have on hand?”
Answer: “Approximately fifty (50).”
3. Question: “What resources is ParkHouston currently dedicating to vehicle immobilization, as in, number of employees, vehicle, times that this is completed on a daily basis, etc.?”
Answer: “Four (4) City of Houston License Plate Recognition Systems (running sixteen (16) hours a day on weekdays and eight (8) hours a day on Saturdays); and thirty-two (32) City of Houston personnel with mobile devices with boot search capabilities.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 2
4. Question: “How many devices are lost per year?”
Answer: “In FY2018, twenty-three (23) devices were stolen and three (3) were returned.”
5. Question: “What is ParkHouston’s/the City’s definition of immobilization?”
Answer: “The act by which a vehicle is immobilized and rendered undrivable; using a device or object that can be placed on the vehicle causing it to become unmovable.”
6. Question: “Please provide the hours and days of the week during which the contractor will be allowed to boot cars under the new contract?”
Answer: “Mondays through Fridays, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Saturdays, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.; and no booting on Sundays.”
7. Question: “Please provide any holidays, or other days during which booting will not be allowed?”
Answer: “Refer to the following web link www.houstontx.gov/hr/holidays.html for a complete list of City of Houston holidays.”
8. Question: “Please provide the total number of boot eligible vehicles in the City’s database, detailed by year.”
Answer: “Refer to Page 5 [Part II, Section C(4)] of the RFP. ParkHouston does not have a list broken into years, but we have it broken into time frames, as follows: Less than one (1) year – 4,257; thirteen (13) months to two (2) years – 3,728; twenty-five (25) months to three (3) years – 4,638; and three (3) plus years – 47,454.”
9. Question: “How many in state boot eligible vehicles are there? How many out of state?”
Answer: “There are 2,650 out-of-state plates on the boot list. Our boot list currently has about 59,000 plates total.”
10. Question: “Will the Park Houston staff continue to boot vehicles during the new contract?”
Answer: “Yes.”
11. Question: “Are a specific number of LPR systems required? Minimum number?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(4)] and Page 9 [Part II, Section I(2)] of the RFP. There is no specific number of LPR systems required to be operated by the vendor.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 3
12. Question: “Please provide the current Boot Fee amount? Is a Boot Fee applied in all cases?”
Answer: “Refer to the City of Houston fee schedule at the following web link: http://cohweb.houstontx.gov/FIN_FeeSchedule/default.aspx. Also, refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(7)] of the RFP.”
13. Question: “Is the contractors compensation limited to, or capped at, the 30% assessment on delinquent citations for all vehicles booted?”
Answer: “Yes, refer to Page 6 [Part II, Section F(3)] of the RFP. It is mandated by the State. Please keep in mind that this is in lieu of the $590,000 revenue option.”
14. Question: “How many zero dollar releases occurred in 2018?”
Answer: “ParkHouston had 125 zero-dollar releases in 2018.”
15. Question: “Are a specific, or minimum, number of boot devices required to be provided by the contractor?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(5-6)] of the RFP.”
16. Question: “Please provide the current boot hearing policy providing details on the customers rights to a hearing, specifically the timing of the booting and the availability of a hearing officer.”
Answer: “ParkHouston does not have a ‘boot hearing policy.’ However, if a vehicle is booted, the customer is provided a minimum two-hour window to have a hearing at 1400 Lubbock. You can view the Municipal Court’s hours at the following web link: https://www.houstontx.gov/courts/.”
17. Question: “Is the contractor required to provide an “in person” payment location for customers? Or will the City handle all in person boot payments?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(2)] of the RFP.”
18. Question: “The RFP states on pg. 10 that the Proposer is responsible for the defense of all credit card chargebacks. Please clarify if these means the Proposer is responsible for any refund amounts due to a chargeback occurrence.”
Answer: “Yes, if the Proposer accepts credit card payments, then they will be responsible for defending credit card chargebacks. They will be responsible for any refund amounts due to a chargeback occurrence. The Proposer should have a plan on how they intend to defend credit card chargebacks.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 4
19. Question: “How many chargebacks on credit card payments occurred in 2018?”
Answer: “In FY18, ParkHouston had a total of seventy-five (75) credit card chargebacks for all transaction types. This includes citations, permits, and booting activities. ParkHouston cannot differentiate whether a chargeback was from booting activity, permit, or citation.”
20. Question: “Is there currently a cap on the amount a customer can pay with a credit card? (Is the customer able to pay any balance with a credit card? Some cities limit the amount of a credit card payment at $500 for example.)”
Answer: “There is no cap on the amount a customer can pay with a credit card, provided that verification of the credit card funds is successful.”
21. Question: “Who is responsible for the credit card fees on payments? Can the customer be charged a convenience fee to cover the cost of the credit card transaction?”
Answer: “Yes, but the fee must be approved by the City. The convenience fee should be included in the proposal.”
22. Question: “Please provide the insurance requirements for the contractor on this contract.”
Answer: “Refer to the Sample Contract document, which is included in the solicitation files, for insurance coverages and liability limits. The solicitation files can be viewed at the following web link: http://purchasing.houstontx.gov/Bid_Display.aspx?id=T28802.”
23. Question: “Please provide the City’s Disaster Recovery Program (pg. 14 of RFP)”
Answer: “Part IV, Section B, 5(b) has been deleted. Refer to Revised Page No. 14 of 24.”
24. Question: “Must we complete the Pricing Form in the RFP as written, or are we allowed to present other models?”
Answer: “The Pricing Form in the RFP is just an example.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 5
25. Question: “How is the current boot contractor compensated? Per boot fee? Or the 30% of the delinquent citation balance? Or other means?”
Answer: “The current vendor is paid a fee per boot.”
26. Question: “Please provide the number of boot eligible vehicles, that do not have a Registered Owner record in the T2 System. (We understand that without a RO record the required Boot Notice cannot be sent thus not meeting the requirement of boot eligible, however, we are trying to assess the potential upside if we are able to assist in the acquisition of additional RO information.)”
Answer: “Currently, all plates on the boot list have a registered owner. However, ParkHouston may have boot eligible vehicles that have not been notified yet because there is no registered owner.”
27. Question: “Please clarify that the contractor will be able to boot a vehicle without a city representative or law enforcement officer present.”
Answer: “Correct, refer to Page 9 [Part II, Section I(2)] of the RFP. No physical presence will be required, but previous authorization is required via radio transmission. Radios will be purchased by the vendor.”
28. Question: “Please provide the number of booted vehicles during 2018 that unlawfully removed the boot (runaways).”
Answer: “About 29 boots were unlawfully removed in 2018.”
29. Question: “If we are proposing self releasing boot devices, will the contractor be allowed to boot during anytime of the day, day of the week?”
Answer: “Reference the answer to Question 6.”
30. Question: “What are the aging stats for the plates on the boot list? Less than 1 year, 13 months to 2 years, 25 months to 3 years, 3 + years.”
Answer: “Less than 1 year – 4,257; 13 months to 2 years – 3,728; 25 months to 3 years – 4,638; and 3+ years – 47,454.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 6
31. Question: “How many are out of state plates?”
Answer: “2,650 plates are out of state.”
32. Question: “Any legislation or ordinance changes on the horizon that could materially affect the quantity of vehicles on the boot list?”
Answer: “Ordinances are constantly evaluated and updated as needed. There are no known changes that would materially affect the quantity of vehicles on the boot list.”
33. Question: “On average, how many new plates are coming on to the boot list each month?”
Answer: “About 500 new plates.”
34. Question: “Is there office space available for the Help Center or will the proposer have to procure office space?”
Answer: “The proposer will be responsible for procuring all office space.”
35. Question: “With the cc payments through the Help Center, would we be using a city of Houston payment interface?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(8-9)] of the RFP. The proposer must provide their own payment interface, but it must interface with the City’s software, T2 Flex.”
36. Question: “Would the City or the Vendor bank the payments?”
Answer: “It depends on the Proposer’s proposal model.”
37. Question: “What is the average number of hours vehicles are booted? (time between being booted and released)”
Answer: “About 25 hours.”
38. Question: “What is the escape rate? (total escapes/total vehicles booted)”
Answer: “About 11%.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 7
39. Question: “Will Park Houston provide immobilization notices or should vendor budget to print those?”
Answer: “ParkHouston will provide immobilization notices, but the vendor will be responsible for affixing it to the booted vehicle.”
40. Question: “Will Park Houston provide office space for mgmt and areas to store LPR vehicles or should vendor procure space?”
Answer: “No. The vendor is responsible for procuring all storage and work space.”
41. Question: “What boot is Park Houston currently using and how do customers pay?”
Answer: “ParkHouston is using the Universal Boot, the Urban Boot and the Fat Boy models (www.universalboot.com). Customers may pay in person or online.”
42. Question: “What is the current workflow for the booting process from boot placed to boot released?”
Answer: “Booting:
1. Compliance officer calls in a bootable vehicle to the dispatcher.
2. Dispatcher enters the vehicle plate into the parking system T2 to verify if there are 3 delinquent citations/ 1 “Parked in a Handicap Space” citation.
3. Dispatcher checks letter history for boot notice date a. If not boot notice check for green sticker. If no green
sticker we cannot boot, dispatcher request CO to adhere a green sticker to vehicle.
4. Run the vehicle registration. 5. Search for the boot notice file in the Z: Drive under the Boot
folder under the applicable date. 6. Confirm registration matches the owner at the time the
citations were issued. 7. If all match, authorize lockdown of vehicle.
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 8
42. Question:
“What is the current workflow for the booting process from boot placed to boot released?”
Answer: Continued
Booting:
8. Dispatcher will print and scan: a. Cover Sheet b. Boot notice c. Registration d. Print out a list of parking citations from Parking system
T2 (there may be citations that have not become delinquent that are not to be included in the official boot total).
9. CO will provide: a. Location b. Time c. Device# d. Make & Color e. Last 4 of VIN# f. Signage restrictions.
10. Dispatcher will acknowledge and repeat: a. Location b. Time c. Device# d. Make & Color e. Last 4 of VIN# f. Signage Restrictions.
11. Dispatcher will state number of citations and total amount due including boot fee.
12. CO will write the amount due, license plate number and number of citations on the Orange sticker and adhere it to the front driver’s window.
13. CO will issue a Warning citation with violation code of APK-19 Other Parking violation with comments of “booted vehicle”. Warning citation is issued for the only purpose of taking pictures after vehicle has been booted.
14. Dispatcher will add Boot Fee/Administrative fee in parking system T2 under the Boot/Tow Manager.
15. Dispatcher will scan all documents that were printed for the said vehicle under note type “Boot Information” on the Boot/Tow Manager.
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 9
42. Question:
“What is the current workflow for the booting process from boot placed to boot released?”
Answer: Continued
Paid Boots 1. If payment has been made verify in T2 that payment has
been applied to the citations. 2. Contact the party that booted the vehicle for the release. 3. Update T2 with resolving the boot once a release time has
been called in by the CO a. Obtain the time of release
Obtain the releasing officer.”
43. Question: “What percentage of the boot payments are made with cash?”
Answer: “About 33% are made in cash.”
44. Question: “Part II.G.2. states that: “The Proposer shall provide a service to assist in the location of boot-eligible vehicles and/or a service to assist in the processing of payments associated with booted vehicles. Will ParkHouston or other City staff identify boot-eligible vehicles? If so, how often will City resources patrol for bot-eligible vehicles? Will City staff process boot-related payments?”
Answer: “Yes, refer to Page 5 [Part II, Section B(2)] of the RFP. ParkHouston provides a daily boot eligible list. ParkHouston processes boot related payments daily.”
45. Question: “Part II.G.4. states that: “ParkHouston will determine which officers will be utilized for this vehicle immobilization program. Will ParkHouston staff the booting program with City employees?”
Answer: “ParkHouston will continue to staff for booting. Vendor can create a plan that achieves results using any combination of personnel and equipment.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 10
46. Question: “Part II.G.4. states that: “The Proposer will be required to provide mobile license reading cameras for five (5) ParkHouston vehicles. Does this mean that the Proposer will not be required to provide? If yes, would the proposer be required to provide supplemental vehicles? How many?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 7 (Part II, Section G(4)] of the RFP. The vendor will provide five LPR’s to ParkHouston. The vendor can provide any number of their own vehicles and LPR systems to meet the goals of the contract.”
47. Question: “Part II.G.6. states that:” In lieu of self-releasing immobilizers, the proposer shall provide 50 (fifty) heavy-duty, traditional boots or other device that offers the same functionality” Please explain what is meant by the phrase “same functionality.”
Answer: “Refer to Page 4 [Part II, Section A(2)] of the RFP for the definition of a boot. Same functionality = immobilizes a vehicle.”
48. Question: “Part II.G.7. states that: “Administrative zero-dollar releases may also be issued by ParkHouston.” Please specify the total number of zero-dollar releases for FY16, FY17, FY18.”
Answer: “FY16 – 171; FY17 – 137; and FY18 – 111.”
49. Question: “Part II.G.9. states that: “The Proposer's software system shall interface with the ParkHouston Citation Management System (T2 Flex). What data does the City require the Proposer’s software to exchange with Parking Citation Management System (T2 Flex) and on what frequency?”
Answer: “ParkHouston would like the following data fields exchanged with T2 Flex on a real-time basis: License plate Time booted Block Location Intersecting street Device# Booting officer Restrictions Last 4 of Vin# Make of vehicle Color of vehicle.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 11
50. Question: “Part II.G.13. states that: “The Proposer shall participate in the City of Houston amnesty periods as requested. What will be the role of the proposer in future amnesty programs? Please list all previous amnesty programs since 2009.”
Answer: “It is unlikely that ParkHouston or their vendors will be involved in amnesty programs. However, the administration and/or Municipal Courts may enact an amnesty program at any time. ParkHouston does not have a list of dates of previous amnesty programs.”
51. Question: “Part II.G.10. states that: “All fine and boot fee payments shall be processed upon receipt. All financial transactions shall immediately be reflected in the ParkHouston Citation Management software. Does this statement take precedent over the statement in RFP section II.G.2 reflected in Question1 above?”
Answer: “Part II, Section G(2) references assistance in identifying the location of bootable vehicles. Part II, Section G(10) is about financial transactions. The two are separate. However, all financial transactions must immediately be visible in T2 Flex.”
52. Question: “Part II.F.3 states that: “The Proposer shall provide a pricing model that will guarantee minimum boot revenue, not to be less than $590,000 (average of past three years) annually, and that will provide a road map for maximizing revenues.” Please provide, if possible, the following additional program information to help plan for improved revenue collections: a. Avg. number of vendor crews patrolling each day (Monday through Sunday) b. Avg. number of City crews patrolling each day (Monday through Sunday) c. Total number of parking citations issued each year since 2015 d. In what case would a scofflaw vehicle be towed – before or after immobilization? e. What percent of scofflaw vehicles found are towed? f. What percent of scofflaw vehicles towed are not ever claimed? g. What is the average escape rate?”
Answer: “a. 2. b. 7. c. FY15–188,834; FY16–203,422; FY17–194,656; FY18 – 186,887. d. Depends on the circumstances; for example, parked in a tow- away zone, threatening to remove the boot, etc. e. Refer to the chart under Part II, Section F(4). f. ParkHouston does not have this information. g. About 11%.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 12
53. Question: “Part II.H.1.c. states that: “If self-release immobilizers are recommended, Proposer must provide a service to process payments by phone, Monday-Sunday, 24 hours a day. Does this mean that proposers not including selfrelease immobilizers do not have to provide 24/7 phone payment processing?”
Answer: “Correct.”
54. Question: “Part II.H.4. states that: “The Proposer shall have the ability to receive all vehicle immobilization-related inquires via telephone 24 hours per day, Monday through Sunday. Does the 24/7 inquiry requirement apply to both traditional and self-release boot providers? Must proposer call centers be staffed 24/7 or can IVR systems be used to receive inquiries after hours?”
Answer: “The call center is only necessary for Proposers who are offering a self-release boot and it must be staffed 24/7. If using traditional boots, then no call center is needed.”
55. Question: “Part IV.B.5.a requires that proposers: “Summarize three or more deployments (in similar size and scope to this RFP), with brief descriptions that demonstrate Proposer's experience providing consulting service for a major metropolitan area; Please define the term “consulting services.”
Answer: “Consulting services can be defined as providing expert knowledge to a third party for a fee. Specifically, for this RFP, it can be defined as providing booting services to a major metropolitan area. ParkHouston is looking for a Proposer to demonstrate their expertise in helping major metropolitan areas address their vehicle immobilization needs.”
56. Question: “Part IV.B.5.b. requires that proposers: “Submit a written plan of action on how Proposer will meet the City's Disaster Recovery Program requirements; Please explain how this plan applies to the booting-related scope of services. Does the City require a copy of the Proposer’s disaster recovery plan?”
Answer: “This section has been deleted from the RFP. Refer to Revised Page No. 14 of 24.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 13
57. Question: “Part IV.B.5.d. requires that proposers: “Provide a detailed portfolio including samples of outreach marketing collateral for new deployments, examples of customer websites, type of web applications available for download, customer service methodology, and the total number of spaces served in other municipalities. Please explain what is meant by: “…web applications available for download…”; and “…the total number of spaces served in other municipalities…”
Answer: “ParkHouston is asking if you have an app that can be downloaded, tell us about the app and how it is used. For ‘total spaces’ please tell us what you have done in other cities; for example, how many parking spaces have you managed/enforced. List the specific experiences you’ve had in other municipalities.”
58. Question: “Part IV.B.6.c. requests reference descriptions that require: “Total number of spaces managed (off-street and onstreet); Please clarify what is meant by “total number of spaces managed.”
Answer: “Total spaces = the number of parking spaces managed by vendor at any time. Include on-street and off-street.”
59. Question: “Part IV.B.6.e. requests reference descriptions that require: “List any key Youth Program features that may distinguish your company from the competition. Please clarify what is meant by “key Youth Program features?”
Answer: “This section has been deleted from the RFP. Refer to Revised Page No. 14 of 24.”
60. Question: “Paragraph C, Section 4 of the solicitation states: The boot list currently contains about 58,000 vehicle plates that are eligible. Can you confirm how many years back this figure is applicable to?”
Answer: “10 years.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 14
61. Question: “Paragraph F, Section 3 of the RFP states: The proposer shall provide a pricing model that will guarantee minimum boot revenue, not be less than $590,000. If the $590,000 guaranteed amount is not met due to unforeseen circumstances, what contractual obligation would exist?”
Answer: “The contract will have liquidated damages for failure to meet minimum boot revenue.”
62. Question: “Paragraph F, Section 3 of the RFP states: The contractor will accept the state mandated 30% assessment on delinquent citations for all vehicles booted by vendor as payment. What is the total amount for the average delinquent citations on a boot eligible license plate?”
Answer: “The average total citation amount for boot eligible plates is $1.157M.”
63. Question: “Paragraph F, Section 4 states: The FY2019 budget for boot revenue is $602,957. Shall the proposer offer a pricing model which partakes in a portion of this revenue? Or does the proposer’s funding come only from the 30% percentage of scofflaw collected?”
Answer: “Refer to Page 6 [Part II, Section F(3]) of the RFP. You can either provide a pricing model that achieves $590,000 or more annually, or you can accept the State mandated 30% assessment on delinquent citations (over 90 days unpaid) for all vehicles booted by the vendor.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 15
64. Question: “Paragraph G, Section 15 states: The Proposer shall identify and assign a dedicated project manager for the City of Houston additionally Paragraph G, Section 4 states: ParkHouston will be solely responsible for the coordinating and assignment of beats to the authorized Proposer. Can you please clarify the definition of “Dedicated “? Will this project manager work full-time out of the ParkHouston main office? What authorities/management capabilities will the dedicated project manager have if ParkHouston is solely responsible for coordination and assignment of beats?”
Answer: “No, this person will not work full-time out of the ParkHouston main office. A dedicated manager will be the liaison between ParkHouston and any personnel the vendor employs. If there are no vendor personnel, the dedicated manager will coordinate the contractual items.”
65. Question: “Paragraph G, Section 4 states: ParkHouston will be solely responsible for the coordinating and assignment of beats to the authorized Proposer. Will the contractor be authorized to immobilize on any public street in City of Houston? Are there any restrictions from immobilizing in any area of the city?”
Answer: “Yes. There are special and specific situations when booting is not appropriate. The awarded vendor will be made aware of the dates and locations of such events.”
66. Question: “Notification of Immobilization. Can contact information and redemption instructions be placed on the device itself if the device is highly visible or will City of Houston require a separate notification sticker/citation which may be subject to tampering or the elements?”
Answer: “Yes, you may place contact info on your device. However, the City will still require a separate sticker be placed on the window. The sticker should be tamper proof and resistant to weather conditions.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 16
67. Question: “If return receptacles were needed for self-release immobilization devices, could these receptacles be installed at geographically strategic locations on City of Houston properties?”
Answer: “No, returned receptacles may not be placed on City of Houston properties. The device should be returned to ParkHouston at 2020 McKinney or to a permanent address where the vendor’s business is located.”
68. Question: “During the pre-bid meeting, it was relayed that the vendor handles approximately 60% of immobilization duties and the city approximately 40%. With the new vendor will ParkHouston continue to execute immobilization duties (a combined effort)?”
Answer: “Yes.”
69. Question: “Would ParkHouston be open to an alternate bid where a “Labor component” is not provided? Rather, LPR and a self-release immobilization technology is provided for ParkHouston to manage as they desire.”
Answer: “No. All proposals must meet each requirement in the RFP.”
70. Question: “Can you please elaborate on the guarantee minimum revenue of $590,000, that is defined in the Scope of Services (F.3)?
a. Is this intended to be gross revenue from boot operations or is this net operating income (revenue after expenses)?
b. Is the minimum revenue of $590,00 intended to be for financial projections and modeling, or is the contractor at risk for generating $590,000 annually?
c. As there are many factors that can impact revenue from immobilization efforts, what are the proposed obligations and or penalties should the minimum revenue not be realized?”
Answer: “a. Gross revenue.
b. Both, the number is used for budgeting and KPI’s. Together, the contractor and the City will generate a total of $590K annually. c. The contract will have liquidated damages for failure to meet minimum boot revenue.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 17
71. Question: “What type of agreement is being proposed for this operation, and how does the City envision compensating the contractor? Is this intended to be a management agreement or revenue share?”
Answer: “This is a revenue contract, where a minimum of $590,000 in revenue must be achieved annually; however, failure to meet the minimum revenue will result in liquidated damages. In lieu of the revenue option, the contractor can accept the State mandated 30% assessment on delinquent citations (over 90 days unpaid) for all vehicles booted by the vendor as payment. Refer to Part II, Section F(3) of the RFP.
72. Question: “Section F.3 in the Scope of Services also indicates that the contractor shall receive the state mandated 30% assessment on delinquent citations for vehicles booted by the vendor. Is this the only compensation that the vendor will receive?”
Answer: “Reference response to Question No. 63.”
73. Question: “Is this an existing contract or a new endeavor?”
Answer: “This is a renewal.
74. Question: “If it is an existing contract; has the contract reached the end of its term?”
Answer: “The existing award ends on 12/25/2019.
75. Question: “Please provide a copy of the existing contract if available?”
Answer: “A copy of the existing contract, which has been uploaded to the solicitation files, can be viewed at the following web link: http://purchasing.houstontx.gov/Bid_Display.aspx?id=T28802.”
76. Question: “Page 6 of the RFP includes a chart illustrating Vehicle Boot Information by Year. Can this information be provided showing the breakdown of boots and associated revenue applied by the City as compared to private service contractors?”
Answer: “No, ParkHouston does not have this data available.”
Letter of Clarification No. 2 S65-T28802 Vehicle Immobilization Services for the Administration and Regulatory Services Department Page 18
77. Question: “Is there a statute of limitations on parking citations in the City of Houston that would affect the current volume of boot eligible plates?”
Answer: “No, there is no statute of limitation on parking citations.”
78. Question: “Please confirm the total number of mobile License Plate Recognition (LPR) systems and vehicles that are required as part of this contract? Under Service Requirements (G.4) the contactor is required to provide LPR cameras for five (5) ParkHouston vehicles? Is this in addition to the LPR vehicles that are described under Proposer’s Approach (L.2)?”
Answer: “The first five LPR systems provided by the vendor will be utilized for ParkHouston vehicles. In addition to that, the vendor is expected to provide their own vehicles with LPR systems. There is no minimum number of vehicles and LPR systems the Proposer can purchase and utilize.”
79. Question: “Please confirm the total number of immobilization devices that are required. Is it a total of fifty (50) units, or is it fifty (50) units that will remain in the custody of the City plus additional units that will remain with the contractor?”
Answer: “If providing self-releasing boots, the vendor will maintain all self-releasing boots. Refer to Page 7 [Part II, Section G(5)] of the RFP. For non-self-releasing boots, refer to Part II, Section G(6). Fifty (50) non-self-releasing boots will be provided to the City.”
80. Question: “What is the total number of LPR vehicles in operation now that are assigned to the immobilization service? Please provide a breakdown of ParkHouston vehicles and any contracted vehicle used for these services.”
Answer: “ParkHouston has five LPR vehicles in operation. ParkHouston does not track the current immobilization of vendor’s vehicles. Refer to Page 9, Section I(2) of the RFP. The Proposer must include the total number of motor vehicles they propose to provide as well as the model, type, and year.”
a. Summarize three or more deployments (in similar size and scope to this RFP), with brief descriptions that demonstrate Proposer’s experience providing consulting service for a major metropolitan area;
b. DELETED. c. Company track record: Provide a brief summary of company’s background history, number
of years in business, total number of employees, key personnel and their availability to be deployed on this project for the City.
d. Portfolio: Provide a detailed portfolio including samples of outreach marketing collateral for
new deployments, examples of customer websites, type of web applications available for download, customer service methodology, and the total number of spaces served in other municipalities.
6. Client References: Provide reference name and contact information for three (3) clients for
whom Proposer has provided similar services to municipalities within the past three (3) years. Provide size and scope of each project with brief descriptions of the projects. Specifically, provide the following:
a. Name and location of project(s); b. “CURRENT” reference contact name, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses; c. Total number of spaces managed (off-street and on-street); d. Deployment completion date(s) or current status; e. DELETED.
7. M/WBE Participation: Identify M/WBE Subcontractor(s) and submit a signed “M/WBE Letter of
Intent” form identifying the role of each Subcontractor for this implemented project. (See Exhibit II.)
8. Financial Stability:
a. If Proposer is an entity that is required to prepare audited financial statements, Proposer shall submit an annual report that includes:
b. Last two years of audited accrual-basis financial statements, including an income
statement, cash flow statement, and balance sheet;
c. If applicable, last two years of consolidated statements for any holding companies or affiliates;
d. An audited or un-audited accrual-basis financial statement of the most recent quarter of
operation; and
e. A full disclosure of any events, liabilities, or contingent liabilities that could affect Proposer’s financial ability to perform this contract.
f. If Proposer is a privately-owned entity or sole proprietorship for which audited financial
statements are not required, Proposer shall submit an annual report that includes:
g. Last two years of un-audited accrual-basis financial statements, including an income statement, cash flow statement, and balance sheet;
Page 14 of 42 REVISED 2/21/2019
h. An audited or un-audited accrual-basis financial statement of the most recent quarter of
operation; and
i. A full disclosure of any events, liabilities, or contingent liabilities that could affect Proposer’s financial ability to perform this contract;
OR
j. Other financial information sufficient for the City, in its sole judgement, to determine if
Proposer is financially solvent or adequately capitalized.
9. Exceptions to Standard Contract: Provide any exceptions to the standard contract and include the rationale for taking the exception. Such exceptions will be considered when evaluating the Proposer’s response to this RFP. If alternate language is proposed, include the proposed language for consideration, along with the corresponding Article Nos. within the RFP.
10. Legal Actions: Provide a list of any pending litigation and include a brief description of the
reason for legal action. 11. Conflict of Interest: Provide information regarding any real or potential conflict of interest(s).
Failure to disclose any potential conflict of interest at the outset may be cause for rejection of the Proposal.
12. Other: Provide any information the Proposer deems pertinent to demonstrating its qualifications
to perform the services being requested, such as memberships in any professional associations, documents, examples, etc.
13. Forms and Certifications: Complete all forms and certifications attached, as appropriate. 14. DELETED.
15. Price Proposal/ Fee Schedule: Please separately submit a Price Proposal/ Fee Schedule.
PART V – EXCEPTIONS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS All exceptions included with the Proposal shall be submitted in a clearly identified separate section of the Proposal in which the Proposer clearly cites the specific paragraphs within the RFP where the exceptions occur. Any exceptions not included in such a section shall be without force and effect in any resulting contract unless such exception is specifically referenced by the Chief Procurement Officer or designee, City Attorney, Director(s) or designee in a written statement. The Proposer’s preprinted or standard terms will not be considered by the City as a part of any resulting contract.
All exceptions that are contained in the Proposal may negatively affect the City’s Proposal evaluation based on the evaluation criteria as stated in the RFP or result in possible rejection of Proposal.
Page 15 of 42 REVISED 2/21/2019
