TITLE: COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH / AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATOR ... … · the City’s information security management program. During design / review, City security standards will be

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM #3 CITY OF PHOENIX

PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPT 302 North 1st Ave.

Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85003

Issuance Date: March 16, 2016 Solicitation Number: RFP PTD16-002 Solicitation Due Date: Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. MST (Local Time)

1

TITLE: COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH / AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATOR (CAD/AVL) SYSTEM

The solicitation is modified as follows: Cover page - City of Phoenix Contact and to Section 3.1 - Inquiries, add: “From April 14, 2016 to May 4, 2016, contact Kimberly Hayden, Contracts Specialist II Lead Office: (602) 534-8289, Fax: (602) 495-2002, [email protected]” Page 60, Section 2.11 CAD/AVL System Requirements, DELETE requirement “2013.3.14 Ability to link to the Transit Agency ACID system.” Section 7, Federal Transit Required Clauses. Section 7.21, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, Section IV, B(1), Attachments B-1 And B-2 (page 147):

Revise the header FROM: “Outreach-Efforts documentation due within seven days after final negotiations.” TO: “Outreach-Efforts documentation due within seven days of request.” And revise the first sentence: FROM: “Within seven days after final negotiations with the Agency, the Submitter selected for negotiations shall complete and submit Attachments B-1 and B-2.” TO: “Within seven days following request from the Agency, the Submitter shall complete and submit Attachments B-1 and B-2.”

Attachment C – Draft Agreement, Section 1(A), Revise first sentence to read: “The sixteen (16) year contract will include an initial design and installation period of up to two (2) years, a three (3) year warranty and five (5) years extended maintenance with optional extensions of six (6) years on a two-year increment bases.” Response Forms. Clarification: The headers on the Response Forms show the Procurement Division on West Washington Street. Please note that proposals are due to the address indicated in Section 3.3.1. See Questions and Answers on pages 2 through 28 of this Addendum. This addendum provides responses to a majority of the questions received; a future addendum will provide responses to outstanding questions. The City anticipates Addendum #4 will also include one final opportunity to submit questions for this RFP. The balance of the RFP specifications and instructions remain the same. Proposer must acknowledge receipt and acceptance of all addenda by signing the Addenda Certification form (Section 8.4), on page 163 of the RFP, and submitting the form with their proposal.

mailto:[email protected]





2

Question Answer

Vehicle Installation Questions 15. Referencing Section 2.1.3, please provide the audit and security standards set forth by the City’s Information Technology Department (ITD) that proposer is required to adhere to?

Administrative Regulation (A.R.) 1.84 is a high-level overview of the City’s information security management program. During design / review, City security standards will be discussed thoroughly with the selected firm.

APC Question: Referencing Section 2.9.1 – What is the city’s intent by having APCs installed on Paratransit vehicles. What type APC reporting specific to paratransit service is the city seeking?

Please refer to section 2.9.2

Integration/Interface Questions: Does the existing Xerox CAD/AVL system currently interface to the IVR system and if so has the City of Phoenix already paid for license fees that may be charged by the IVR supplier to access and pass data?

The interface that is currently used to provide real time information is between the Trapeze ATIS Trip Planning software and existing CAD/AVL—not existing CAD/AVL and the IVR.

Integration/Interface Questions: Bidders are not privy to the existing contractual relationship between the City of Phoenix and the current IVR supplier. Under your existing contract is the IVR supplier expected to provide data to third party suppliers authorized by the City license free? Under the existing contract is/was the supplier expected to deliver an Open API to the City that could be used for future projects like this project? If yes can the API be provided? The reason we are asking is because if the City has already paid for licenses/API to access and/or pass data then bidders want to ensure we are not getting charged again for those licenses and only for integration efforts from the 3rd parties (if applicable).

If the current vendor is not the successful proposer, the interface between the new CAD/AVL system and the downstream applications will have to be developed/rebuilt. The interface with ATIS requires the CAD/AVL system to provide an API that provides vehicle location and schedule adherence. An API that is based on the GTFS-RT specification is not acceptable. The GTFS-RT subsection that provides vehicle location information provides what is needed with the exception of schedule adherence. The GTFS-RT feed tells us where the bus is, but not if it is late or early. The current trip planning vendor will be requested to provide technical specifications during design and review phase. Proposers shall include in their bids any anticipated charges to develop and test a new interface from existing TRAPEZE ATIS Trip Planning software and the new CAD/AVL software.





3

Integration/Interface Questions: Bidders are not privy to the existing contractual relationship between the City of Phoenix and Scheidt & Bachmann. Under your existing contract is Scheidt & Bachmann supplier expected to provide data to third party suppliers authorized by the City license free? Under the existing contract is/was the supplier expected to deliver an Open API to the City that could be used for future projects like this project? If yes can the API be provided? The reason we are asking is because if the City has already paid for licenses/API to access and/or pass data then bidders want to ensure we are not getting charged again for those licenses and only for integration efforts from the 3rd parties (if applicable).

TRANSIT AGENCY recommends contacting Scheidt & Bachmann for questions regarding third party supplier authorization and software license agreements. TRANSIT AGENCY recommends contacting Scheidt & Bachmann for software Open API questions. If API are not included/provided Proposer shall include in their bid all fees associated with providing the similar API as requested in this solicitation. TRANSIT AGENCY recommends contacting Scheidt & Bachmann for questions regarding third party supplier authorization and software license agreements.

Integration/Interface Questions: Please provide additional details on the connection between the CAD/AVL system and Scheidt & Bachmann. Please provide details on the cable and cable connectors. Is the integration only onboard the vehicle or in the back office as well? (Please provide details).

TRANSIT AGENCY recommends contacting Scheidt & Bachmann for details on the cable and cable connectors. On the vehicles, the current CAD/AVL system transmits date/time, GPS coordinates, route schedule information and bus driver authentication information to the S&B system. Contact Scheidt & Bachmann for technical details on the vehicle and back office integration questions. During the design and review phase there will be an opportunity to discuss required interface SOW questions. If specific technical information is unavailable for any existing CAD/AVL interface, then proposers are expected to estimate all fees associated with surveying, configuring, implementing, deploying, and testing all interface functionality to provide current interface capabilities as defined in the solicitation.

Integration/Interface Questions: Does the existing Xerox CAD/AVL system currently interface to the UTC/Apollo system and if so has the City of Phoenix already paid for license fees that may be charged by UTC/Apollo to access and pass data?

Please contact Apollo for any surveillance software licensing questions.





4

Integration/Interface Questions: Bidders are not privy to the existing contractual relationship between the City of Phoenix and UTC/Apollo. Under your existing contract is UTC/Apollo supplier expected to provide data to third party suppliers authorized by the City license free? Under the existing contract is/was the supplier expected to deliver an Open API to the City that could be used for future projects like this project? If yes can the API be provided? The reason we are asking is because if the City has already paid for licenses/API to access and/or pass data then bidders want to ensure we are not getting charged again for those licenses and only for integration efforts from the 3rd parties (if applicable).

The City of Phoenix does not directly purchase onboard components from a third party vendor such as UTC or Apollo, as these onboard components are included as part of overall bus procurements. Contact Apollo for any surveillance API or software licensing questions.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing section 2.5.8. The Rail passenger information system is to provide Bus to Light rail route information? a. Is this on-board via speakers? b. Are there existing stationary passenger information signs and what are their interfaces? c. Is this a central system interface?

Yes. a. No. b. No. c. No.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2010.2.1.5. Please confirm the next stop request button for mobility-aid passengers is independent of the general passenger next stop request button(s).

The next stop for mobility-aid passengers is independent of the general passenger next stop buttons with two chimes, general passenger stop request is a single chime.

Integration/Interface Questions: Section 2.8.1 states "Contractor's System shall work with 3rd party solutions for DVI support". Please clarify what 3rd party solution you have in mind.

This requirement is to ensure that the system is not locked down, but rather has an interface to external systems, should the need arise. Proposers shall still "provide a built in DVI solution" as specified in that section.





5

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 1003.1.21. Is it acceptable to synchronize on-board time with GPS instead of the time-server?

No. All time-synchronization must originate from the TRANSIT AGENCY time source.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2003.1.10. Is proposer required to provide Power Inverter or conditioning equipment to support equipment not provided by proposer?

No.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing section 2.4.4. The backup data channel has very limited bandwidth, potentially data intense messages and files are usually only sent when there is enough bandwidth. We assume the requirement should read: “Data that is not transferred immediately shall automatically be sent via WLAN upon returning to the garage or maintenance facilities.” Please confirm.

TRANSIT AGENCY will work with CAD/AVL vendor during the design and review phase to identify and prioritize all vehicle data parameters including bandwidth and network paths.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2001.1.2. We assume only J1708 capable Destination Signs need to be interfaced with the new CAD/AVL system. Upgrading the others won’t happen under this RFP. Please confirm.

TRANSIT AGENCY expects all components listed in section 2001.1.2 to integrate with new CAD/AVL system.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing section 2.5, Rail Vehicle Subsystem Integration. Please provide details on what is meant by “Passenger Information System”. Displays are excluded; shall we interface with the on-board PA system? Please provide necessary details.

TRANSIT AGENCY refers to “Passenger Information System” as information from light rail vehicles that will assist with day to day operations, NTD reporting, multimodal scheduling, trip planning and scheduling data analysis/reporting, providing real-time vehicle location information for existing TRANSIT AGENCY's current GTFS deployment. Proposer’s IVU solution shall be capable of on-board PA annunciations but will not be configured or integrated with the existing light-rail on-board PA system under this solicitation.





6

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2004.2.39. Will the customer provide a set of peripherals to allow factory testing?

No.

Integration/Interface Questions: 2005.1.1 Do we have to provide a Cellular antenna as well (please list the required antenna elements: e.g. 1x GPS, 2x WLAN, 2x Cellular)?

For vehicles without cellular antennas, the successful proposer will be required to supply antenna. Antenna type will be discussed further in design/review.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2006.2.18. Requirement item 8 states “MDT shall support future automated logon by swiping or using a proximity card”. Are there existing card readers with integration to them outside the scope of this RFP?

Yes, and they are not within the scope of this project.

Integration/Interface Questions: Referencing requirement 2006.2.18. Requirement item 8 states “MDT shall support future automated logon by swiping or using a proximity card”. If there are no existing card readers, has the City of Phoenix selected a card reader for future use and if so, what will be the make, model and interface?

No selections have been identified that are within the scope of this project.

Regarding requirement 2013.3.14. Please provide more information about the City of Phoenix's ACID system.

See page 1 of this addendum. Delete requirement #6 in this section.

Referencing Section 2.1.1 Introduction. Regarding the consultant study. Would the City be willing to release this study?

No.

Referencing Section 2.5.7 – Please confirm that Automatic Vehicle announcements are not applicable to rail.

Correct.





7

Referencing section 2.3.10. Please provide details about the City of Phoenix's FourWinds implementation.

FourWinds runs our outdoor digital sign software for route status, and receives route schedules and real-time information from the Current CAD/AVL system (via a csv text file).

In section 8.1 Table 3 - Options Pricing, proposer is encouraged to leverage the City of Phoenix's existing Apollo-based onboard surveillance system solution. Reviewing the Vehicle Equipment Inventory, proposer sees approximately 3/4 of the vehicles are equipped with UTC Mobileview equipment. a. Does the City of Phoenix intend to phase out this equipment replacing with an Apollo solution? b. Is the City of Phoenix requesting pricing for new equipment? c. If so, will the City of Phoenix provide a requirements document?

a. It is the intent of the CITY to replace this equipment b. Yes. c. Please contact an Apollo representative.

Section 8 - Tables 4 and 5, "Proposers shall provide two distinct pricing proposals specifically to identify if Transit Agency can leverage economies-of-scale pricing by using a payment arrangement where the City of Phoenix will act as the single point of contact for regional maintenance and support payment." Question: Please expand/clarify on what the City of Phoenix is looking for here and the City of Phoenix's vision.

The goal is to promote a regional cost effective centralized CAD/AVL system. If the CITY and Transit Partners can attain economies-of-scale pricing for a long term system including maintenance and repair support, then the surrounding regional entities may participate in the regional CAD/AVL system. New and existing agencies would leverage economies of scale pricing for maintenance and support, leverage interface development fees, and standardize onboard technology to facilitate the introduction to new transit technologies.

The requirement states: "No current functionality shall be removed or rescinded regardless of statements in these requirements without written consent of the Transit Agency." QUESTION: How are Contractors to know if any "current functionality" may be missed if the functionality is not part of the RFP/requirements? Only the existing CAD/AVL provider can know this for certain. Please provide detailed requirements and examples.

During the design and review phase, all existing system functionality critical for conducting vehicle operations shall be reviewed and similar functionality is to be available in the new proposed CAD/AVL solution. The Transit Agency has provided detailed system functional requirements in this solicitation and will sign off during final design and review only when it determines functional requirements are met.





8

Referencing requirement 2007.1.1. Contractor shall supply a Mobile Gateway Router (MGR) with both wireless and wired Ethernet functionality. The MGR shall be a separate device from the VLU or MDT. The onboard gateway shall be InMotion/Sierra

Wireless Part # oMG 2032, SKU# IMTOMG2032‐01." QUESTION: a. Does the City of Phoenix have an existing agreement with this vendor? b. Would the City consider an alternative router solution or would an alternative be considered? c. If an alternative is proposed will Contractors be scored lower?

a. No. b. No change to the RFP is warranted. c. No change to the RFP is warranted.

"2007.1.1 Contractor shall supply a Mobile Gateway Router (MGR) with both wireless and wired Ethernet functionality. The MGR shall be a separate device from the VLU or MDT. The onboard gateway shall be InMotion/Sierra Wireless Part # oMG 2032, SKU# IMTOMG2032‐01." Would the City of Phoenix consider buying this direct from the supplier to save money and revise the requirement to have Contractor use and install this device?

The city may consider purchasing this item separately for cost efficiency purposes. However, for purposes of this RFP, Proposers are required to offer this product as part of the system.

Section 3.3.3. Proposal Content, bullet 2: Attachment A - Outreach Efforts (DBE Form) and supporting documentation (provide in a separate sealed envelope in the Technical Proposal). Do Contractors need to provide 5 copies of this documentation or just 1?

Submit one copy of Attachment A - Outreach Efforts (DBE form) and all required supporting documentation.

Under the evaluation criteria "E. Proposer's Total Price:" - can an example of the "mathematical relationship between their proposed prices and lowest Proposer's price." be provided?

Example: Proposer A offers the lowest estimated total cost per vehicle including all software and hardware ($100). Proposer A receives the maximum points allocated for price (200 points). Proposer B offers a total cost per vehicle of $125. Formula: $100 / $125 X 200 = 160 points. Proposer B receives 160 points for price.





9

CAD/AVL Option Pricing Proposals - will options priced be considered in the evaluation pricing in section E from Section 4.3.4?

No, the options priced will not be considered in the evaluation pricing.

Many of the Questions asked will determine the direction Contractor takes in overall solution. Please consider releasing multiple addendums that may answer large sections of Questions so Contractors can continue to work on the technical and commercial sections that may be applicable for the proposal vs. waiting until all Questions are ready to be released.

This addendum provides responses to a majority of the questions received; a future addendum will provide responses to any outstanding questions.

Will the estimated schedule of events outlined in the RFP be updated or shall vendors just push all the dates out based on the extension of the new submission date?

Per Section 1.5 of the RFP, the schedule is tentative and may be revised per the TRANSIT AGENCY’s discretion.

LRV Question: Referencing requirement 2.6.2.14. Will Phoenix provide equipment to be interfaced to the Vehicle in a Box that is not provided by the proposer? In addition to the Radio and Firebox, this would include informational signage, ECU's, TSP emitters, etc. for Fixed-route, Paratransit and Rail.

The Proposer shall include in their proposal all fees associated with supplying all hardware and software including design documentation, installation, and testing to ensure vehicle in box units function as required under this RFP. TRANSIT AGENCY will supply a regular 120V outlet(s) for power and the network connectivity (Ethernet) and/or will provide communication wireless service for the mobile router. Vehicle in box or on board units will be expected to function on the central CAD/AVL system and/or test development environment for stakeholder training and fixed end system testing as needed.





10

Pricing Questions: Please confirm our understanding of REGIONAL EXTENDED MAINTENANCE (Pricing Sheet Table 4) and FRACTIONAL EXTENDED MAINTENANCE (Pricing Sheet Table 5) of "9-Price Sheet.xls" and the explanations provided in Attachment E of the RFP: a. - The scope of services to be provided is the same for both Table 4 and Table 5. b. - In Table 4 the price for RMA services is lumped into the fees of the Payment Schedule. In Table 5 the RMA services are broken out. c. - Table 4 assumes one contract for maintenance services between Contractor and the City, Table 5 assumes 3 contracts for maintenance services between the contractor and the 3 entities. Please confirm or correct the statements.

a. Correct. b. Correct. c. Table 5 assumes three agreements for RMA services between the successful contractor and the three entities.

Pricing Questions: Price Sheet Table 5: Can we assume that all entities will enter into a maintenance contract? Otherwise the pricing sheet would need to be extended to properly price several scenarios such as: a. - Pricing for one entity if no other entity participates b. - Pricing for one entity if just one other entity participates

Yes, assume all entities will enter into a maintenance contract. Pricing proposals provided by proposers in Table 4 and Table 5 will determine if one single agreement or multiple agreements are required.

Pricing Questions: Where in the Price Sheets should we include one-time costs such as Project Management, System Design, Testing, Installations, Training, On-site services?

Proposers may insert new rows on tables 1 - 3, but may not modify the formulas. TRANSIT AGENCY is looking for hardware/software per-vehicle costs. Fees for Management, System Design, Testing, Installations, Training, On-site services can be included in the software or hardware pricing table. Total costs for services will be divided equally amongst the targeted fleet (1019 vehicles) and be reflected as a per-vehicle cost.





11

Pricing Questions: Not all licenses and modules are priced on a per vehicle basis (for example central software. Could the price sheet be adapted to reflect that and provide the opportunity to enter items that are not linked to the quantity of vehicles?

The Transit Agency is looking for CAD/AVL hardware/software per-vehicle cost. If licensing is a central software fee then Transit Agency recommends divide by total targeted vehicles to arrive at a per-vehicle cost.

Pricing Questions: We suggest removing the line "Total Options Cost Per vehicle". The total is not really comparable between vendors because some vendors may add a lot of options which then results in a higher total $ amount than for vendors who do not add any additional options and therefore end up with a low $ amount. We just want to make sure this situation is considered when evaluating pricing.

No change to the RFP is warranted, as options are listed on a per-line basis.

Section 3.3.3, Page 108, and Addendum 1, Questions and Answers. In Addendum 1, the City responded to the question regarding where to include descriptions of the Proposer’s solution. However, the response is still unclear. For example, Response Form 1 and Response Form 2 asks very specific questions related to the Proposer’s experience or a specific feature, so it is not clear which question to provide an overall description of the Proposer’s Software or Hardware solution. Would the City please change the instructions to allow Proposers to include an overall solution description in the front of Forms 1, 2, and 4?

Specific responses to Scope of Work requirements should be on Response Form 4 and elaborated on in Response Forms 1-2. Overviews of solutions would be provided during the Demonstrations.

Section 4.3.4, Page 115, and Addendum 1, Questions and Answers. Would the City please clarify or confirm that any and all exceptions to the Proposers solution in response to Form 4, Statement of Work, are only worth 100 points? If not, please clarify how the compliance is weighted and factored into the evaluation criteria?

Response Form 4 gives an overall view of compliance and capability. Further specific information is requested and should be provided in Response Forms 1-2. Noting initial answer in Addendum 1, answers may be attributed to any Evaluation Criteria the Evaluation Committee finds applicable based the answers' content.





12

Section 3.6, Page 109. Are Proposers allowed to modify headers and footers of our proposal response to include project and proposer’s information (i.e., title of RFP, RFP number, proposer’s name)?

Yes.

Section 3.6, Page 109. The RFP requires Proposers to respond using 12-point font. May Proposers use a smaller, still readable font for exhibits, tables, project plans?

Yes.

Section 3.6, Page 109. Several requested documents/samples (e.g., printed annual report) do not comply with font restrictions and they are not available in a native MS Office format for font adjustments. Please confirm that it is permissible to submit those documents as is.

Confirmed.

Section 8.1, Page 156. Given the length of our audited financial statements, can Proposers provide these documents in electronic format only?

Yes.

Section 2.11, Requirement 2013.3.14, Page 64. This requirement states: “Ability to link to the Transit Agency ACID system”, Would the City please provide interface document for the ACID system?

See page 1 of this addendum. Delete requirement #6 in this section.

Section 5.9, Page 126. Would the City please clarify the definition of the phrase “contract worker” as used in Section 5.9 in the context of background screenings for all “contract workers and subcontractors” including whether the phrase refers to regular employees of the Contractor who will be assigned to the contract?

See Section 5.9, "all contract workers and subcontractors that Contractor provides pursuant to this Contract".





13

Section 2.4, Page 12. How much of this requirement is applicable to the Light-Rail Vehicle (LRV)? Would the City please provide interface details to the LRV intelligent system if the Telematics solution is to be applied to the LRV?

Currently, there is not a defined interface or rail vehicle data that is incorporated with existing CAD/AVL system. TRANSIT AGENCY, during design and review, will work with the successful proposer to determine what telematics interface solution(s) are potentially available and to be used for light rail vehicles and then determine agency needs.

Section 2.11, Requirement 1003.1.4, Page 21 and Requirement 1003.1.6 (1), Page 21. Would the City please provide its Transit Agency operating system and application software standards?

Operating system will be Microsoft-based server and workstations.

Section 2.11, Requirement 1003.1.21, Page 22. Would the City please confirm that the Contractor is only responsible for synchronizing systems that it is providing with the Agency designated time source? Alternatively, the contractor is not responsible for synchronizing with systems it is not supply ( e.g., Telephone System, Logging Recorder, Radio Console provided by others).

Contractor shall synchronize all systems it provides with the TRANSIT AGENCY time source and not utilize a separate time source for any components.

Section 2.11, Requirement 1003.2.24, Page 25. Regarding the requirement: “Contractor software shall be configured to work with Transit Agency’s current and future backup software…” Would the City please identify the future Back-up software and version?

Back-up software needs are determined by the TRANSIT AGENCY as necessary.

Section 2.11, Requirement 2001.1.2, Page 28. Would the City please confirm that the “2. Overhead destination sign” in this requirement is referring to the outward-facing, side sign that is typically aft of the front door?

Correct.





14

Section 2.11, Requirement 2004.1.7, Page 33. Per the requirement: “The VLU shall manage power to listed on-board devices as follows….” However, the requirement does not list what specific devices that are to be managed. Would the City provide a complete list?

See RFP for VLU requirements.

Section 2.11, Requirement 1002.3.4, Page 20. Would the City please provide details of their planned DRP site environment in terms of replication of data between SANs?

Currently data replication is performed asynchronously via VMware. A project is underway for synchronous array based replication.

Section 2.11, Requirement 1002.3.1, Page 20. What VMware high availability mechanism does the City prefer in its current VMware implementation?

Site replication manager is currently in use.

With regards to section 2.9 APC. All current APC system shall be replaced, does that included the system also installed on newer vehicles from 2014? What is the timeline to replace all buses?

Yes, all APC equipment are to be replaced in all fixed-route vehicles. As stated in the section, this does not apply to Light Rail Vehicles. Bus replacement does not factor into this requirement.

Given the extension of the proposal due date, I hereby request an extension of the question period by one week.

See page 1 of this addendum.

...We are writing you this message also, since we had not the chance to attend the site visit during the Pre-Tender meeting, to give us the possibility to visit some vehicles and premises subject of the Tender in order to allow us to prepare a comprehensive and well responding to your needs proposal.

The site visit after the pre-proposal conference is the only site visit that was available. Please review the addenda to see if questions you may have were answered.

RFP PTD16-002, Pg 121-122, Section 5.6 We would be pleased to introduce a limit of liability for the Contractor to the amount of the Agreement.

No change to the RFP is warranted.





15

RFP PTD16-002, Pg 132, Section 6.7 Please confirm “Contract expiration” means until Substantial acceptance.

The bulk of section 6.7 of the RFP is applicable for the System until final completion. For items repaired during the maintenance period, it will be Contractor's risk of loss after acceptance by the City plus any applicable warranty periods.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-2, Section 2, A Please confirm prices may be revised after Substantial acceptance?


RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-4, Section 6 We request the amount of the performance surety to be automatically reduced according to progress of the performance

No change to the RFP is warranted. The City may consider a reduction of the performance surety value after final acceptance.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-7, Section 10, E,1 Could you please confirm an alteration in the character of work results in a substantial change in the nature of services, thereby increasing or decreasing the cost of the performance, said alteration shall not be taken in consideration without amendment of the Contract.

An alteration in the character of work would occur if the City itself instructs the Proposer to materially alter the scope of work to add or subtract an essential component that results in an increase or decrease of the cost of performance. That change shall not be taken into consideration without amendment of the contract.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-7, Section 10, G&H In case of delay, especially where not attributable to Contractor, in performance of this Agreement, which mechanism may be implemented to secure the payment of the budgeted amounts?

Once this contract is awarded, the funds for the project are encumbered and the department has budgetary authority to spend up to the approved total amount for the project.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-8, Section 10, J Could you please confirm applicable documents are those applicable at the date of issuance of the RFP?






16

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-10, Section 11,A Termination for Convenience: we understand close-out costs include Contractor’s investment costs, if any, relating to this Agreement


RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-11, Section 12,A Could you please confirm this article deals with data which are proprietary information of the CITY before this Agreement, meaning that any data prepared by the Contractor or obtained by the Contractor are not automatically proprietary information owned by CITY.

Data which is proprietary information created before or after by the City is covered by this provision. Data prepared or obtained by the Contractor is not automatically presumed to be proprietary information unless disclosure of such information is sensitive to the System or compromises the security of the System.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-12, Section 13,B Please confirm Contractor shall not be liable nor will have to indemnify in case of incorrect or improper use of IPR


RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-13, Section 13,C Please confirm any defects or deficiencies discovered in review of all documents provided by the City related to the performance of the Services shall give right to extension of performance time and extension of price if any to the Contractor.


RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-13, Section 13,D Please confirm that nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to give either party any rights whatsoever to any IPR of the other, unless when applicable, right to use on a non-exclusive basis all or part of the IPR conceived, created, developed to practice pursuant to this Agreement

Confirmed.





17

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-13, Section 13,E Taking into consideration Deliverables may include software, equipment, systems or other work products already existing, Rights to be granted shall not be on an exclusive basis and/or may already be subject to rights granted to any other person

Confirmed.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-13, Section 13,F Please confirm Warranty shall not apply in case of : • Normal wear and tear • Theft, Vandalism • Improper use or maintenance by the CITY or any third person (unless Contractor’s subcontractors) • Act, error, omission of the Transit Agency or any third person • Any modification by Transit Agency or any third person • Any defect resulting from material and/or services and/or instructions of the Transit Agency or a third party • Force majeure event • Defect not attributable to Contractor

Confirmed, except Contractor shall be responsible for all products and services that it provides whether any of those items come from their subcontractor or from themselves directly.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-15, Section 15, §4 & §5 We understand legal privilege of the City and file to be relinquished by the Contractor shall not apply to Contractor’s IPR or Subcontractor’s IPR if any.

Confirmed, except when applicable, the right to use on a non-exclusive basis all or part of the IPR existing, conceived, created, or developed pursuant to this agreement.

RFP PTD16-002 / Attachment C, Page C-17, Section 24,13 We understand the surrender may exclusively deal with owned real, personal and/or intellectual property belonging to the CITY.

Confirmed, except when applicable, the right to use on a non-exclusive basis all or part of the IPR existing, conceived, created, or developed pursuant to this agreement.





18

Price Sheet In which table services such as bus installation, training, project management, ….shall be priced. Could we add lines to the price sheets if needed?

Proposers may insert new rows on tables 1 - 3, but may not modify the formulas. The Transit Agency is looking for hardware/software per-vehicle costs. Fees for Management, System Design, Testing, Installations, Training, On-site services can be included in the software or hardware pricing table. Total costs for services will be divided equally amongst the targeted fleet (1019 vehicles) and be reflected as a per-vehicle cost.

RFP PTD16-002, Pages 1 & 8, Sections 1.1 & 2.1.1 It is indicated that "The sixteen (16) year contract will include an initial design and installation period of up to two (2) years..." Page 8, § 2.1.1: it is indicated that “all tasks associated with planning, installation, test and acceptance…..will require a period not to exceed 18 months” In Attachment C page C-2, section 1: it is indicated that “the 16 year agreement will include an initial design and installation period of up to 2 years” Please clarify if the CITY expect the implementation part of the contract to last 18 or 24 months. Based on our experience 24 months would be more realistic.

See page 1 of this addendum. Revise Attachment C, Section 1, first sentence to read: "The sixteen (16) year Agreement will include an initial design and installation period of up to two (2) years, a three (3) year warranty and five (5) years extended maintenance with optional extensions of six (6) years on a two-year increment basis."

RFP PTD16-002, Pages 17 & 18, Sections 2.10.1, 2.10.2 P17 section 2.10. 1 and P18 section 2.10.2: it is noted that the extended maintenance will be of 5 years with 6 additional years in option on 2-years incremental basis In Attachment C page C-2, section 1: It is noted that the extended maintenance will be of 7 years with 4 additional years in option on 2-years incremental basis Price sheet: request for 5 years of extended maintenance and 3 options of 2 years extension period (as per P17 section 2.10.1) Please clarify.

Revise Attachment C, Section 1, first sentence to read: "The sixteen (16) year Agreement will include an initial design and installation period of up to two (2) years, a three (3) year warranty and five (5) years extended maintenance with optional extensions of six (6) years on a two-year increment basis."





19

Is it preferred to use the term “CITY” or “Valley Metro” when referring to all participating agencies in this procurement?

The term 'Transit Agency' is acceptable unless proposer's response is specific to City of Phoenix inquiries or requirements.

Section 2.3.4 states: “Contractor shall use the MotoTrbo System as a backup for both voice and data communications.” However, section 2006.2.23 implies that the MotoTrbo System is the primary voice communication solution. Please clarify.

TRANSIT AGENCY will work with the successful proposer during the design and review phase to determine the optimal use for the backup radio system.

Regarding FourWinds: a. What is FourWinds used for by CITY today? b. Since the RFP calls for integrating to the existing signs, does CITY already have the necessary FourWinds licenses? c. Does this product have an interface to the Current CAD/AVL system? If so what information is being exchanged?

a. FourWinds runs our outdoor digital sign software for route status. b. CITY owns licenses for this system c. FourWinds receives route schedules and real-time information from the Current CAD/AVL system (via a csv text file).

Section 2.6.2.4 mentions that WLAN radio frequency coverage plot shall be provided. It is our understanding from section 5000 that WLAN at the garages will reuse the existing infrastructure or if new systems are required they will be provided by the Transit Agency. a. Are bidders to conduct their own WLAN surveys and create coverage plots, or are there existing plots that can be utilized? b. If coverage is not sufficient, what would the process be to remedy the coverage?

a. Existing plots will be used. b. If coverage is not sufficient, additional WWLAN Antenna/APs will be installed by agency.

Requirement 1003.3 System Test/Development Environment – Will CITY provide the IT hardware for the test environment?

City will provide virtual environment.





20

The table in requirement 2001.1.1 of items to be provided by contractor includes “Radio.” In addition, the pricing sheet includes a line item for the radios. However, it is our understanding that CITY is providing the mobile radios and bidders are to install and integrate. Please confirm.

The successful proposer shall provide, install and integrate mobile radios per the RFP requirements.

Requirement 2001.1.2 lists ASA as an onboard system that will need to be integrated. Please confirm our understanding that new ASA systems are required for all fixed-route vehicles, no integration to the existing ASA system is required on the rail vehicles, and no ASA system is to be provided for paratransit vehicles.

Correct. For all fixed-route vehicles new ASA system are required. There will be no integration to the existing Light-Rail ASA system. There is no ASA system to be installed on Paratransit vehicles.

Requirement 2009.1.4 states: "In the event that data radio communications is not available, the emergency alarm shall be transmitted over selected communications solution." a. Can you please clarify the requirement? b. Does “selected communications solution” mean using the MotoTrbo radio as fallback?

The MGR will be configured to transmit emergency alarm data based on any number of factors such as availability or priority via a Wi-Fi, Cellular, or 800MHz radio (MotoTrbo) connection.

Requirement 2010.4.9 states: “Contractor shall be responsible for removal of existing signs and, if necessary, installation of a Transit Agency approved covering to conceal holes/gaps left by the existing “stop requested” signs prior to installation of PIDs.” a. Please confirm that all readerboards are to be replaced, no matter how long they have been in service on-board the buses. b. If not, could CITY please advise as to how many are to be reused? c. If some readerboards are to be reused, how is this to be reflected in the price sheet?

Proposers shall provide a cost for all new readerboards regardless of age for bus fleet vehicles only.





21

Requirement 2013.3.14 states: “6. Ability to link to the Transit Agency ACID system.” a. Can you please provide more details related to what the ACID system is and provide details on the level of interface required. b. What type of information to be exchanged? c. Would the interface be one way or two way? d. Is there an existing ICD that could be provided?

See page 1 of this addendum. Please delete requirement #6 in this section.

Requirement 2013.2.3 states: “Contractor will provide a sample of the recommended device with active cellular data account for testing purposes, and not procure the additional RDT devices until receiving Transit Agency written approval.” a. Please confirm that CITY is to provide the RDT tablet/Laptop hardware. b. If not, how many units should be provided and where should this be shown on the pricing sheet?

TRANSIT AGENCY will provide RDT tablet/laptop hardware.

Addendum 1 and section 1.5 of Response Form 1 seem to indicate that bidders are to price a yard management solution. a. Can CITY please clarify whether vendors are to price a yard management solution in their base offer? b. If vendors are to price the yard management solution, how is this to be indicated on the price sheet? c. Can CITY provide detailed Yard layouts/drawings for each yard that are necessary for estimating the Yard Management Real-time location system (RTLS) to be provided? d. Would it be possible for the CITY to arrange a tour of all the yards and desired coverage areas for parking spot determination so vendors could survey them and take measurements to accurately price the solution?

a. Yes. b. Add rows as needed. c. Proposers' solutions should sufficiently cover areas customarily observed in the transit industry, i.e., operating garages/yards of 200-250 revenue vehicles. d. Proposers' solutions should sufficiently cover areas customarily observed in the transit industry, i.e., operating garages/yards of 200-250 revenue vehicles.





22

For the optional wheel chair sensor function: a. Is this solution only required for full-size, fixed-route buses that are running service that feeds into real-time passenger information systems? b. There are currently no requirements (optional or otherwise) in the Real-Time Information system section of the RFP to include wheel chair capacity status information. Should that be included as part of that option? c. Certain costs for this option might not be component/unit prices. Can a “Lump Sum” optional section be added to the pricing sheet for capturing such costs? Alternately, the costs could be averaged out on a per unit basis, but vendors would need to know the intended number of units CITY will purchase.

TRANSIT AGENCY is looking for an optional wheel chair sensor function for fixed route fleet vehicles that feeds into real-time passenger information systems. Wheelchair capacity status information should that be included as part of that option. Costs shall be averaged out on a per unit basis to include only fixed fleet vehicles.

The RFP requires (section 3.6 Proposal Format) the proposal to be in at least 12 point font. However, the response forms, including the “Offeror Response” text appears to be size 10 font. Please clarify.

Use forms as provided.

Would CITY consider allowing follow up questions in response to CITY's specific answers to questions?

See page 1 of this addendum.

APC Questions Regarding requirement 2.5.4. Please confirm vendor is not required to guarantee the accuracy of the onboard rail APC systems.

APC component failures and hardware repairs on light rail vehicles will be the TRANSIT AGENCY's responsibility. The Contractor will still be responsible to provide technical support/training to resolve any issues for the automation of NTD reporting on bus, paratransit, and light-rail vehicles.





23

IT Related Questions Referencing requirement 3006.1.11. Please confirm this requirement will use Microsoft’s “Active Directory Domain Services” for user ID’s and passwords. If not, please provide database interface details.

Confirmed.

General Questions Regarding Requirement 4003.1.6. This proposer has made several attempts to contract Zonar to explore an interface to the Zonar system to export vehicle pull-in and pull-out information. Zonar considers this proposer a direct competitor and we have been unable to contact an individual at Zonar who will discuss this requirement. Please provide a contact at Zonar authorized to work with proposers to fulfill this requirement.

Requirement 4003.1.6 does not mention Zonar.

Ref. 2007.1.1 – Mobile Gateway Router – MGR Hardware Requirements This requirement specifies that the onboard gateway be InMotion/Sierra Wireless Part # oMG 2032, SKU# IMTOMG2032‐01. There are numerous other Mobile Gateway Routers available in the market that meet the MGR Functional Requirements. Specifying a given vendor places all systems integrators at a disadvantage; it allows InMotion/Sierra Wireless to dictate the price of the MGR because competition has been removed. • Would the City permit vendors to present alternate Mobile Gateway Router solutions that are capable of meeting the MGR Functional Requirements? • Would the City entertain alternate MGR solutions based on vehicle type? Simpler MGRs may suffice for the paratransit fleet, where Light Rail Vehicles may warrant an MGR with additional capabilities.

The City may consider purchasing this item separately for cost efficiency purposes. However, for purposes of this RFP, Proposers are required to offer this product as part of the system.





24

Ref. 2007.1.10 Transit Agency will be responsible for any recurring cellular fees a. Do the agencies have a preference for a particular carrier? B. Will the agencies be selecting wireless carriers independently?

a. Agencies prefer to be carrier agnostic; however, existing fleet is CDMA. b. Potentially, based on costs and contracts leveraged. CDMA technology is primary service technology.

Section 2.11, Requirement 2004.2.39, Page 38 What is the "factory" being referred to in this requirement? Bus OEM or other?

Bus OEM.

Section 2.11, Requirement 2009.1.2, Page 51 This requirement implies there will be multiple emergency alarm switches in each vehicle. If this is the case, please state how many and where the switches should be located.

TRANSIT AGENCY expects a minimum of two emergency alarm switches. The switch locations shall be determined by the TRANSIT AGENCY during the design and review phase.

Section 2.11, Requirement 3004.9.23, Page 77; Section 2.11, Requirement 3004.11.5, Page 79; Section 2.11, Requirement 4002.1.15, Page 97, Would the City clarify the term RDA User? Is the RDA user a user of the RDT?

Yes. A Remote Desktop Account (RDA) is an account utilized for the Remote Dispatch Terminal.

Section 2.11, Requirement 3004.10, Page 78 Would the City please confirm that this section applies to Fixed Route buses only?

Yes. This section is specific to fixed route fleet vehicles (bus).

Section 2.11, Requirement Section 4002, Page 94 Our interpretation of Requirement Section 4002 is that we are to provide data to the Agency to allow it to generate reports. However, it appears that in some of the requirements (e.g., 4002.1.8, 4002.1.15, 4002.1.20) the Contractor is to provide these reports. Would the City please clarify?

The proposed CAD/AVL system is to provide standard reports and other operational reports that will be specified by proposers in their proposals based on their transit industry experience, and can be revised or augmented during design review. 4002.1.1 requires that all data be available to be reported against and the successful firm provide documentation on what/where that data can be obtained for purposes of ad-hoc reporting/auditing purposes.





25

Section 2.11, Requirement 4004.1.4, Page 100 Would the City please provide detailed information (e.g., type of data, integration components, availability) that will provided by the “Ellipse database”?

Omit "including the databases for Ellipse" requirement.

Section 2.11, Requirement 5000.1.19, Page 105 The requirement appears to be related to Yard Management. Would the City please clarify this requirement and the meaning of “automatically assigning a vehicle to an inside facility”? Is Yard Management a required capability of the CAD/AVL solution?

Yard management is a requirement of the proposed CAD/AVL system; Proposers should include their system's capabilities in their proposal.

Technical questions Wheelchair and Bike sensors I. How many wheelchairs per bus (breakdown by type of vehicle)? II. How many tie-downs are carried per bus? III. How many bikes can be accommodated per bus?

I. Three (3) wheel chair positions on forty foot and sixty foot buses. Two (2) wheel chair positions on the RAPID buses (45 foot buses) II. Enough to cover all wheel chair positions (three) fronts and rears III. Vehicles in the regional fleet can hold two (2) or three (3) bikes depending on the make, model, and bike rack installed.

Technical questions Paragraph 2004.2.37 requires that in the event the system were to loose primary data communications that the system should fallback to provide data communications through the data radio. Paragraph 2004.2.4 appears to talk about using the MGR for data communications but indicates that “Priority data” be sent over the radio system. Please clarify when data should be transmitted over the cellular modem in the MGR and when it should be transmitted via the radio system.

TRANSIT AGENCY will work with the successful proposer during design and review to determine optimal data and voice paths. "Priority data" would include CAD/AVL information relevant to keeping vehicle in service such as driver log on/off and GPS coordinates, RTT, PRTT, etc.

Technical questions Disaster Recovery: Is there expectation that we are to provide the space or just the equipment for the location?

Documented details in the event of a disaster. Space and equipment will be supplied by agency.





26

Technical questions 1002.1.1: Verify that all third-party software/hardware is to be provided by the agency.

Proposers should review the requirements as outlined in the RFP; see Section 1002.

Technical questions 1002.2.1: Implies that central system will be virtual. Please verify.

A primary and secondary site will be provided in the virtual environment. IP addresses may change when failing over to secondary site. CAD/AVL supplier will be responsible for documenting all actions necessary in the event of a failure.

Technical questions 1002.3.1: Requirement for redundant central system. If using existing virtual system, what is already in place to support this? How much of this are the CAD/AVL supplier going to be responsible for?

A primary and secondary site will be provided in the virtual environment. IP addresses may change when failing over to secondary site. CAD/AVL supplier will be responsible for documenting all actions necessary in the event of a failure.

Technical questions 1002.3.2: Redundant links to everything. What is already in place to support this? How much of this are the CAD/AVL supplier going to be responsible for?

Proposers should review the requirements as outlined in the RFP.

Legal and Contractual Questions Questions on Section 5, Special Terms and Conditions: - 5.5, Performance Surety: When does the City anticipate closure of the security? It seems that the City requires the security be renewed on an annual basis, but at some point (perhaps the start of warranty?) the security would not be necessary. - Is the City willing to accept a guarantee of a publically traded company instead of the security proposed?

The City may consider a reduction of the security value at some point after final acceptance. The City is not willing to accept a guarantee of a publicly traded company instead of the security required.





27

Legal and Contractual Questions Questions on Section 6, General Terms and Conditions: 6.7, Contractor Incurred Risks: Contractor notes that the City will have care, custody and control of elements of hardware prior to Contract expiration. Would it not make commercial sense for the City to take title and risk of loss of hardware at the point of delivery or installation, whichever is applicable?

The bulk of section 6.7 of the RFP is applicable for the System until final completion. For items repaired during the maintenance period, it will be Contractor's risk of loss after acceptance by the City plus any applicable warranty periods.

Legal and Contractual Questions Questions on Attachment C, Draft Contract: 10.J, Contract Order of Precedence: The order of precedence in Section 10.J calls out a document entitled “City Terms and Conditions”, but we don’t see a document with that title. Documents entitled “Special Terms and Conditions” or “General Terms and Conditions” are contained in the RFP. Should those have been listed in lieu of the “City Terms and Conditions”? -Given that a winning bidder is selected based on its Proposal, shouldn’t the Contractor’s Proposal be listed prior to the RFP in the order of precedence, as the proposal would include Contractor’s alternates/exceptions to the RFP? -Finally, where would the City include the agreement attachments (Exhibits A through F)?

City terms and conditions are the Special Terms and Conditions and the General Terms and Conditions. - No change to the RFP is warranted. - The Agreement attachments, as listed in Section 27 of the proposed Agreement, will be attached to the Agreement.

Legal and Contractual Questions General Questions: In light of the specialized nature of this procurement, i.e. CAD/AVL system, would the City have an issue with a proposer including a copy of its specific terms and conditions relating to such technology together with its bid?

No issue with submission of such terms, but they will fall as part of Proposer's Proposal in the Order of Precedence.





28

Legal and Contractual Questions General Questions: In terms of exceptions under section 3.8 of the RFP, please clarify the level of detail that City expects on contractual terms exceptions. Given that we are dealing with legal terms and language, the exceptions would be based on standard commercial/industry practices and, as such, do not necessarily lend themselves to a straight-forward explanation regarding benefit to the City as required by Section 3.8.
