PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE Thursday, January 8, 2015 Agenda - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Thursday, January 8, 2015

WEST CONTRA COSTA HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT INVESTMENT STUDY

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

Agenda

 Introduction  Schedule  Summary of Scope of Work  DBE Goal  RFP Submittal Requirements  Selection Criteria and Evaluation  Questions, Answers and Process

Introduction

Impetus for Study

Improving high capacity transit is a long held policy goal Traffic congestion within I-80 Corridor Public interest in major transit improvements Possible extension of Measure J sales tax measure

Introduction

Key Partners and Participating Agencies

 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC)  Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)  Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)  Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)  AC Transit  Western Contra Costa Transit Authority (WestCAT)  Capital Corridor  Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA)  Cities (El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, Hercules)  Contra Costa County

Introduction

Study Funding

Organization Contribution Source WCCTAC $300,000 Measure J, 28b CCTA $300,000 STIP BART $300,000 General Fund MTC $100,000 To be Determined Subtotal (Study Budget) $1,000,000 Contingency (WCCTAC) $100,000 Measure J, 28b

Introduction

Policy Advisory Committee Study Lead Agency Study Management Group Technical Advisory Committee WCCTAC Board X WCCTAC TAC X WCCTAC Staff X X WestCAT X X AC Transit X X BART X X Capital Corridor As needed Caltrans As needed WETA As needed CCTA X X

Study Organization

Procurement Schedule

KEY DATES RFP release: December 18, 2014 Pre-proposal conference: January 8, 2015 Final day for Submittal of Questions: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 Proposal Packages due: Noon on Friday, January 30, 2015 Proposal Package Evaluation: February 2-27, 2015 Interviews (tentative): Monday, February 23 and Tuesday, February 24, 2015 WCCTAC Board Approves Contract: Friday, March 27, 2015

Study Schedule

Key Milestones STIP funds availablity Scheduled completion of CCTA Expenditure Plan May 2016 Anticipated completion of HCTI Study September 2016-March 2017

Scope of Work

Past Studies



AC Transit’s ongoing Major Corridors Study



AC Transit’s ongoing Comprehensive Operations Analysis



BART’s 1983 West Contra Costa Extension Study



BART’s 1992 West Contra Costa Extension Alignment Study



BART’s 2003 Contra Costa-Solano Rail Feasibility Study



BART’s 2014 Vision Plan



Capital Corridor’s 2014 Business Plan



CCTA’s 2014 Ferry Feasibility Study



CCTA’s 2001 / 2015 Express Bus Studies



MTC’s 1996 I-80 Corridor Study



MTC’s 2007 Regional Rail Plan



WestCAT 2013 Short Range Transit Plan



WCCTAC’s 1999 Additional West County Train Station Site Evaluation

Scope of Work

Understanding West County Markets for Transit

 Document Existing and Planned:

 Transportation Network  Land Uses  Mobile Device Data (e.g. AirSage)

 Travel Market Analysis

 Southbound AM expected for primary analysis  Other and untapped markets also should be included

Study Area

Scope of Work

Developing Alternatives

 Conceptual Alternatives

 Multi-modal  Station locations and access

 Evaluation of Alternatives

 Criteria Development  Preliminary Screening  Ridership Modeling  Final Screening

 May result in multiple final alternatives

Scope of Work

Public Outreach

 Diverse array of stakeholders

 Creative, Effective and Interactive tools

 Web page  Social media

 Workshop/meetings/open houses

 Held in various cities within sub-region

Scope of Work

Costs and Funding Feasibility

 Cost Estimates

 Preliminary Screening: order of magnitude  Final Screening: capital and operating costs for each final alternative

 Funding Options for Final Alternatives

 Identification of Funding Sources  Financial Model

 Cost Parameters  Risk Analysis

 New Starts/Small Starts Evaluation

8% DBE Goal

 Analysis used new (2012) Local Assistance methodology.

DBE goal based on total forecasted contract value with

Caltrans-specified adjustment factor applied

Independent cost estimate identified two sub-consultant

• pportunities:

 Public Participation  Funding Options

 Need not use the same sub-consulting opportunities

Other contract tasks may be used, but must meet the goal or

demonstrate a good faith effort.

RFP Submittal Requirements

 7 Hard Copies plus 1 Electronic  25 Pages Max.  Transmittal Letter with Indication of Compliance or Issues with

Professional Services Contract

 Project Understanding  Management Plan and Schedule

 Qualifications and Experience  References  Resumes  Project Budget (in sealed envelope)  Federal Forms

Selection Criteria and Process

 Selection Panel will review and rank all proposals  Evaluation Criteria

 Demonstrated ability to manage project scope, schedule, budget and

deliver projects expeditiously

 Qualifications and experience of key project team members and firm  Demonstrated experience with transit corridor studies involving multiple

modes

 Clear understanding and creative approaches to project’s tasks  Satisfaction of previous clients

 Interviews - TBD

Questions and Answers Process

 Email notices to interested parties will be sent if there are

addenda to the RFP. Any addenda will be posted on the website.

 All responses to questions will be posted on website:  Periodically check for new information WCCTAC website:

www.wcctac.org

Questions Received to Date

 Should the Federal Forms in Attachment A be filled out by the

prime only, or all members of a team?

 Sub-consultants must complete all forms except those pertaining to the

DBE commitment (so everything except 10-O1, 15-H, 10-O2, and 17-F).

 Should the Project Budget be submitted in a cost plus fixed-fee

(CPFF) format?

 Yes. Reimbursement contract type with a not-to-exceed budget and

possibly task orders. For costs, include fully burdened rates (direct labor costs, indirect, travel, benefits, and other direct costs) and fee.

 Do you have a Project Budget template you’d like us to use?  No