Addendum No. 3 Intelligent Transportation System DATE: August 20, 2020 RE: QUESTIONS and RESPONSES the Following Requests for Ad

Addendum No. 3

Intelligent Transportation System

DATE: August 20, 2020

RE: QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

The following Requests for Additional Information (RFI) were received prior to the advertised deadline for submitting questions of Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 5:00 p.m. for the proposal submission date of Tuesday, August 25, 2020 2:00 p.m. This addendum regarding the RFI and its response shall be considered merged with the original bid package as if they were whole.

1) For the following “Ability to display live information on bus station electronic/digital signage ” - Does SMART have existing digital signage? If not, does SMART requires vendor to offer bus station digital signage?

SMART currently has three existing digital signs. One large display sign at the Wilsonville Transit Center and two smaller signs that will be placed at high-passenger traffic stops. SMART has partnered with CHK America to operate these digital display signs. Proposers are required to work with SMART and/or third parties, such as CHK America, to display live “next bus arrival” information. Proposers are not required to offer bus station digital signage, but may offer their own solution for digital signage as optional equipment, materials, and services as add-ons to this project or for any of SMART’s future expansions.

2) Would SMART allow the number of page to be increased to 60 pages? This would help all providers in providing a detailed response.

SMART maintains the 30 page limit requirement to allow for effective scoring by the Selection Review Committee. Proposers are able to provide supporting information including references, graphs, examples and photos as appendices that do not count toward the page limit.

3) Have many vehicles need to be equipped with the demand-response software?

SMART will require both fixed route and demand response software for 24 vehicles. The remaining 13 vehicles are standard buses used for fixed route only.

4) Do you have any performance or features required for the VoIP system?

SMART expects proposers to outline their approach for communications between supervisors, dispatchers, mechanics and other users that is fully integrated with the CAD/AVL system.

5) Shall vendors provide driver handset with Cradle and hand-free speaker for the Voice over IP system or does SMART have existing equipment’s we can re-use?

SMART expects proposers to provide a solution without reusing any existing equipment.

6) Does SMART require integration with panic button for ambient listening?

SMART does not require integration with a panic button. Proposers are welcome to offer their own solution for panic button integration as optional equipment, materials, and services.

7) Does SMART own a fixed route scheduling software for the CAD/AVL to retrieve schedule data from?

SMART recently partnered with Optibus to provide scheduling software. The awarded contractor can work with SMART to obtain schedule data or create their own agreement with Optibus to retrieve it directly.

8) Does SMART have an existing cellular router in each bus?

SMART expects proposers to provide a solution without reusing any existing equipment.

9) Is the provider responsible for providing a cellular data plan?

Yes, the contractor is responsible for a cellular data plan.

10) Does SMART have an antenna on the bus we can re-use?

Some vehicles are equipped with antennas, however, SMART expects proposers to provide a solution without reusing any existing equipment.

11) Do you require vendors to provide 37 interior LED sign for next stop announcement?

The proposal does not require interior LED signs, however, a proposer can include the items under the Optional Equipment, Materials, and Services as an add-on for optional or future procurement. The current requirement is for an audible automated vehicle announcement system that meets the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

12) Does SMART require single log-in integration with its Fare Collection system? If so, which fare system are you using?

SMART is fare-free on most routes and does not have an electronic fare collection system on routes that have a fare. This project will not require integration to a fare collection system.

13) Does SMART requires its CAD/AVL to manage interlining?

Yes, SMART interlines routes and modes. An operator may work multiple routes in one shift, including demand response. The CAD/AVL system should recognize interlining and allow for minimal to no driver interaction between routes and account for deadhead, revenue, and non- revenue miles and hours.

14) Does SMART requires its CAD/AVL to manage headway management?

SMART does not require the CAD/AVL to manage headway, however, proposers may offer it as part of their solution.

15) The RFP states to “include support for Oregon’s GTFS-ride data standard.” - What does SMART means by “Support”? Are we expected to provide support for the development of the standard?

GTFS-ride is an open, fixed-route transit ridership data standard developed through a partnership between the Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon State University. GTFS-ride allows for improved ridership data collection, storing, sharing, reporting, and analysis.

This standard uses the required elements of GTFS and adds files necessary for ridership data standardization and reporting. GTFS-ride allows transit agencies to share their ridership data with other agencies and organizations interested in collecting and analyzing ridership data. More information about GTFS-ride can be found at gtfs-ride.org.

16) Given answers to questions will be posted on August 20th and the RFP is due August 25th, proposers will only have two business days to digest the City's responses to questions, adjust their answers accordingly, review their content, and submit their proposals. For this reason, we respectfully request that the City extend its submission deadline to allow itself time to comprehensively answer proposers' inquiries, and allow proposers time to thoughtfully incorporate said answers into their proposals. We suggest that the due date is extended to two weeks after the City's issuance of answers to proposers’ questions, which provides proposers with sufficient time to adjust their responses and incorporate the City's answers thoroughly.

The City will maintain the schedule within the RFP, understanding that all proposers have the same period of time to review materials and submit proposals.

17) On Page 7 of the RFP, the City requests a "public mobile app (iOS and Android) that is user-friendly, determined by City staff, that allows customers to track buses, see schedules, and find bus stops" for its fixed route service. Would the City be interested in an application that not only allows uses to track buses, see schedules, and find bus stops, but also enables mobile ticketing and payment?

This project does not require mobile ticketing and payment, however, proposers may offer this feature as part of their solution.

18) On Page 7 of the RFP, the City requires all demand response solutions to have "electronic manifests with real-time changes communicated to MDTs" alongside "automated ride scheduling, ability to generate reservations, and provide shift management." In addition to these functionalities, would the City be interested in responses that propose innovative service models such as an app-based hailing for its demand-responsive services? Under such a model, customers would request rides using a mobile application. Users would still be able to book rides over the phone. Such software could, for example, show passengers real-time vehicle locations, ensure that passengers do not have unnecessarily long wait times, aggregate passengers effectively, permit passengers to book in advance or on demand, etc.

This project does not require app-based hailing, however, proposers may offer this feature as part of their solution as an add-on for optional or future procurement.

19) We understand the City would like contractors to provide a mobile application for fixed route that enables vehicle tracking and provides schedule information. We also understand the City is interested, as an option, for contractors to provide an "application for Demand Response customers to view bus arrival in real-time." Would the City be interested in contractors providing a single, passenger mobile application that allows for trip planning and vehicle tracking for all passenger types and modes?

Although not required for demand response, an application for demand response customers to view bus arrival in real-time is preferred. A single, passenger mobile application for trip planning and vehicle tacking for all passenger types and modes would be considered under this preference.

20) Is the City interested in routing solutions that can incorporate real-time information (traffic information, cancellations, etc.) into its routing decisions? We have found that this capability drives efficiency gains for the system and generally reduces vehicle miles traveled.

Yes, SMART is interested in these types of routing solutions.

21) Can the City please disclose the name of its current ITS provider?

SMART’s current provider is ETA Transit Systems. The City’s current technology contract has expired and the scope of technology use for SMART has significantly changed since the previous RFP was released. Through grant funding, SMART is seeking proposals through a competitive bidding process for this project.

22) Can the City please disclose its current VLU provider?

The current VLU is provided by our current provider and will not be disclosed.

23) Can the City state the brand and model of its current MDTs?

The current brand and model of our current MDTs are provided by the current provider and will not be disclosed.

24) Can the City please provide an estimated total and annual budget for this project?

The City received a state grant for this project, which will not be disclosed.

25) Can the City please provide prospective proposers with the three most important goals of this ITS procurement?

As stated in the Project Description, the project seeks to “…improve SMART’s day-to-day operations, provide real-time information for customers, and provide performance metrics for reporting and analytical purposes.”

26) Can the City please state the model and provider of its current AVA system?

The current AVA system is provided by the current provider and will not be disclosed.

27) Can the City disclose any pain points with its current ITS software?

SMART’s current contract has expired and therefore is seeking a vendor through a competitive bidding process which expands the City’s current technology platform beyond what our requests have been in previous technology projects.

28) Would the City consider converting its deviated fixed route service to a fully flexible, demand response service? In our experience, we have found that fixed routes that flex can yield a frustrating customer experience: folks reliant on the fixed route get confused and frustrating when the vehicles deviate and thus are not on time, and passengers reliant on their flexible nature don't always get the quality of service they need and deserve. Converting this mode to fully demand response would also allow the deviated fixed route ridership to be absorbed by the demand response service, yielding greater efficiencies and cost savings, should the City be interested in combining these two services.

SMART will consider solutions from proposers that show increased efficiencies and ridership, including those proposed in this question.

29) On Page 5 of the RFP, the City states that the ITS system will be "maintained by the Contractor" and that the contractor will be fully responsibility for software and hardware installation. However, on Page 17 of the RFP, the City requests manuals that provide "sufficient detailed installation and maintenance instructions to allow the City to properly and safely install, connect, and commission the equipment supplied and to operate and maintain the system." Can the City 1) confirm that it is the contractor's responsibility to provide installation and maintenance and 2) if it is the contractor's responsibility, elaborate as to why the City will need installation, hardware, and software manuals?

It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide initial installation and maintenance. Operating and Maintenance manuals are required for troubleshooting, installation of replacement parts, and/or installing Contractor equipment into newly acquired vehicles, dependent upon City’s final agreement with Contractor.

30) On Page 21 of the RFP, the City requires all proposers to use "12-point font". Due to the 30 Page limit, would the district be open to proposers including appendices to offer more detailed information as relevant?

31) We understand the tentative contract award for this procurement is November 2, 2020. When would the City expect proposers to have all software and hardware fully implemented? In many of our global deployments that ask for several software applications and functionalities, we have found that taking a phased approach to implementation ensures that each software component is fully tailored, properly implemented, and easily

understood by its user group. Would the City be amenable to a phased roll out such as this, that avoids a "rip and replace" structure from existing technologies and ensures a smooth transition?

SMART will review proposer’s project delivery timeline, which is scored under the Project Management Plan. As stated on page 23, “the City’s goal is to have the system substantially completed and operational in early 2021.”

32) In general, is the City open to a partner that will advise on mode share / transit system optimization, including where it's best to place different modes?

Mode share/transit system optimization is not in the requirements for this procurement. Proposers are welcome to offer it as part of their solution.

33) Is the City looking to procure routing software (for its deviated fixed route and demand response fleet) with this procurement?

Routing software is not in the requirements for this procurement. Proposers are welcome to offer it as part of their solution.

34) Is the City looking to procure route planning and optimization software (for its fixed route lines) with this procurement?

Routing software is not in the requirements for this procurement. Proposers are welcome to offer it as part of their solution.

35) Is the City open to suggestions from respondents about alternate methods to achieve the desired end? Said another way, if our solution can achieve the City's goal in a way that is different from the one the City contemplated, will the City be open to the format of our Solution? As an indicative example, we understand the purpose of APCs is to understand ridership data by stop, route, time of day, etc. If we have an alternative suggestion for how to capture this information, may we propose it instead?

For this project, SMART requires proposers to deliver a proven Automated Passenger Counter (APC) solution. This is an element required by the grant that is funding this project.

36) Do the City's vehicles' currently have public announcement (PA) systems installed? Or, is the proposer to provide that as part of the AVA?

SMART has 13 standard buses equipped with public announcement (PA) systems. The remaining 24 vehicles, mostly cutaway vehicles, do not. The proposer should provide PA systems as a solution.

37) Can the City please share the price proposal form in Excel or other editable format so that we can more easily submit it for your review?

The price proposal form will be provided on the City website no later than August 20, 2020.

38) Of the City's 37 vehicles, how many are used for fixed route? Deviated fixed route? Demand response?

SMART interlines vehicles between fixed route (including deviated fixed route) and demand response modes. SMART’s 13 standard buses are used for fixed route only. All other vehicles may be used for both modes.

39) Can they City please share a list of vehicle types and capacities for your 37 vehicles?

Vehicle information will be provided on the City website no later than August 20, 2020.

40) Does the City have a DBE goal for this procurement?

SMART does not have a requirement pertaining to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), but strongly encourages DBE businesses to submit proposals. SMART’s Title VI Policy may be found at https://www.ridesmart.com/transit/page/title-vi-notice-public.

41) Could SMART provide a breakdown of the fleet?

The Vehicle information can be found in the attached Excel document.

42) How many daily demand response trips do you anticipate?

For FY 19 SMART’s average daily demand response trips were 52.

43) How many vehicles are in the demand response fleet?

SMART interlines vehicles between fixed route (including deviated fixed route) and demand response modes. SMART’s 13 standard buses are used for fixed route only. The remaining 24 vehicles may be used for both modes.

44) How many demand response vehicles are in use on a typical day?

Vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS) for demand response is 6 (six). VOMS for fixed route is 12 (twelve).

45) What type of vehicles are used for demand response service? Minivans, Shuttles, or Cutaways?

Primarily cutaways are used, however, minivans and full size vans may be used for revenue service. Please see the attached Vehicle Information sheet.

46) How many annual Demand Response revenue hours are expected?

Vehicle revenue hours for demand response in FY 20 was 5,996.

47) Does the city have any specific KPI’s relating to demand response performance – for example: on time performance, cost per passenger, shared ride rate, denial rate, etc?

Yes, as stated in the Project Description, the project seeks to “…improve SMART’s day-to-day operations [on time performance, cost per passenger, shared ride rate, denial rate, etc.], provide real-time information for customers, and provide performance metrics for reporting and analytical purposes.”

48) Will the city continue to operate it’s dial a ride call center to take reservations for on demand response service? Or will the vendor provide it?

SMART will continue to operate the demand response call center to take reservations, however, on page 3 of the RFP under “preferred features include” is a preferred line item for “web and/or phone based customer portal for creating and submitting applications and making and canceling reservations.” The preference is for this to be an additional feature/tool for SMART’s staff to take reservations.

49) What are the City’s goals for demand response service relating to this RFP?

50) What is the current cost per passenger for the demand response service?

Across all demand response programs in FY 20, the cost per passenger was $58.85.

51) What is the current denial rate for the demand response service?

SMART only has one demand response program (non-ADA) that denies trips and the denials are not tracked at this time.

52) How many no shows does the city have in a typical day for the demand response service?

For FY 20 SMART had an average daily no-show of one.

53) How many dispatchers and schedulers does the city employ to manage the demand response service?

SMART has two dispatchers that handle both scheduling and dispatching (for both modes) and one supervisor that oversees the positions.

54) Can the city provide additional information about the demand response zones in the form of a map?

SMART has five demand response Dial-a-Ride programs with restricted zones. An interactive map of the zones can be found at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1i9IGQ6Z5gVNfmUCPcANYMdvGpLs&usp=sharin g.

55) Can Proposers include a copy of the specific vendor pricing sheet as explanation along with the required pricing form?

In addition to the Price Proposal, proposers may submit specific vendor pricing sheets as supporting information that does not count toward the 30 page limit. However, the Price Proposal Form should have the project total included and will be the primary document used during evaluation.

56) Is this bid intended to enhance or replace an existing software solution? If it is either enhanced or replacement, which software solution does the City currently use for fixed and paratransit services?

SMART has received a state grant to replace existing hardware and software. The current provider is ETA Transit Systems.

57) What are some of the biggest concerns seen with the current software solution that you would change immediately if you could?

The City’s current technology contract has expired and the scope of technology use for SMART has significantly changed since the previous RFP was released.

58) What are the goals of the City surrounding this software upgrade?

59) Does the City provide any other types of service that may be used by the awarded solution?

SMART currently provides fixed-route and demand response systems. SMART will begin operating van pools in the near future, however, that mode is outside of this project.

60) What is the budget for this project?

The City received a state grant for this project, which will not be disclosed.

61) Does the City have a preferred cellular network? If so, please provide contact information for our account manager.

The City does not have a preferred cellular network, however, the proposer must provide a consistent, high quality connection. Some consistencies include routine location reports provided every 30 seconds and accuracy within 10 feet 95% of the time.

62) Is there a consultant involved with this RFP? If yes, what is the name of the firm or individual?

No, there is not a consultant currently involved with this RFP.

63) Can an MDT replace the VLU if it can offer the same or similar functionality as what is requested?

Yes, if the MDT acts as the central processor, data storage, and device manager for all onboard devices and meets the requirements expressed for the Vehicle Logic Unit within the RFP.

64) Does the City plan to leave the Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) within the vehicles at all times, or bring them inside when they are not in use?

Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) will be kept within the vehicles at all times.

65) Do the current vehicles have any existing MDT’s in them?

Yes, however, this project requires hardware upgrades, including MDTs and associated hardware.

66) Does the City have an IVR system currently? a. If so, who is the current IVR system with? b. What type of functionality does it provide (i.e., night before reminder calls with cancel option, arrival notification calls, floodgate messaging, English, Spanish? c. Is it an onsite server or hosted solution?

The City does not currently have an interactive voice response (IVR) system.

67) Would the City consider SMS text messaging/Self Service Web requests/Mobile Booking app as optional products for purchase as a replacement to older IVR technology?

Yes, the City would consider these features as part of a proposer’s solution as an add-on for optional or future procurement.

68) How many in office users will you have?

SMART has two dispatchers/schedulers, three supervisors that oversee operations, including dispatchers, an operations manager, a grant’s manager, and a management analyst who will need some or all levels of access to software.

69) Do you want the chosen vendor to do all the driver training, or are we training the trainers? a. If training the trainers, how many of those are there?

Proposers shall provide in-vehicle training for bus operators. This may be completed through training supervisors to conduct the in-vehicle training. The City encourages proposers to provide proven methods of successful training programs for training the trainers. SMART has three supervisors and an operations manager that will attend the Train-the-Trainer course.

70) How many depots do you operate that will need training/go-live support?

SMART has one fleet yard that is in the same location as the administrative building.

71) Do you have any subcontractors that will be part of this project? a. If there are subcontractors, will those subcontractors need go-live support on-site?

The City does not have any subcontractors for this project. If the proposer uses subcontractors, they must abide by the requirements within the RFP describing the use of subcontractors.

72) Do you use a taxi provider(s) for peak and/or overflow operations? If yes, are Android tablets or smart phones used by the taxi provider? Are the tablets or smart phones locked down or open to an API interface?

SMART does not use a taxi providers.

73) Are any private contractors/subcontractors used to provide trips for the City? If yes, how are these contractors paid by the trip or by the hour?

SMART does not use private contractors/subcontractors to provide trips.

74) What is the City of Wilsonville’s expectations related to data conversion? Will the chosen vendor be able to come onsite, or can data be pulled remotely?

Vendors should describe the process for data conversion in their proposal. Primarily, data can be pulled remotely, but if a vendor requires an onsite visit related to data conversion, they would be able to do so.

75) Are there any interfaces required for external sources such as Medicare? If so, what other external sources?

76) Are there any special reporting requirements other than the ones requested?

There are no additional special reporting needs outside of those required in the RFP.

77) Please provide a monthly reporting summary for the City’s paratransit and fixed services, split by services.

SMART has provided the most recently (FY18) published National Transit Database annual report as an attachment.

78) When would the City want/expect to “Go Live” with software system implementation?

As described in the Project Management Plan on page 23 of the RFP, the City’s goal is to have the system substantially completed and operational in early 2021. Proposers should include a project delivery timeline in their proposal.

79) Will the City be purchasing the vehicle mounts and tablets and providing in-vehicle installation, or would the City like those included in the bid?

Vendor provided vehicle mounts and tablets are required components of this RFP.

80) What is the total number of Drivers? Please breakdown between paratransit and fixed- route services.

SMART has 33 drivers that are cross-trained on both paratransit and fixed-route services. All drivers will need to be trained on necessary components for both modes.

81) How many dispatchers does the City have? Please breakdown between paratransit and fixed route services.

SMART two dispatchers/schedulers who are cross-trained on both paratransit and fixed-route modes. Three additional drivers are trained as back-up dispatchers/schedulers.

82) How many reservation agents does the City have?

SMART two dispatchers/schedulers who are cross-trained on both paratransit and fixed-route modes. Three additional drivers are trained as back-up dispatchers/schedulers.

83) How many hybrid positions (i.e., reservations/dispatch scheduling) in one position does the City have?

SMART two dispatchers/schedulers who are cross-trained on both paratransit and fixed-route modes. Three additional drivers are trained as back-up dispatchers/schedulers. SMART has three transit supervisors who are cross-trained in both modes and also serve as trainers.

84) Are the Drivers and/or Dispatchers represented by a Union? If so, which Union?

Yes, drivers, dispatchers, and mechanics are represented by SEIU503.

85) Does the City have any Commuter Routes that would be considered part of this project? If so, how many?

Out of SMART’s nine fixed/deviated-fixed routes, four are commuter routes.

86) Does the service area encompass more than one county? If so, which counties?

Yes, SMART has fixed-route bus stops in three counties and Demand response in a fourth county. Those counties are Clackamas County, Washington County, Multnomah County, and Marion County.

87) Does the City provide group trips? If yes, what percentage of trips are group trips?

SMART does provide group trips, however, SMART does not collect data to calculate to percentage of group trips at this time.

88) What is the maximum number of demand response vehicles at peak service on any given day?

Vehicles operated in maximum service (VOMS) for demand response is 6 (six). VOMS for fixed route is 12 (twelve).

89) Please indicate if there are any holidays for no service or reduced service.

The City does not provide service on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day (or the Monday/Friday closest to the holiday). There are no holidays that SMART operates reduced service.

90) On what days of the week are trips provided?

SMART operates nine fixed-routes and demand response Monday-Friday. SMART operates three routes and demand response on Saturday. No service is provided on Sunday.

91) What are your hours of service?

SMART operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. – 9:15 p.m. and Saturday 8:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

92) What are your current Rides per Hour (RPH) for both services?

For FY19, SMART’s fixed route service had 9 RPH and demand response service had 5 RPH.

93) What is your average trips per day for both services?

SMART operates approximately 288 trips daily for fixed route and 47 for demand response.

94) What is the average trip length for both services?

Average trip length for demand response is 6.6 miles. Average trip length for fixed route is 8.1 miles.

95) What is the number of will calls weekly?

SMART has one program for demand response that accepts will calls/call returns. For FY19 SMART had a daily average of 12 will calls/call returns.

96) What is the weekly average number of declined trips?

SMART only has one demand response program (non-ADA) that denies trips and the denials are not tracked at this time.

97) What is the City’s average number of one-way trips weekly?

SMART does not currently track one-way trips for demand response.

98) Does the City provide subscription trips (standing orders)? If so, what percentage of trips are subscription trips?

Yes, of the 47 average daily passenger trips for demand response, 18 are subscriptions.

99) What is the number of Flex Routes (Deviated Fixed Route) per day and per week?

SMART operates one deviated fixed route six days a week.

100) What is the current size of your client population?

SMART’s current active client population for demand response is 457.

101) What is the growth rate?

SMART’s annual average growth rate of client population is 34% for demand response.

102) On average, how many taxi trips are used per day?

SMART does not use a taxi providers.

103) On average, how many calls will your call center handle?

SMART’s dispatchers/schedulers receive an average of 80 calls a day.

104) What is the peak number of calls handled per hour?

SMART’s peak number of calls in a 30-day period averages 622 at 10:00 a.m.

105) Would SMART be accepting of separate solutions for fixed route and demand response as long as both solutions could be easily utilized on the same vehicles? If so, would they (you) consider use of and purchase of each of those solutions separately rather than together?

SMART will consider separate software solutions for fixed route and demand response. A single Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) display should have the ability to access both fixed route and demand response software. Cutaway vehicles have especially limited space for additional hardware that is accessible by operators.

106) PDF size can be a limitation when submitting proposals over email due to receiver attachment size limitations. Proposal appendices will often contain pictures/graphics that make file sizes >20MB. Will SMART provide a file sharing location that PDFs can be uploaded to? If not, will SMART accept links to download proposals from proposer file sharing services? If not, will SMART prefer that proposers split PDFs into multiple files and send in multiple emails?

The City has added a file sharing folder for alternate proposal submission. The alternate proposal submission reads as:

Proposals must be in pdf format. Proposer may upload their Proposals to the City’s file sharing folder, RFP – Intelligent Transportation System, located here. Proposers shall upload their Proposals, with the description line “RFP – Intelligent Transportation System,” Proposals shall be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on Tuesday, August, 25, 2020.

107) Is a hosted application for the demand response portion of the project acceptable to SMART, if such a system can be accessed simultaneously by dispatchers/administrators who are also using web-based Fixed Route tools and driver-facing interfaces are integrated

on one MDT? Such a system will not require any on premise infrastructure except standard office computers and an internet connection.

Yes, a hosted application for demand response is acceptable.

108) Will SMART accept a solution that eliminates the need for a VLU, and replaces this functionality with an MDT?

Yes, if the MDT acts as the central processor, data storage, and device manager for all onboard devices and meets the requirements expressed for the Vehicle Logic Unit within the RFP.

109) Will SMART accept a proposed system that does not require a secondary positioning system such as odometer interface or dead-reckoning device? It is not often that such a device is necessary to obtain accurate vehicle positions. If SMART requires such a secondary positioning system, can SMART explain why this is necessary in the geography? Are there extensive tunnels or covered roadways? If so, can SMART please provide the location of each of these?

The intent of a secondary positioning system is to guarantee accurate odometer reading. If the proposer can provide a proven solution without regular manual override/corrections of vehicle mileage then the proposed system will be considered without a secondary position system.

110) Will SMART accept a proposed system that updates vehicle position at a greater interval than two seconds, that is functionally equivalent?

Yes.

111) It is often impractical or impossible to deploy the Fixed Route hardware requested in this RFP such as Automatic Passenger Counters, Automated Voice Annunciators, and Passenger WiFi on passenger vehicles such as the Dodge Caravans that have been listed as in-scope on the provided vehicle list. Will SMART modify the requirement on these three vehicles to be limited to a cellular-connected MDT? If so, should proposers adjust the quantities shown on the Price Proposal Form?

SMART has modified the Price Proposal Form to exclude minivans and full size vans from the requirement of including automatic passenger counters, automated voice annunciators, and passenger Wi-Fi. The trolley has also been removed from the requirements of automatic passenger counters and passenger Wi-Fi.

112) Will SMART consider making the following modifications to the provided “Price Proposal Form” a) Line 39 - APC Equipment for 1 Door Vehicles i) Will SMART accept proposers’ modification to this line to reflect the correct quantity of 1 door vehicles provided (27)? Per Question 6, this will be further reduced to (24) if the Dodge Caravans are eliminated from the APC scope.

Line 39 – APC Equipment for 1 door vehicles has been revised to reflect standard buses and cutaway fleet vehicles (excluded are the three dodge minivans, one Ford van, and one trolley).

b) Line 42 – Power over Ethernet Network Switch

i) Will SMART eliminate this line from the Price Proposal Form? This is the only place in the RFP where a “Power over Ethernet Network Switch” is mentioned. Functionally equivalent hardware will typically be a component of the Wi-Fi system or MDT/VLU and be used to establish the appropriate vehicle network to integrate with other on-bus systems.

Line 42 -- Power over Ethernet Network Switch has been removed.

c) Line 81 – External Electronic Destination Sign i) Will SMART eliminate this line or provide additional information on their requirements for destination sign hardware? Requirements are not provided elsewhere. The most important information is: Vehicle Make/Model and Destination Sign Requirements.

Line 81 -- Hanover or similar External Electronic Destination Sign has been removed.

113) Will SMART add the following information for each vehicle on the provided fleet list?

a) Bicycle Rack Make and Model

b) Wheelchair Lift or Ramp Make and Model

c) External Electronic Destination Sign Manufacturer, Model, and Controller Type

d) Presence of existing internal destination sign (YN), internal destination sign

make/model

e) Functional interior speakers (Y/N)

f) Functional exterior speaker(s) (Y/N)

Please see Fleet list for requested additions.

114) If providers are to send information to current bus stop signs, can SMART provide the make/model

SMART’s current electronic bus stop signs were procured through CHK America and consist of the CP-32 and CP-13.

115) Can providers submit their own pricing proposal format, alongside the agency’s pricing proposal format?

In addition to the Price Proposal, proposers may submit specific or detailed pricing proposals as supporting information that does not count toward the 30 page limit. However, the Price Proposal

Form should have the project total included and will be the primary document used during evaluation.

116) How often does the city alter vehicle blocks themselves to accommodate shifting modes between fixed route and demand response? In other words, do blocks have frequent updates to change the mix of fixed route versus demand response trips included in the block or are they relatively fixed?

In general, the City conducts driver bids quarterly, which includes vehicle blocking. The level of changes varies from quarter to quarter and may occur more frequently, depending on operational need. For example, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City updated vehicle blocking every two weeks for three months.

117) Does the city have any specific requirements related to Deviated Fixed Route service? Are those anticipated to be supported by the fixed route or demand response platforms as part of this proposal?

SMART’s deviated fixed routes may be supported by the fixed route platform.

118) What is the City's reasoning behind the requirement to store 72 hours worth of APC data directly on the APC?

The data needs to be stored to ensure no data is lost due to any type of system failure that would jeopardize the accuracy of passenger counts in regards to the National Transit Database of having a minimum confidence of 95%.

119) Is an independent VLU strictly required, or is a system which uses the MDT and onboard router to perform the stated VLU requirements acceptable?

No, if the MDT/onboard router acts as the central processor, data storage, and device manager for all onboard devices and meets the requirements expressed for the Vehicle Logic Unit within the RFP.

120) The Wi-Fi requirements indicate that the outside of the bus cannot be penetrated. Does this apply to the vehicle router's external antenna as well? Placing all GPS and cellular antennas inside the vehicle could greatly reduce the accuracy of GPS data as well as connectivity to the cellular network.

The intent of this item is for the Wi-Fi signal to not penetrate the outer shell of the buses. Proposers may include hardware such as external antennas or equipment necessary for Wi-Fi operation.

SMART VEHICLE INFORMATION MOBILITY DEST FUNCTIONAL FUNTIONAL MAKE/ SEAT DEVICE REAR REVENUE BIKE RACK CHAIR LIFT CHAIR LIFT DEST SIGN CONTROLLER INTERNAL EXTERIOR MODEL CHASSIS CAPACITY CAPACITY DOOR VEHICLE LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT GVWR MAKE/MODEL MAKE MODEL MAKE/MODEL TYPE SPEAKER SPEAKER E-350 FORD 7 1 No No 20'6" 6' 10'4" 9400 n/a BRAUN - N/A - No No EASY RIDER EL DORADO 29 2 No Yes 30' 8'6" 10' 30900 Apex 3 - - - - Yes No PHANTOM GILLIG 29 2 Yes Yes 30' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 DL-2 LIFT-U . TwinVision ICU402 No PHANTOM GILLIG 29 2 Yes Yes 30' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 DL-2 LIFT-U LU-12 TwinVision ICU402 No CHAMPION FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 CHALLENGER RICON - N/A N/A No CATALYST PROTERRA 29 2 Yes Yes 35' 8'5" 11'5" 39500 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Hanover Yes Yes CATALYST PROTERRA 29 2 Yes Yes 35' 8'5" 11'5" 39500 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Hanover Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG 31 2 Yes Yes 35' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Hanover ERIC+ Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG 31 2 Yes Yes 35' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Hanover ERIC+ Yes Yes XCEL 102 BLUE BIRD 41 2 No Yes 40' 8'6" 10'10" 37600 DL-2 BRAUN - - - Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG 28 2 Yes Yes 40' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Luminator Vista Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG 28 2 Yes Yes 40' 8'6" 10'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Luminator Vista Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG HB 37 2 Yes Yes 40' 8'6" 11'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Luminator Vista Yes Yes LOW FLOOR GILLIG HB 37 2 Yes Yes 40' 8'6" 11'6" 39600 Apex 3 LIFT-U LU-18 Luminator Vista Yes Yes ELDORADO FORD 20 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 AEROTECH BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 No ELDORADO FORD 20 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 AEROTECH BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 20 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 AEROTECH BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 - - Yes No STARCRAFT FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 ALLSTAR Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No STARCRAFT FORD 18 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 ALLSTAR Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 9 2 No Yes 20' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 AEROLITE BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 9 2 No Yes 20' 8' 10' 14050 DL-2 AEROLITE BRAUN NCL-919 TwinVision ICU402 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No ELDORADO FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 AEROTECH Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No CARAVAN DODGE 6 1 No No 16.5' 6' 6.5' 2430 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No No CARAVAN DODGE 6 1 No No 16.5 6' 6.5' 2430 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No No TROLLEY FREIGHTLINER 30 2 No Yes 36' 8'6" 11'4" 25900 n/a RICON n/a n/a n/a Yes No VEHICLES IN PROCUREMENT CARAVAN DODGE 6 1 No Yes 16.5' 6' 6.5' 2430 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No No CUTAWAY FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No CUTAWAY FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No CUTAWAY FORD 21 2 No Yes 26' 8' 10' 14050 Apex 3 BRAUN NCL-919 Hanover DG3 Yes No http://www.ridesmart.com/ City of Wilsonville dba South Metro Area Regional Transit 28879 SW Boberg Road (site location) 2018 Annual Agency Profile Wilsonville, OR 97070

General Information Financial Information Urbanized Area Statistics - 2010 Census Service Consumption Database Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Operating Funding Sources Portland, OR-WA 2,148,758 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) NTDID: 00046 Fares and Directly Generated $285,506 5.2% 524 Square Miles 290,910 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Reporter Type: Full Reporter Local Funds $5,003,808 91.7% 1.8% 1,849,898 Population 1,115 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips State Funds $98,129 1.8% 1.3% 24 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs 150 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips Federal Assistance $69,685 1.3% 5.2% Other UZAs Served 0 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips 156 Salem, OR, 0 Oregon Non-UZA Total Operating Funds Expended $5,457,128 100.0%

Service Area Statistics Service Supplied Sources of Capital Funds Expended 91.7% 80 Square Miles 597,013 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Fares and Directly Generated $0 0.0% 72,028 Population 36,789 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Local Funds $127,857 62.0% 18 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) State Funds $0 0.0% 25 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Federal Assistance $78,225 38.0% Capital Funding Sources Modal Characteristics Total Capital Funds Expended $206,082 100.0% Vehicles Operated Modal Overview in Maximum Service Uses of Capital Funds Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) 38.0% Directly Purchased Revenue Systems and Facilities and Mode Operated Transportation Vehicles Guideways Stations Other Total Labor $4,101,002 80.0% Demand Response 6 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Materials and Supplies $608,718 11.9% Bus 12 - $0 $0 $107,814 $98,268 $206,082 Purchased Transportation $0 0.0% Total 18 - $0 $0 $107,814 $98,268 $206,082 Other Operating Expenses $415,013 8.1% 62.0% Total Operating Expenses $5,124,733 100.0% Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $332,395 Purchased Transportation (Reported Separately) $0 Fare Revenues:Local 5.2%Local Funds: Funds: 62.%Federal 91.7%State Assistance: Funds: 38.% 1.8%Federal Assistance: 1.3% Operation Characteristics Fixed Guideway Vehicles Available Operating Uses of Annual Annual Annual Vehicle Annual Vehicle Directional for Maximum Vehicles Operated in Percent Average Fleet Mode Expenses Fare Revenues Capital Funds Passenger Miles Unlinked Trips Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Route Miles Service Maximum Service Spare Vehicles Age in Yearsª Demand Response $1,044,308 $7,755 $0 121,678 21,743 85,238 7,200 0.0 8 6 25.0% 6.3 Bus $4,080,425 $191,522 $206,082 2,027,080 269,167 511,775 29,589 0.0 17 12 29.4% 8.5 Total $5,124,733 $199,277 $206,082 2,148,758 290,910 597,013 36,789 0.0 25 18 28.0%

Performance Measures Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Unlinked Trips per Unlinked Trips per Mode Vehicle Revenue Mile Vehicle Revenue Hour Mode Passenger Mile Unlinked Passenger Trip Vehicle Revenue Mile Vehicle Revenue Hour Demand Response $12.25 $145.04 Demand Response $8.58 $48.03 0.3 3.0 Bus $7.97 $137.90 Bus $2.01 $15.16 0.5 9.1 Total $8.58 $139.30 Total $2.38 $17.62 0.5 7.9

Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Mile: Bus Bus Revenue Mile: Bus Demand Response 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Bus Mile: Demand Response Revenue Mile: Demand Response $10.00 OE/VRM $8.21 $7.32 $2.50 # $8.15 # $8.12 # 0.80 $8.82 # $7.97 Demand $15.00Response 2006:$10.00 8.21 2007: 7.322008: 7.96 2009: 8.15 2010: 8.26 2011: 8.12 2012: 8.410.40 2013: 8.822014: 9.14 2015: 7.97 $8.00 OE/PMT $1.26 $1.43 $2.00 0.60 # $2.01 2006: $8.001.26 2007: 1.432014: 1.83 2015: 2.01 0.30 $6.00 UPT/VRM 0.67 0.58 $1.50 # 0.71 # 0.71 # 0.59 # 0.53 $10.00 2006: $6.00.67 2007: .582008: .65 2009: .71 2010: .69 2011: .71 2012: .65 2013: .592014: .63 2015: .53 0.40 0.20 $4.00 OE/VRM $4.33 $4.67 $1.00 # $4.86 # $6.80 # $8.10 # $12.25 2006: $4.004.33 2007: 4.672008: 4.75 2009: 4.86 2010: 6.62 2011: 6.8 2012: 7.19 2013: 8.12014: 11.95 2015: 12.25 OE/PMT $6.60 $7.38 0.20 # $8.58 $5.00 2006: 6.6 2007: 7.382014: 7.02 2015: 8.58 0.10 $2.00 $0.50 $2.00 UPT/VRM 0.15 0.15 # 0.15 # 0.14 # 0.28 # 0.26 2006: .15 2007: .152008: .15 2009: .15 2010: .15 2011: .14 2012: .15 2013: .282014: .32 2015: .26 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Notes: ªDemand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data.