Topics
• Procurement Process • Partial vs. 100% Low Floor Vehicle • Narrow vs. Standard Width Vehicle • Off-wire Operations • Visual Appeal PROCUREMENT PROCESS Procurement Process • Two step, best value • Sequence of activities • Develop RFP documents • Issue RFP • Receive proposals, review and score • Interview with builders, discuss findings of review • Issue revised RFP • Receive Best and Final Offers (BAFO) • Review and score • Negotiate with selectee • Issue NTP Procurement Process
Summary Sheet Of Four Prospective Suppliers
Proposer: All Reviewer: All Groups Date:
Max Points Proposer A Proposer B Proposer C Proposer D Available
Total Base Contract Price $ 21,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 23,000,000 Price Information Lowest Base Contract Price $ 20,000,000 Scoring 333 350 292 304
Evaluation A - Price Proposal 350 333 350 292 304 Evaluation B - Technical 350 247 224 300 267 Evaluation C - Aesthetics 100 66 74 80 88 Evaluation D - Qualifications 200 179 132 197 139 1000 825 780 869 798 100% LOW FLOOR VS. PARTIAL LOW FLOOR 100% Low Floor Vs. Partial Low Floor
• 100% low floor gives mobility impaired passengers access to additional seating areas; • 100% low floor has complex drive mechanics; • High floor area in partial low floor vehicle ranges from 12” to 18” above the low floor section; • All vehicles will need to incorporate bridge-plates, which may limit some offerings --- especially 100% low floor; • All vehicles will need to meet CA structural requirements, thus most vehicles will need underlying structural changes; • Allowing either expands potential bidder involvement, no impact on infrastructure; Partial
100%
NARROW (8’) VEHICLE VS. STANDARD WIDTH (8’8”) Narrow (8’) Vehicle Vs. Standard Width (8’8”)
• No inherent advantages to a narrow vehicle in most US cities, and a disadvantage of lowered seated passenger capacities; • All vendors have standard-width vehicles; • Narrow vehicles require wider platforms, conflicts with LRT vehicles; 8’ Narrow
8’-8” Standard REMOVING THE OCS (OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM) OCS Removal
• Reduced OCS capital costs and maintenance • Limit tree removal • Simplify maintenance facility design Two Methods
• In-ground power collection • On-board energy storage systems (OESS) In-ground Power Collection
• Expensive • Proprietary • No US experience, and rather limited European experience • Requires significant integration with track and power designs • How to coordinate with downtown operations? • Will need US safety certification • Project risk In-ground Power Collection OESS
• All OESS systems add equipment and weight • Capital and lifecycle costs can be significant • Limited performance • Risky operations in mixed traffic – to be avoided • Lack of OCS makes vehicle rescue difficult Space Limitations Space Limitations OESS / Battery Drive
• Lowest project risk • Very limited service experience, to date • High capital and life-cycle costs • Weight • Space OESS / Supercaps
• Ultra-capacitors / “supercaps” • Limited storage capacity • OCS or in-ground charging at every station • Dedicated ROW • Capital and life cycle costs CAF Supercap Vehicle HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS Hydrogen Fuel Cells
• Very high capital costs • Very high life cycle costs • Very high utility costs
• H2 generation equipment / maintenance • Needs to be refueled daily – labor costs • Significant vehicle space requirements Fuel Cells And Thermal Management VISUALS Owner Options
• Exterior • Roof shrouds • Windows • Interior colors and seat types, materials, fabrics / patterns STREETCAR EXTERIOR Atlanta Streetcar (Siemens) Dallas Streetcar (Brookville) Kansas City Streetcar (CAF) Portland Streetcar (United Streetcar) Salt Lake City Streetcar (Siemens) Seattle Streetcar (Inekon) Tucson Streetcar (United Streetcar) Washington D.C. Streetcar (Inekon) Cincinnati / Kansas City (CAF) Cincinnati On Test Track (CAF) Morocco (?) (Alstom Citadis) Barcelona (Alstom Citadis) Chrome ! ROOF SHROUDS
WINDOWS
PASSENGER INFORMATION
INTERIOR COLORS, SEAT TYPES, MATERIALS, FABRICS AND PATTERNS
Visuals
• Hire an architect?