Common use of Procurement Process Clause in Contracts

Procurement Process. This procurement was handled by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures for professional and technical services. Award is recommended to the firm offering the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing and project organization, prior experience with similar projects, work plan, and a fair and reasonable price structure. On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11. A pre-proposal conference was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston Tascom, Aspire Answering Service, Covenant Industries, MAP Communications, Inc., and Professional Communications Network. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, and OCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement included elements such as the firm’s staffing capacity, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operations. Price comprised of 15 percent of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteria. The evaluation committee first evaluated the written proposals based on technical merit reviewing the above criteria. Based on the totals of each committee member’s score of the technical evaluation criteria for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviews, the evaluation committee met to complete the evaluation. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed rates, and the interviews. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30, 2011. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center services.

Procurement Process. This procurement The low bid methodology was handled by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures for professional and technical services. Award is recommended deemed to the firm offering be the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing and project organizationappropriate for this procurement. As the Commission had a complete specification, prior experience with similar projects, work planthe procurement lends itself to a firm fixed lump sum contract, and a fair and reasonable price structurethe selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. On August 3Accordingly, Request staff released Invitation for Proposals Bids (RFPIFB) 12005 was issued by SANBAGNo. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino10-24-112-00 on July 1, Riverside2010. Services included the procurement, painting, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11installation of the specified fence material. A pre-proposal conference bid meeting and job walk was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston TascomJuly 8, Aspire Answering Serviceand four potential bidders attended. Station drawings and fence specifications were made available to all bidders. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential bidders prior to the July 14 request for information deadline. Five firms — Xxxxxx Fence Company, Covenant IndustriesCrown Fence Company, MAP CommunicationsEcono Fence, Inc., Xxxxx Fence Company, and Professional Communications NetworkFencecorp Inc., — submitted bids prior to the July 28 bid deadline date. On September 16, two proposals Although both the projects were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAGadvertised under the same IFB, the Commission reserved the right to split the two projects between two different bidders. After reviewing the bids, staff determined that it is in the best interest of the Commission to award agreements to two separate responsive and responsible firms. The bid summary in Table 1 presents the bid amounts of all bids received by the Commission. In order to be considered responsive, each bidder was required to conform to all material terms of the IFB, including the provision of a work plan, pricing information, and OCTA met references. The basis for award for a public works contract is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and staff determined that Xxxxxx Fence Company (for the Xxxxxx station site) and Crown Fence Company (for the North Main Corona station site) were the responsive and responsible firms offering the lowest price. Three firms — Econo Fence Company, Xxxxx Fence Company, and Fencecorp, Inc. — were deemed non-responsive due to review the submitted proposalstheir failure to provide a complete bid submittal. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement included elements such as the firm’s staffing capacityFirm Bid Amount Responsive Xxxxxx Station Site North Main Corona Station Site Xxxxxx Fence Company $ 38,773.00* $ 62,600.00 Yes Crown Fence Company $ 40,300.00 $ 48,200.00* Yes Econo Fence, qualificationsInc. $ 32,150.00 $ 46,920.00 No Xxxxx Fence Company $ 49,871.00 No Bid No Fencecorp, facilities and equipment, work plan and operations. Price comprised of 15 percent Inc. $ 25,600.00 $ 43,050.00 No The amount of the maximum possible points under agreement with Xxxxxx Fence Company is $ 38,773 with a 10% contingency of $3,877 for unanticipated project requirements, for a total amount of $42,650; and the evaluation criteriaamount of the agreement with Crown Fence Company is $48,200 plus a 10% contingency of $4,820 for a total amount of $53,020. The evaluation committee first evaluated pricing offered by both Crown Fence Company and Xxxxxx Fence Company are considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition. Xxxxxx Fence Company has provided comparable services for the written proposals based on technical merit reviewing the above criteria. Based on the totals city of each committee member’s score of the technical evaluation criteria for each proposalXxxxxx Valley, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviews, the evaluation committee met to complete the evaluation. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed ratesEastern Municipal Water District, and the interviews. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30city of Riverside Parks, 2011. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFORecreation, and the information obtained from the interviews Community Services Department. Crown Fence Company has provided similar services for Caltrans, Metrolink, and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection city of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center servicesRiverside.

Procurement Process. This procurement was handled by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures The Commission sought a competitive solution to meet the foregoing requirement for professional and technical state legislative advocacy services. Award is recommended to Staff determined that the firm offering the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing and project organizationissuance of a negotiated solicitation, prior experience with similar projectsor RFP, work plan, and a fair and reasonable price structure. On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised would be in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11. A pre-proposal conference was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston Tascom, Aspire Answering Service, Covenant Industries, MAP Communications, Inc., and Professional Communications Network. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, ’s best interest as it affords staff the opportunity to evaluate and OCTA met to review the submitted proposalsdiscuss price and other technical factors with proposers. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical Non-price factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement RFP included elements such as experience, the firm’s staffing capacityrelative qualifications of the firms, qualificationsreferences, facilities and equipment, work plan and operationsthe firms’ relative ability to provide the services set forth under the terms of the RFP. Price comprised of 15 percent 15% of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteria. Staff released RFP No. 10-14-105-00 on May 20, 2010, to secure services from a qualified firm to represent the Commission in matters of state government. The evaluation committee first evaluated the written proposals based on technical merit reviewing the above criteria. Based item was advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation, made available for download on the totals of each committee member’s score of Commission website, and forwarded directly via e-mail to approximately 25 legislative advocacy firms. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the technical June 8 deadline date. Two firms submitted responsive and responsible proposals prior to the June 17 proposal deadline date. Utilizing the evaluation criteria for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After set forth in the interviews, the evaluation committee met to complete the evaluation. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed rates, and the interviews. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30, 2011. Based on the evaluation of the written proposalsRFP, the firms’ proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff and a representative from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC earned the highest total evaluation score. The respective evaluation ranking, inclusive of pricing, and separate price rankings were as follows: Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC 1st 1st Ecoconsult 2nd 2nd Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC earned the highest total evaluation score among the proposers and also offered the most advantageous pricing terms. The technical, non-price factors that earned Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC the high score were related to its reference, experience, qualifications, and technical personnel. Pricing was evaluated based upon the proposed rates received from firms’ fixed fees. As a result, staff recommends the BAFOaward of Agreement No. 10-14-105-00 to Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC for the provision of state legislative advocacy services for a two-year term, and two, two-year options to extend the information obtained from agreement, for a total period of up to six years, in an amount not to exceed $408,000. The parties will utilize the interviews Commission’s standard form professional services agreement. Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company’s, LLC rates are considered fair and site visitsreasonable based upon adequate price competition and historical costs incurred by the Commission for comparable services. Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC has provided services for the Commission and performed satisfactorily. In addition, the evaluation committee recommended firm has successfully provided similar professional services for a variety of transportation entities located throughout the selection state of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center servicesCalifornia, including OCTA and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency, and San Bernardino Associated Governments. In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 Amount: $45,000 $75,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 001001 65506 00000 0002 101 14 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 08/12/10 Attachment: Xxxxx, Xxxxx & Company, LLC – Statement of Work STATEMENT OF WORK‌

Procurement Process. This The Commission generally utilizes the low bid methodology for scopes of services that are complete and clearly delineated, where price is the only relevant factor that could distinguish qualified firms. The low bid procurement precludes Commission staff from considering a vendor’s approach to performing the required services with any potential bidder. A negotiated procurement, or request for proposals (RFP), affords staff the opportunity to evaluate and discuss price and other technical factors with proposers. Technical factors include a firm’s staffing capacity, performance history, qualifications, experience, and other relevant considerations in the procurement process. Accordingly, staff issued RFP No. 11-24-145-00 to secure services from a qualified firm to provided landscape maintenance services for the Commission-owned commuter rail stations. The RFP was handled released by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures for professional staff and technical servicesadvertised on July 22. Award is recommended The weighted factor method of source selection was determined by staff to the firm offering be the most effective overall appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal considering such with price and other technical factors as staffing and project organization, prior experience with similar projects, work plan, and a fair and reasonable considered. Non-price structure. On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11. A pre-proposal conference was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston Tascom, Aspire Answering Service, Covenant Industries, MAP Communications, Inc., and Professional Communications Network. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, and OCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement RFP included elements such as experience, qualifications of the firm’s staffing capacityfirms and personnel, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operationsthe firms’ relative ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the RFP. Price comprised of 15 percent 35% of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteria. The A pre-proposal conference was held at the Downtown Riverside Station on August 16 and eleven firms attended. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the August 23 deadline. Six firms – Campesino Landscape, Inc., CTAI Pacific Greenscape, Marina Landscape, Inc., Mariposa Landscape, Inc., Xxxx Landscape, and Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. – submitted responsible and responsive proposals prior to the September 8 deadline date. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the six firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee first evaluated the written proposals based on technical merit reviewing the above criteriacomprised of Commission and Bechtel staff. Based on the totals foregoing procurement process, the respective evaluation ranking, inclusive of each committee member’s score pricing, is as follows: Firm Overall Rank Price Rank Tropical Plaza Nursery, Inc. 1 3 - $ 918,590 Marina Landscape, Inc. 2 1 - $ 886,884 Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. 3 4 - $ 1,085,908 Xxxx Landscape 4 5 - $ 1,124,462 Campesino Landscape, Inc. 5 2 - $ 900,994 CTAI Pacific Greenscape 6 6 - $ 1,537,448 Tropical offered the most advantageous combination of the technical evaluation criteria for each proposalrelevant qualifications, both firms were invited for an interviewexperience, approach, understanding, and pricing. The interviews consisted of a site visit technical, non-price factors that earned Tropical the highest score were related to each firm’s facilityits past performance based on experience, followed by questions qualifications, and answersreference checks. After Pricing was evaluated based upon the interviewsfirms’ fixed monthly maintenance fee and fixed labor rates for on-call services. Based on the stated criteria, Tropical earned the highest evaluation score. Accordingly, the evaluation committee met recommends the award of Agreement No. 11-24-145-00 to complete Tropical for landscape maintenance services at the evaluationfive Commission-owned commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center for a three-year term, plus two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $918,590, plus a contingency amount of $91,859, for a total amount not to exceed $1,010,449. Tropical’s rates are considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition and the historical cost paid for comparable services by the Commission. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed ratesCommission’s standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with Tropical subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and the interviewspursuant to legal counsel review. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $ 92,000 $918,449 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 244001 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244002 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244003 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244004 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244010 73312 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/17/11 Attachment: Agreement with Tropical Plaza Nursery, 2011. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center services.Inc.

Procurement Process. This procurement The weighted factor method of source selection was handled determined by SANBAG in accordance staff to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal with its procedures for professional price and technical servicesother factors considered. Award is recommended Non-price factors include elements such as experience, the relative qualifications of the firms, and their ability to respond to the firm offering requirements set forth under the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing and project organization, prior experience with similar projects, work plan, and a fair and reasonable price structure. On August 3, Request terms of request for Proposals proposals (RFP) 12005 No. 10-51-026-00. RFP No. 10-51-026-00 was issued released by SANBAG. The project was staff and advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardinoon October 29, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 112009. A pre-proposal conference meeting was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five November 10, 2009, and was attended by approximately 10 firms: Alston Tascom. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the December 2, Aspire Answering Service2009 deadline date. Seven firms- Warner Water Works, Covenant IndustriesReal Estate Consulting & Services, MAP CommunicationsInc., Sunshine Landscape and Maintenance, Inc., Carry-All LLC, Zamiski Construction, Pest Options, Inc., and Professional Communications NetworkXxxxxx Bros. Tractor Work- submitted proposals prior to the stated deadline. On September 16Each of the seven firms submitted responsive and responsible proposals. Accordingly, two the firms’ proposals were received: Professional Answering Service evaluated and Professional Communications Network. An scored, based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, by an evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, Commission and OCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement included elements such as the firm’s staffing capacity, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operations. Price comprised of 15 percent of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteriaBechtel staff. The evaluation committee first evaluated process was used to analyze the written proposals merits of each submitted proposal according to the stated criteria and, based on technical merit reviewing the above criteria. Based on the totals of each committee member’s score of the technical evaluation criteria for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviewsthat information, the evaluation committee met made its selection decision. Because the on-call bench was limited to complete a maximum of six firms under the evaluationterms of the RFP, Warner Water Works was eliminated from the list of awardees based on its total evaluation score relative to the other proposers. The firms were evaluated remaining firms, in descending order, ranked as follows: Xxxxxx Bros. Tractor Work; Sunshine Landscape and Maintenance, Inc.; Real Estate Consulting & Services, Inc.; Zamiski Construction; Pest Options, Inc.; and Carry-All LLC. The respective proposers’ rates are considered fair and reasonable based on technical meritupon adequate price competition. Further, proposed ratesif the agreements are awarded, each task order issued by the Commission will be competed among the on-call bench contractors to ensure fair and reasonable pricing is established for the interviews. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer (BAFO) to each firm on September 30, 2011. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center required services.

Procurement Process. This The Commission generally utilizes the low bid methodology for scopes of services that are complete and clearly delineated, and where price is the only relevant factor that could distinguish qualified firms. The low bid procurement precludes Commission staff from discussing a vendor’s approach to performing the required services with any potential bidder. When the Commission must rely on a vendor to provide safety related services; however, factors other than price should be considered. For these types of services, a firm’s capacity, performance history, qualifications, experience, and other elements are relevant considerations in the procurement process. A negotiated procurement, or request for proposals (RFP), affords staff the opportunity to evaluate and discuss price and other technical factors with proposers. Accordingly, staff issued RFP No. 10-24-111-00 to secure services from a qualified firm to provide CCTV security system maintenance services for the five Commission-owned commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center. The RFP was handled released by SANBAG in accordance with its procedures for professional staff and technical servicesadvertised on June 21. Award is recommended The weighted factor method of source selection was determined by staff to the firm offering be the most effective overall appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal considering such with price and other technical factors as staffing and project organization, prior experience with similar projects, work plan, and a fair and reasonable considered. Non-price structure. On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11. A pre-proposal conference was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston Tascom, Aspire Answering Service, Covenant Industries, MAP Communications, Inc., and Professional Communications Network. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service and Professional Communications Network. An evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAG, the Commission, and OCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement RFP included elements such as experience, qualifications of the firm’s staffing capacityfirms and personnel, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operationsthe firms’ relative ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the RFP. Price comprised of 15 percent 40% of the maximum possible points under the evaluation criteria. The Agenda Item 9F A pre-proposal conference was held at the Commission office on June 29 and six firms attended. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the July 7 deadline date. Four firms submitted proposals prior to the July 22 proposal deadline date. Three firms submitted responsible and responsive proposals, and one firm was disqualified for not possessing the minimally required three years of continuous work experience. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the three responsive and responsible firms’ proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee first evaluated comprised of Commission and Bechtel staff. XXX earned the written proposals highest total evaluation score and also offered the most favorable pricing terms. The respective evaluation ranking, inclusive of pricing, is as follows: IVS Systems 1 1 - $687,432 Republic ITS 2 2 - $752,995 Xxxxx Bros. Electronics, Inc. 3 3 - $946,044 The technical, non-price factors that earned IVS the highest score were related to its past performance based on reference checks, experience, qualifications, and technical merit reviewing personnel. Pricing was evaluated based upon the above criteriafirms’ fixed quarterly maintenance fees and fixed labor rates for on-call services and consultation services. Based on the totals of each committee member’s score of stated criteria, IVS earned the technical highest total evaluation criteria for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interviewscore. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviewsAccordingly, the evaluation committee met recommends the award of Agreement No. 10-24-111-00 to complete IVS for CCTV security system maintenance services at the evaluationfive Commission-owned commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center for a three-year period, plus three one-year options, for a total contract amount of $687,432. The firms were evaluated IVS’s rates are considered fair and reasonable based on technical merit, proposed ratesupon adequate price competition, and the interviewshistorical cost paid for comparable services by the Commission. SANBAG issued a request IVS is currently providing CCTV maintenance and repair services for a best the Commission and final offer (BAFO) has performed satisfactorily. Agenda Item 9F In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12+ Amount: $ 76,381 $ 611,051 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 004001/004002/004003/004004/004006 73315 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/16/10 Attachment: Appendix to each firm on September 30, 2011Agreement No. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top10-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center services.24-111-00 Agenda Item 9F

Procurement Process. This The procurement of a station advertising revenue program was handled by SANBAG especially challenging because the Commission has never conducted a competitive procurement for these services, does not have existing advertising sites in accordance with its procedures for professional place at the stations, the ad performance and technical services. Award market area are untested, and the current advertising market is recommended suffering due to the firm offering economic downturn. Additionally, recent advertising solicitations by local agencies have been unsuccessful in generating any interest from the most effective overall proposal considering such factors as staffing market. In an effort to refine the scope of services and project organizationto maximize competition and revenue, prior experience staff arranged a series of meetings with similar projectsseveral advertising firms that would likely, work planin a stable economic environment, submit a proposal. Based on these discussions, it was apparent that the biggest hurdle for the advertising firms is recouping the sizeable capital investment required to place the initial advertising program infrastructure. Since the Commission does not have existing ad sites in place and ad performance in the local market area is untested, it was unclear whether firms would be willing to make the capital outlay necessary to establish a fair start up program. Staff issued a competitive solicitation to test the local market. RFP No. 11-24-029-00 was released by staff and reasonable price structure. On August 3, Request for Proposals (RFP) 12005 was issued by SANBAG. The project was advertised in newspapers of general circulation in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties. Publications in Riverside County occurred on August 5 and August 11January 14. A pre-proposal conference and job walk of the Downtown Riverside commuter rail station was held on August 12 with seven attendees representing five firms: Alston TascomJanuary 27. Staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential proposers. One firm, Aspire Answering ServiceVendsight, Covenant IndustriesInc. (Vendsight), MAP Communicationssubmitted a proposal prior to the stated deadline date. Staff reached out to several advertising firms to determine why these firms did not submit a proposal in response to the RFP. The following reasons were given – experiencing an advertising recession, Inc.too much risk, and Professional Communications Networkinsufficient staff. On September 16, two proposals were received: Professional Answering Service The proposal Vendsight submitted was determined by staff to be a responsive and Professional Communications Networkresponsible proposal. An Xxxxxxxxx’s proposal was evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of staff from SANBAGCommission staff. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Negotiations with Xxxxxxxxx were conducted over the course of several meetings, discussions, and correspondence, whereby contract terms were finalized. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Vendsight will provide the intended turnkey advertising revenue program, at no cost to the Commission, and OCTA met to review the submitted proposals. A SANBAG contracts procurement consultant was present to ensure all procedures were properly followed. Technical factors used to evaluate the proposers under this procurement included elements such as the firm’s staffing capacity, qualifications, facilities and equipment, work plan and operations. Price comprised of 15 Commission will receive approximately 25 percent of the maximum possible points under total gross sales calculated prior to any deductions for maintenance, vandalism, and other program costs and expenses. After implementation, the evaluation criteriavendor anticipates annual revenue would be up to $50,000. The evaluation committee first evaluated contractor will comply with all requirements set forth in the written proposals based advertising policy including prohibition of advertising alcohol and tobacco products. Additionally, the Commission will retain the discretion to utilize 10 percent of the advertising space for its own messages and information. Attached are photos of the anticipated installations. The program could be expanded with Vendsight at the four new stations following the implementation of new service on technical merit reviewing the above criteriaPerris Valley Line. Based on the totals foregoing procurement process, staff recommends the award of each committee member’s score of Agreement No. 11-24-029-00 to Vendsight for station advertising revenue program services at the technical evaluation criteria five Commission-owned commuter rail stations for each proposal, both firms were invited for an interview. The interviews consisted of a site visit to each firm’s facility, followed by questions and answers. After the interviews, the evaluation committee met to complete the evaluation. The firms were evaluated based on technical merit, proposed ratesfive-year term, and one five-year option to extend the interviewsagreement. SANBAG issued a request for a best and final offer In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13+ Amount: $0 $100,000 (BAFORevenues) to each firm on September 30, 2011. Based on the evaluation Source of the written proposals, the firms’ qualifications, the proposed rates received from the BAFO, and the information obtained from the interviews and site visits, the evaluation committee recommended the selection of PCN as the top-ranked firm to provide call box call answering center servicesFunds: Other Revenues Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 103 24 42003 (Other Revenues) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 06/15/11 Attachments: