HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.ICITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
EA BILL
®1
Agenda Title:
Meeting Date:
Resolution Awarding Transit Fleet Maintenance Audit Contract to Transit
June 18, 2007
Resource Center
Meeting Time: ® 3:00 PM
❑ 7:00 PM
Category: ❑ Presentation E Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ New Business
Department:
Director:
Contact Person:
Phone Number:
Public Works
V tce t Marengo
John Siragusa
778-4421
Cost of Proposal: $30,OOY
Account Number: 3397/3398
Amount Budgeted: $30,000
Name of Fund: 6400 (Article
3 TDA funds)
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
1. Resolution Awarding Transit Operations Maintenance
Contract to Transit Resource Center
2. Maintenance RFP
3. Transit Resource Center Proposal
Summary Statement:
As part of its funding agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the City of Petaluma
has committed to hire a maintenance consultant to audit the transit and paratransit fleets. To this end, an RFP was
released on April 2, 2007 to nine consultants throughout the United States. Staff hosted a pre-bid meeting on
April 18, 2007, with proposals due to City Clerk's office on May 16, 2007. Only one proposal was submitted by
Transit Resource Center (TRC) of Winter Springs Florida. The performance measures and cost proposal from
TRC are competitive compared to recent audits performed by the City of Petaluma. TRC is a national company
that performs audits for both large and small transit systems, including local agencies, such as SamTrans,
Monterey Salinas Transit and the City of Roseville. These agencies have provided very good references on TRC.
The terms of the contract are one year, with two, one-year extensions, and the contract cost is not to exceed
$30,000.
Recommended City Council Action/Suggested Motion:
Approve the resolution awarding transit fleet maintenance audit contract to Transit Resource Center.
Reviewed by Admin. Svcs. Diu)
Reviewed by, City Attorney:
Approved by City Manager:
!ate:
Date:
Date
Rev. #
Dae Last Revised:
File:
S:\Transit & Transportation\CC Agenda BillsWaintenance Audit Contract\Maintenance Audit Agenda Bill.doc
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 18, 2007
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
RESOLUTION AWARDING TRANSIT FLEET MAINTENANCE AUDIT CONTRACT TO
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of its funding agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), the City of Petaluma has committed to hire a maintenance consultant to audit the
transit and paratransit fleets. To this end, an RFP was released on April 2, 2007 to nine
consultants throughout the United States. Staff hosted a pre-bid meeting on April 18,
2007, with proposals due to City Clerk's office on May 16, 2007. Only one proposal was
submitted by Transit Resource Center (TRC) of Winter Springs Florida. The
performance measures and cost proposal from TRC are competitive compared to recent
audits performed by the City of Petaluma. TRC is a national company that performs
audits for both large and small transit systems, including local agencies, such as
SamTrans, Monterey Salinas Transit and the City of Roseville. These agencies have
provided very good references on TRC. The terms of the contract are one year, with two,
one-year extensions, and the contract cost is not to exceed $30,000.
2. BACKGROUND:
The City of Petaluma Transit Division has relied on maintenance audits in the past to
identify problems with both fleet procurement and maintenance practices. This audit is
essential to ensure that the City's capital investments are protected and to hold our
subcontractors to their contract standards.
3. ALTERNATIVES:
Reject all proposals and re-release RFP.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The financial impact is a $30,000 investment to ensure the safety of the transit fleet.
5. CONCLUSION:
The maintenance audit is vital to the on going operations of the transit system. As part of
its funding agreement with MTC, the City is obligated to perform them, and the audit
ensures a safe and efficient transit fleet.
6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR
COMPLETION'
The maintenance audit will identify areas of improvement and performance measures,
providing a means of holding the contract transit providers accountable for an on-going
preventive maintenance program. Meeting its obligation to perform maintenance audits
will also assure continued MTC funding for Petaluma Transit.
S:\Transit & Transpoitation\CC Agenda BillsWaintenance Audit ContractNaintenance Audit Agenda Bill.doc 2
7. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution awarding transit fleet maintenance audit contract to Transit
Resource Center.
S:\Transit & Transportation\CC Agenda BillsWaintenance Audit Contract\Maintenance Audit Agenda Bill.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION
AWARDING TRANSIT FLEET MAINTENANCE AUDIT CONTRACT TO
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
WHEREAS, as part of its funding agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), the City of Petaluma has committed to hire a maintenance consultant to
audit the transit and paratransit fleets; and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2007, an RFP was released for said audit to nine consultants
throughout the United States; and
WHEREAS, following a pre-bid meeting, only one proposal was received on May 16,
2007, from Transit Resource Center (TRC), of Winter Springs Florida; and
WHEREAS, the performance measures and cost proposal from TRC are competitive
compared to recent audits performed by the City of Petaluma; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Transit Division has relied on maintenance audits in
the past to identify problems with both fleet procurement and maintenance practices. This audit
is essential to ensure that the City's capital investments are protected and to hold our
subcontractors to their contract standards; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a maintenance contract for fleet maintenance
audit to Transit Resource Center for a period of one year, with two, one-year options, at a cost
not to exceed $30,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Petaluma
1. Finds Transit Resource Center of Winter Springs, Florida to be the sole
responsible bidder for performance of a fleet maintenance audit of the Petaluma
Transit system.
S:\Transit & Transportation\CC Agenda BillsWaintenance Audit Contract\Maintenance Audit Agenda Bill.doe 4
2. Awards the contract for said audit to Transit Resource Center at a cost not to
exceed $30,000.
3. Authorizes and directs City Manager to execute the maintenance contract on
behalf of the City of Petaluma, upon timely submission by Transit Resource
Center of the signed contract and all other required documents.
S:\Transit & Transportation\CC Agenda BillsWaintenance Audit ContractWaintenance Audit Agenda Bill.doc 5
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
• 'j A
FLEET MAINTENANCE AUDIT
For Information Contact:
JOHN SIRAGUSA
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER
CITY OF PETALUMA
555 NORTH MCDOWELL BLVD.
PETALUMA, CA 94954
FAX: (707) 776-3799
EMAIL: JSIRAGUSA@CI.PETALUMA.CA.US
April 2, 2007
1
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS..............................................................4
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Background Information....................................................................................... 5
1.3 General Conditions.............................................................................................. 5
1.3.1. Limitations............................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Award...............................................................:....................................... 6
1.3.3 RFP Addendum........................................................................................ 6
1.3.4 Verbal Agreement or Conversation........................................................... 6
1.3.5 Pre -contractual Expense.......................................................................... 6
1.3.6 Signature..................................................................................................6
1.4 Definitions............................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Legal Responsibilities........................................................................................... 8
1.6 Insurance............................................................................................................. 8
1.7 Withdrawal of Proposals...................................................................................... 10
1.8 Rejection of Proposals......................................................................................... 10
1.9 Evaluation/Award of Contract............................................................................... 10
1.10 Proposal Pricing Guidelines............................................................................... 11
1.11 Right to Require Performance............................................................................ 12
1.12 Ethics in Public Contracting........................................:....................................... 12
1.13 Equal Employment Opportunity.......................................................................... 13
1.14 Incurring Costs ...................... :............................................................................ 13
1.15 Pre -Bid Conference............................................................................................ 13
2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS............................................................ 14
2.1 Tentative Selection Schedule............................................................................... 14
2.2 General Instructions............................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Competitive Selection............................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Selection and Evaluation Factors............................................................. 14
2.2.3 Proposal Acceptance Period.................................................................... 15
2.2.4 Contract Incorporation.............................................................................. 15
2.2.5 Negotiations............................................................................................. 15
2.2.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) ............................:................. 15
2.2.7 Debarment, Suspension, and other Responsibilities ................................ 15
2.2.8 Restrictions on Lobbying.......................................................................... 15
2.2.9 Buy America............................................................................................. 16
2.2.10 Audit..................................................:.................................................... 16
2.3 Proposal Format.................................................................................................. 16
2.3.1 Ability to Perform and Meet Requirements of the RFP .............................. 16
2.3.2 Experience and Qualifications of the Firm and Personnel ......................... 17
2.3.3 Reasonableness of the Price Proposal ..................................................... 17
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK..................................................................................................... 17
. 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 17
3.2 General Requirements......................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Audit/Inspections......................................................................................18
3.2.2 Audit Record Review................................................................................ 19
3.2.3 Audit Report............................................................................................. 20
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 1: FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS..............................................................
21
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).................................................................
21
Standard DOT Title VI Assurances.............................................................................
22
Equal Employment Opportunity...................................................................................
23
CargoPreference.......................................................................................................
23
Audit and Inspection of Records ................. .........................
........................................
24
Clean Air Act'and Federal Water Pollution Control Act Requirements .........................
24
Environmental, Resource Conservation, and Energy Requirements ...........................
24
Compliance with Laws and Regulations......................................................................
25
Patentand Data Rights...............................................................................................
26
Retention of Records..................................................................................................
27
Access Requirements for Individuals with Disabilities .................................................
27
Privacy........................................................................................................................
28
BuyAmerica...............................................................................................................
29
Labor Provisions—Nonconstruction Contracts............................................................
29
Termination.................................................................................................................
31
Restrictions on Lobbying (for contracts over $100,000.00) ..........................................
32
Interest of Members of, or Delegates to, Congress .....................................................
32
Conflicting Interests....................................................................................................
32
DebarredBidders........................................................................................................
32
ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE AGREEMENT......................................................................
33
ATTACHMENT 3: CERTIFICATION OF PRIMARY PARTICIPANT REGARDING
DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS ............
34
ATTACHMENT 4: CERTIFICATION OF LOEW TIER PARTICIPANTS REGARDING
DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY
EXCLUSION...............................................................................................................
35
ATTACHMENT 5: CERTIFICATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING .....................
36
ATTACHMENT 6: BUY AMERICA CERTIFICATE..........................................................
37
ATTACHMENT 7: BID PROTEST PROCEDURES..........................................................
38
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
CITY OF PETALUMA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SEALED PROPOSALS will be accepted until Wednesday May 2, 2007 by 2:00 p.m. to:
Claire Cooper
City Clerk
11 English Street,
Petaluma, CA 94952
To conduct a Fleet Maintenance Audit of the Petaluma Transit program.
The City of Petaluma hereby affirmatively ensures Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE)
will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to this notice, and will not be
discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, gender, or
religion in any consideration leading to the award of this contract.
Each bidder shall not discriminate in it's practices on the basis of race, color, national origin,
ancestry, disability, gender, or religion.
No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participating
in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination in any matter leading to
the award of this contract.
The City of Petaluma reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive any irregularities or
Informalities not affected by law, to evaluate the proposals submitted, and to award the contract
according to th"ro)3opal which best serves the interests of the City of Petaluma.
Dated this
By:
Transportation Manager, City of Petaluma, California
Publication Dates: March M RFP Release.
4
1
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
1.1 PURPOSE
Petaluma Transit's mission is to create and provide a comprehensive transportation system for
residents and visitors that offer quality customer services in a cost effective manner.
The City of Petaluma is requesting proposals from firms interested in and capable of
providing a maintenance audit relating to its public transit program, in an efficient and cost
effective manner to the City that will maintain the City's established standard of excellence.
Proposals must provide an executive (high-level) overview as well as detailed review and
recommendations.
The goal of this engagement is two -fold: 1) establish a baseline "snapshot" of the current Petaluma
Transit fleet, and 2) assist in the creation of a fleet plan supporting the City's public transit
development strategy. The agreement will be for a one (1) year period with two (2) one (1) year
options to extend. Contractor shall submit pricing for all three years.
This RFP, including supporting documentation, provides proposers with all information
necessary to prepare and submit a written proposal to conduct a Fleet Maintenance Audit.
Proposals must be complete and carefully worded and must convey all of the information
requested in order to be considered responsive. Should the proposal fail to conform to the
essential requirements of the RFP, the City shall determine whether the variance is
significant enough to cause the RFP to be considered non-responsive and therefore not
considered for award. The City shall not accept nor request additional information of a
proposer in order to determine responsiveness.
1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Petaluma is located in Sonoma County's wine country just 39 miles north of the Golden Gate
Bridge. Centrally located on Highway 101 and the east/west artery Highway 116, Petaluma is an
ideal headquarters for exploring Sonoma County's wineries, Sonoma coastline, Point Reyes
National Seashore, and California's Redwoods.
The Petaluma River is the heart of the city. The historic downtown flanks the river and lends itself
to the authentic Victorian charm of the city. To the east are the city's newer neighborhoods and
shopping centers. Surrounding the city, dairy ranches and hayfields provide the much -appreciated
open space, which rises to hills on both.sides of the valley.
The city's population has more than doubled during the past two decades, with Census 2000
reporting nearly 55,000 residents within city limits. While specific growth data for the city was not
readily available, the California Department of Finance forecasts the county population of nearly
460,000 will grow to 557,800 by 2010.
1.3 GENERAL CONDITIONS
1.3.1. Limitations
This request for proposal (RFP) does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of proposals in response to this request, or to procure or contract for
services or supplies. The City expressly reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to
waive any irregularity or informality in any proposal or in the RFP procedure and to be the sole
judge of the responsibility of any bidder and of the suitability of the materials and/or services to be
rendered. The City reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time without prior notice. Further
the City reserves the right to modify the RFP schedule described above.
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
1.3.2. Award
The City may ask RFP .finalists to present oral briefings of their proposals. All finalists may be
required to participate in negotiations and submit such price, technical, or other revisions of their
proposals as may result from negotiations. The City also reserves the right to award the contract
without oral briefings or discussion, based upon the initial written proposals. Accordingly, each
initial proposal should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and a technical
viewpoint.
1.3.3. RFP Addendum
Any changes to the RFP requirements will be made by written addenda issued by the City and
shall be considered part of the RFP. Upon issuance, such addenda shall be incorporated in the
agreement documents, and shall prevail over inconsistent provisions of earlier issued
documentation.
1.3.4. Verbal Agreement or Conversation
No prior, current, or post award verbal conversations or agreement(s) with any officer, agent, or
employee of the City shall affect or modify any terms or obligations of the RFP, or any contract
resulting from this RFP.
1.3.5. Pre -contractual Expense
Pre -contractual expenses include any expenses incurred by bidders and selected contractor in:
1. Preparing proposals in response to this RFP.
2. Submitting proposals to the City of Petaluma.
3. Negotiations with the City on any matter related to proposals.
4. Other expenses incurred by a bidder prior to the date of award of any agreement.
In any event, the City shall not be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by any bidder or
selected contractor. Bidders shall not include any such expenses as part of the price proposed in
response to this RFP. The City of Petaluma shall be held harmless and free from any and all
liability, claims, or expenses whatsoever incurred by, or on behalf of, any person or organization
responding to this RFP.
1.3.6. Signature
The proposal will also provide the following information: name, title, address and telephone
number of individual with authority to bind the consultant or consultant firm and also who may be
contacted during the period of proposal evaluation. The proposal shall be signed by an official
authorized to bind the consultant or consulting firm and shall contain a statement to the effect that
the proposal is a firm offer for at least a ninety (90) day period. Execution of the contract is
expected to occur on or about [date].
1.4 DEFINITIONS
The "City" refers to the City of Petaluma, an entity established under the laws of the
State of California.
2. "Days" refers to working days of the City of Petaluma when used in context with the
City's bid protest procedures and refers to working days of the federal government
when used in connection with FTA requirements/procedures.
3. The terms "file" or "submit" refer to the date of receipt by the City and/or FTA.
4. "Exhaustion of administrative remedies at the grantee level" refers to any action or
inaction on the part of the City, which is prejudicial to the position taken in a written
protest filed with the City. This may include, but is not limited to:
6
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
• A final City decision on the merits protest.
• A procurement action such as the award of a contract or rejection of a
bid despite the pendency of a protest.
• City acquiescence in and active support of continued and substantial
contract performance despite the pendency of a protest.
5. "Interested party" includes all bidders on the contract or procurement. This term
may also include a subcontractor or supplier at any tier who shows that he/she has
a substantial economic interest in a provision of the Request for Proposals (RFP) or
of the interpretation of such a provision.
6. "Violation of Federal law or regulation" is defined as the infringement of any valid
requirement imposed by Federal statute or regulation, which governs the letting of
contracts pursuant to a grant agreement. However, any protests involving a local
matter and/or determinations that are clearly within the discretionary powers of the
City include, but are not necessarily limited to, determinations of responsiveness
and responsibility, the revision of specifications to incorporate the evaluation of life-
cycle costing (LCC) factors in connection with any given procurement and
determinations regarding bonding requirements. In other words, the protestor must
be able to demonstrate or establish a clear violation of the prohibition against
unduly exclusionary and restrictive specifications, or a violation of the Buy America
requirements.
7. "Local" refers to Sonoma County and California. When used in conjunction with the
phrase "laws and regulations," it is construed to mean only those laws or
regulations associated with the provision of public mass transportation and the use
of public funds. It shall not be construed to include the purchasing and/or protest
procedures used by either of the aforementioned entities.
8. "RFP" also includes the term "offer" as used in the context of negotiated
procurements.
9. "FTA" refers to the United States Federal Transportation Administration.
10. "Revenue Vehicles" refers to City -owned vehicles used to operate the service, and
provided to Contractor by City.
11. "Contractor" refers to the successful bidder who is awarded the contract for
providing the products and services described. in this RFP.
12. "Time -transfer System" and "Timed -pulse System" both refer to the style of fixed -
route transit systems where routes depart and return to one central point to facilitate
transferring of passengers at set times throughout the service day.
13. "Spare Ratio" refers to the total number of fixed -route buses available versus the
maximum peak hour bus pullout requirements. For example, if 10 buses are needed
during peak operations, having 12 buses in the fleet would constitute a 20% spare
ratio (2 spares/10 bus maximum pullout requirement).
14. "Roadcalls" refers to unscheduled maintenance performed at a location other than
the City's Public Works facility.
15. "Pull-outs" refers to a City of Petaluma Transit vehicle departing its first scheduled
time -point in revenue service on a new shift or service day.
16. "Trips" refers to a City of Petaluma Transit vehicle departing any scheduled time -
7
e
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
point in revenue service
17. "Missed Trips" refers to a trip that begins more than fifteen (15) minutes after its
scheduled departure time or a trip scheduled as part of normal revenue service that
fails to operate.
18. "Non -Revenue Vehicles" refers to any vehicles not used in revenue service. The
City does not provide non -revenue vehicles for contractor operations as, part of this
agreement.
19. "Scheduled Timepoint(s)" is defined as bus stops with departure times specifically
noted in the City -published Petaluma Transit service brochure.
1.5 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
All proposals must be submitted, filed., made, and.executed in accordance with State of California
and Federal laws relating to proposals for contracts of this nature,'whether the same or expressly
referred to herein or not.
By submitting a proposal, Contractor certifies that it will comply with all federal laws and
requirements,. including, but not limited to, Equal Employment Opportunity, Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise, Labor Protection, and other laws and regulations applicable to contracts
utilizing federal funds.
1.6 INSURANCE:
Consultant and any subcontractor shall not commence work under this Agreement until Consultant
shall have obtained all insurance required under this paragraph and such insurance shall have
been approved by the City Attorney. as to form and carrier and the City Manager as to sufficiency,
nor shall Consultant allow any contractor or subcontractor to commence work on this contract or
subcontract until all similar insurance required of the Consultant and/or subcontractor shall have
been so obtained and approved. All requirements herein provided shall appear either in the body
of the insurance policies or as endorsements and shall specifically bind the insurance carrier.
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract all necessary insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, the Consultant's
agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage:
a. Personal injury;
b. Contractual liability.
2. Insurance Services Office form covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and
Employer's Liability Insurance.
4. Professional Liability insurance.
5. Such other insurance coverages and limits as may be required by the City prior to
execution of this agreement.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
1. General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury
and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form
with a general aggregate liability is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Transportation/location or the general aggregate
limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property
damage.
3. Employer's Liability: Bodily Injury by Accident - $1,000,000 each accident.
4. Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 policy limit.
5. Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 each employee.
6. Professional Liability insurance: $2,000,000.
7. Errors and ommisions-10,000,000
8. Such other insurance coverage's and limits as may be required by the City
prior to execution of this agreement.
C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At
the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-
insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or
the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
D. Other Insurance Provisions
The required general liability and automobile policies are to contain, or be endorsed to
contain the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered
as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of
the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises
owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on
the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents
or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this Transportation, the Consultant's insurance coverage
shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees,
agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the
Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including
breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
4. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom
claim is made or suit is brought except, with respect to the limits of the insurer's
liability.
5. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in
coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified
mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
E. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than
A:VII.
F. Verification of Coverage
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by
this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to
bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All
endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an
alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's insurer may provide complete, certified
copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage
required by the City.
Mr. John Siragusa
Transportation Manager
City of Petaluma
555 North McDowell Blvd.
Petaluma, CA 94954
1.7 WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS
Any proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to the time fixed in the public notice for the
receipt of proposals, only by written request for the withdrawal of the proposal filed with the City's.
Purchasing Agent. The request shall be executed by the offeror or its duly authorized
representative. The withdrawal of a proposal does not prejudice the right of the offeror to file a new
proposal. No proposal may be withdrawn after the time fixed in the public notice for the receipt of
proposals.
1.8 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
Failure to meet the requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be cause for rejection of
the proposal. The City may reject the proposal if it is incomplete, contains irregularities of any kind,
or is offered conditionally. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals without cause.
Each proposal is to be prepared in such a way as to provide a straightforward, concise delineation
of the information requested. Proposals which contain false or misleading statements, or which do
not support an attribute or condition claimed by the bidder, may be cause for rejection of the
proposal. If, in the sole opinion of the City, such information was intended to mislead the City in its
evaluation of the proposal, it will be cause for rejection of the proposal.
1.9 EVALUATION/AWARD OF CONTRACT
Evaluation and selection of proposals will be based on the qualifications and evaluation criteria
outlined in the RFP. Brochures or other promotional presentations beyond that sufficient to submit
a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Elaborate artwork, expensive paper or binders,
and expensive visuals are not necessary, and will not affect the evaluation process.
Proposals will be evaluated by an evaluation committee made up of City staff as well as
representatives from peer agencies. In connection with its evaluation, the City may, at its option,
invite one or more bidders to make an oral presentation to the evaluation committee. During these
interviews, the bidder will be allowed to present such evidence as. may be appropriate in order that
the Committee can effectively evaluate all materials and documentation submitted as a part of the
proposal.
The City of Petaluma reserves the right to make the selection of a bidder based on any or all
factors of value, whether quantitatively identifiable or not, including, but not limited to, the
anticipated initiative and ability of the bidder to perform the services set forth herein.
The City of Petaluma reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive any requirements,
both the City's and those proposed by the bidder; to waive any irregularities or informalities in any
proposal or the RFP process when it is in the best interest of the City to do so; to ,negotiate for the
modification of any proposal with mutual consent of the bidder; to re -advertise for proposals, if
10
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
desired; to sit and act as sole judge of the merit and qualifications of the service offered; and to
evaluate in its absolute discretion, the proposal of each bidder, so as to select the bidder which
best serves the requirements of the City, thus insuring that the best interest of the City will be
served..A bidder's past performance, and the City's assurance that each bidder will provide service
as bid, will be taken into consideration when proposals are being evaluated.
The City may make such investigation as it deems necessary to determine the ability of a bidder to
furnish the required services, and the bidder will furnish to the City all such information and data
for this purpose as the City may request. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal if the
evidence submitted by, or investigation of, such bidder fails to satisfy the City that such bidder is
properly qualified to carry out the obligations of a contract and to deliver the services contemplated
herein or the bid of any bidder who has previously failed to perform properly, or complete on time,
contracts of a similar nature. Any material misrepresentation or material falsification of information
provided to the City in the bidder's submission, or at any point in the bid evaluation process,
including any interview conducted, are grounds for rejection of the bid: In the event that the
misrepresentation or falsification is not discovered until after any agreement is awarded, the
agreement may be terminated at that time. A determination as to whether a misrepresentation or
falsification of the bid submission is material shall be made solely in the exercise of the City's sole
discretion. The City expressly reserves the right to reject the bid of any entity in default on the
payment of taxes, licenses, or other moneys due the City of Petaluma.
The City reserves the right to conduct a background inquiry of each bidder which may include the
collection of appropriate criminal history information, contractual and business associations and
practices, employment histories, and reputation in the business community. By submitting a
proposal to the City, the bidder consents to such an inquiry and agrees to make available to the
City such books and records as the City deems necessary to conduct the inquiry.
The City reserves the right to enter into negotiations and award this contract based solely on the
submitted written proposals received.
Bidder agrees and so stipulates in submitting this proposal, as though stated therein.
1.10 PROPOSAL PRICING GUIDELINES
Contractor shall provide its cost proposal in a separate, sealed envelope.
1.11 RIGHT TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE
The failure of the City at any time to require performance by the Contractor of any provisions
hereof shall in no way affect the right of the City thereafter to enforce same. Nor shall waiver by
the City of any breach of any provision hereof be taken or held to be waiver of any succeeding
breach of such provision or as a waiver of any provision itself.
1.12 ETHICS IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING
Each bidder, by submitting a bid, certifies that it is not a party to any collusive action or any action
that may be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by submitting a bid, the bidder certifies that its
bid was made without fraud; that it has not offered or received any kickbacks or inducements from
any other bidder in connection with the offer; and that it has not conferred on any public employee,
public member, or public official having responsibility for this procurement transaction, any
payment, loan, subscription, advance, deposit of money, services, or anything of more than
nominal value. The bidder further certifies that no relationship exists between itself and the City or
another person or organization that interferes with fair competition or constitutes a conflict of
interest with respect to a contract with the City.
Prior to the award of any contract, the potential Contractor may be required to certify in writing to
the Purchasing Agent that no relationship exists between the Contractor and any City employee,
officer, official, or agent that interferes with fair competition or is a conflict of interest with respect to
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
a contract with the City
More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, or association under the same
or different names may be rejected. Reasonable grounds for believing that an offeror has interest
in more than one bid for the work solicited may result in rejection of all bids in which the offeror is
believed to have an interest.
12
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
1.13 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
During the performance of the contract, Contractor agrees to the following:
• Contractor shall comply with all the requirements, where applicable, of the California Fair
Employment Practice Commission and provisions of, when applicable, all Federal, State of
California, County of Sonoma, and City of Petaluma laws and ordinances related to
employment practices.
• Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the
basis of race, religion, color, gender, age, handicap, national origin, or ancestry, except
when such a condition is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for
the normal operations of the Contractor. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous
places, visible to both employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the
provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
• Contractor, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees, placed by, or on behalf of
the Contractor, shall state that Contractor is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
1.14 INCURRING COSTS
The City is not liable for any cost incurred by bidders in responding to this Request for Proposals.
1.15 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
A non -mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at City of Petaluma Transit maintenance and
operations facility (555 North McDowell Blvd.), at 1,on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 This
pre-bid conference will be followed by a site visit of the City's Transit facility, from which the City of
Petaluma Transit program is operated.
13
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
2.1 TENTATIVE SELECTION SCHEDULE
2007
PRE=PRQPC)SAL MEETING - _ - — Aprr1-182007
W_QRII`TENJW MONT bIJ _.
DUE DATE FCJR PROPOSALS May 2, 2Q0
GONTRACT AV1(ARD- T _ June 4, 207
2.2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
2.2.1 Competitive Selection
This procurement shall comply with all applicable City of Petaluma Procurement Policies and
Procedures. The Contractor shall be selected by the Petaluma City Council based upon the
recommendation of staff and the evaluation committee.
Evaluation factors outlined in Paragraph 2.2.2 below shall be applied to all eligible responsible and
responsive bidders in comparing proposals and selecting the successful proposal.
A bidder may be selected solely based upon the content of its proposal. Therefore, proposals
should be submitted in the most -favorable terms.
2.2.2 Selection and Evaluation Factors
Each proposal will be evaluated and ranked by an evaluation committee convened by the City.
Evaluation factors to be considered, and the corresponding weight for each, are:
Ability to perform and meet the requirements (20%)
of the..RFP
Experience and qualifications
(20%)
Proposed/Assigned personnel (20%)
Client references (20%)
Price (20%)
The committee, at its sole discretion, may request an oral presentation or discussion with the most
qualified bidder(s).
14
1 ��
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.2.3 Proposal Acceptance Period
All proposals must include a statement that proposals are valid for a minimum of ninety (90) days
subsequent to the submission deadline.
2.2.4 Contract Incorporation
Bidders are advised that the contents of its proposal as' well as the City of Petaluma's attached
"Agreement" shall become a part of the subsequent contractual documents. The terms and
conditions defined in this RFP are to be used as a basis for a contemplated contract. Any
modifications to this recommended sample contract will require prior negotiations and approval of
the City. Failure of a bidder to accept this obligation may result in the rejections of its proposal or
cancellation of any award. Any damages accruing to the City as a result of a bidder's failure or
refusal to execute a contract with the City, if awarded the contract, may be recovered from the
Contractor.
2.2.5 Negotiations
The City reserves the right to negotiate all elements that comprise the proposal to ensure the best
possible consideration for all concerned.
2.2.6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
No DBE participation goal has been established for this contract. However, the City strongly
encourages bidders to seek the assistance of DBE certified firms whenever possible. Caltrans, as
statewide administrator of the DBE program, maintains an active database of' certified DBE
individuals and firms.
2.2.7 Debarment, Suspension, and other Responsibilities
In order to comply with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) policy and certification process
established by 49 CFR Part 29, as a means to ensure that debarred, suspended, or voluntarily
excluded persons do not participate in a federally assisted project, each bidder must complete and
submit along with its proposal, certification forms for the proposing prime Contractor and any and
all proposed Subcontractors, Attachment 4.
2.2.8 Restrictions on Lobbying
In accordance with 31 USC Section 1352, Contractor hereby certifies that no Federal appropriated
funds have been or will be paid by or on behalf of Contractor, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant or loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation, renewal amendment, or modification of Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or member of Congress in connection with the Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, Contractor shall complete and submit standard Form -LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its instructions, see Attachment 5.
The Contractor, shall require the language of this certification be included in the award documents
for all sub -awards at all tiers, and that all Subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.
The Bidder/Contractor shall require that the language of this certification be included in any
subcontract exceeding $100,000.00 at any tier and that any such Subcontractor shall certify and
disclose accordingly.
15
0
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.2.9 Buy America
Contractor must complete the Buy America Certificate (Attachment 6) to comply with Section 165
(a) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, and the applicable
regulations in 49 CFR part 661.
2.2.10 Audit
The City reserves the right to make a pre -award audit of the selected applicant's proposed fees,
rates, and costs to determine if they are fair and reasonable. Additionally, The City shall perform a
reference check of Contractors current and past clients.
2.3 PROPOSAL FORMAT
Submitted proposals must address each of the items included within Section 2.3.1 (Ability to
Perform) and Section 2.3.2 (Experience and Qualifications). All requested information must be
supplied. Failure to submit a. complete proposal shall be grounds for a determination of non-
responsiveness.
Each proposal shall include:
• Cover Letter: Each proposal shall include a cover letter that identifies the firm,
address, phone number and contact person of the firm. The cover letter must
include acknowledgement of all Addenda, and provide a statement that the
proposal is valid for a minimum period of ninety (90) days subsequent to the RFP
closing date.
The cover letter must include the original signature of an individual with the
authority to negotiate on behalf of and to contractually bind the bidder, and who
may be contacted during the period of proposal evaluation.
• Table of Contents: A listing of major sections in the proposal and associated page
numbers.
• Introduction. In this section, the bidder should demonstrate an adequate
understanding of the project, the City's expectations regarding same, and the
bidder's relationship with the City.
• List of Current and past clients
• Technical Approach
• Project Management
• Contractor Staff/Subcontractor Staff
• Qualifications and References
• Cost Proposal. Submitted as a sealed, separate document.
• Scope of work
• Provide proof of required insurance either in the form of a Certificate of
Insurance(s) or in the form of a commitment letter from an insurance carrier or
licensed insurance agent.
• Complete and submit, along with proposal, the appropriate Certification forms.
• Execute and submit acknowledgment of any addendums pursuant to this RFP.
16
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.3.1 Ability to Perform and Meet Requirements of the RFP
The bidder shall provide sufficient information to enable the selection committee to evaluate the
bidder's ability to perform and meet the requirements of this RFP.
2.3.2 Experience and Qualifications of the Firm and Personnel
A. Describe your firm's organizational structure and what resources will be available to
support the City of Petaluma Transit project.. Be specific regarding level of effort,
staffing, location, etc.
B. Identify by name all personnel proposed for assignment to the project. Discuss your
strategy for ensuring the named personnel remain assigned to this project. Discuss
your response strategy for any staffing changes.
For each individual named, provide the following:
• Resume.
• Qualifications.
• Academic and professional training, including accreditation(s).
• Any other information deemed relevant.
C. Describe in detail the firm's experience in providing services similar in scope to that
desired by the City of Petaluma. Cite up to five examples:
• Name of the agency
• Name of contact person, title and phone number
• When service was provided
• Number of vehicles
• Contract amount
D. Discuss in detail any restrictions, exceptions, or accommodations that may impact your
firm's successful provision of the desired services.
2.3.3 Reasonableness of the Price Proposal
Bidder shall justify its pricing by submitting a cost allocation model of their overall costs.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
A The scope of services described in the Contractors proposal shall serve as the general guide
and is not intended to be a complete list of all work and materials to satisfy all requests for
services. The Scope of Services contains areas of future requirements believed fundamental for
Fleet Maintenance Audit, which will meet the City of Petaluma's needs.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Petaluma is requesting statements of qualifications and proposals from firms interested
in providing a vehicle/maintenance audit of the City's public transit program. Proposals must
provide an executive (high level) overview as well as detailed review and recommendations for
improvements. Should the proposals fail to conform to the essential requirements of the RFP, the
17 ��
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
City shall determine whether the variance is significant enough to cause the RFP to be considered
non-responsive and therefore not consider for award.
Petaluma Transit provides a combination of transportation services in the form of fixed -route bus
services and door-to-door paratransit services.
3.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor must employ industry specialists to perform the proposed audit. These
professionals must come from the vehicle maintenance industry, and as consultants, have
performed similar audits. The Contractor's project team must understand what to look for regarding
the maintenance of a transit vehicle, including standard operating processes, procedures and
documentation.
The Contractor's audit must result in factual information and recommendations for improvement in
the maintenance program to assist in meeting Petaluma Transit goals. This information is intended
to be used in decision-making for process improvements and efficiencies. The Contractor audit
information will also be used to define goals that can be easily measured by specific performance
indicators. The Contractor's report must contain an Executive Summary and a detailed listing of
the Contractor's findings and recommendations.
Prior to the audit beginning, the Contractor shall use a proactive approach to ensure that all parties
understand the audit process, requirements and coordinate work schedules with Petaluma Transit
staff to ensure daily maintenance operations are completed with minimal interference. The
Contractor's audit team will have the full cooperation of the Petaluma Transit staff with the
understanding that the audit is being completed to protect the riding public, the City and its funding
partners.
The Contractor's project team must become familiar with the Petaluma Transit Maintenance
program. The audit shall include a review of the written maintenance program, maintenance
staffing levels, training program, other staff developments and perform audit inspections of
Petaluma Transit vehicles.
3.2.1 Audit/inspections
The Contractor's audit team shall conduct Inspections of Petaluma Transit vehicles. The
r inspections shall be conducted at the City's Transit Maintenance facility (555 N. McDowell Blvd.) or
at an alternate location approved by the City. The proposed audit shall include all those vehicles
(revenue and non -revenue) assigned to the City's Public Transit Department at the time of the
audit. A fleet listing current through December 31, 2006, is attached herein.
The inspections will be conducted during the evening and/or weekend to minimize the impact on
the public service. In the event the audit is conducted at the City's Transit Maintenance facility, the
City will provide the Contractor one lift at said location. City personnel will assist the Contactor by
moving buses on and off lifts and with any additional driving that may be required.
The contractor, as part of their proposal, shall provide a listing and resume of the personnel that
will be used to complete the bus audit inspections. The contractor shall also provide the time
required per vehicle and the total time frame required to complete audit inspection on 10% of the
Petaluma Transit fleet.
The audit will include inspection of all vehicle systems, major components, and maintenance
- records, paying particularly close attention to uniform standard procedures.
18
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
The audit will also include the Contractor's observations in the following areas:
• Fleet appearance
• Cleanliness of the vehicle interior
• Work and lift space
• Safety issues
• Maintenance scheduling
• Warranty Management
• Work Order processing
Parts Issues
The audit will result in:
• A list of all defects and deficiencies discovered during the physical audit and road
test. Each defect discovered will include the probable cause and corrective action
required to effect repairs.
Note: The discovery of defects that pose a potential safety concern will be
brought to the immediate attention of the City's Transit Manager. Decisions to
hold a vehicle from service will be at the City's discretion.
• Photographic documentation will be made of significant maintenance deficiencies
that have been discovered during the audit. This photographic review will
express common points made in the report as well as significant discrepancies
found during the physical inspection. These pictures will be used as reference to
the defects found during the audit.
• Determining how well the fleet is being maintained, both mechanically and
physically.
The audit will focus on vehicle safety and reliability, vehicle condition, maintenance record
accuracy, and compliance to applicable federal, state, contract regulations, and manufacturer
recommended practices. This audit will fully identify the overall mechanical integrity of the fleet in
order to protect the interests of the City of Petaluma and to set an initial baseline to gauge future
service growth and performance.
3.2.2 Audit Record Review
In support of the physical vehicle inspection, the Contractor will perform a review of the written
maintenance program. The record reviews are conducted to verify that vehicles are being
maintained in a manner that is in alignment with the written maintenance program, regulated
inspection criteria, vehicle manufactures recommendations and industry best practices. The review
will involve a complete review of individual vehicle maintenance records, including preventive
maintenance reports and schedule, daily vehicle driver inspection reports and work orders. This
review will provide a "snap -shot" of the condition of the fleet and effectiveness of the City's transit
vehicle maintenance program.
The documentation review should allow the Contractor to determine City of Petaluma compliance
with Federal and State regulations.
The following briefly summarizes the records review:
1) Preventive maintenance inspection (PMI) reports:
a. Verify timeline between scheduled PMI are met
19
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
b. Verify PMI task are completed.
c. Review oil analysis reports (if available)
d. Verify follow-up repairs required as noted on PMI report are completed in a timely
manner.
2) Daily vehicle, Operator inspection reports (DVR or OPR)
a. Verify operators are completing reports, conducting Pre -Trip inspections and
reporting defects in accordance with regulated inspection criteria
b. Verify maintenance personnel are completing work orders for discrepancies
and repairs are completed in a timely manner.
c. Note any trends in operator discrepancies on DVR and compare to PMI report.
3) Road call data
a. Review road call data and fleet mileage reports develop miles between road call
to compare to peer operations.
b. Note any trends in road calls and compare to PMI report.
The Contractor's audit team shall have the experience and knowledge required to identify trends in
repeat work and road calls are a significant source of data used to evaluate the effectiveness of a
maintenance program. If negative trends are discovered, recommendations and action plans can
be developed, that if implemented and followed-up can lead to improvements in vehicle reliability.
Better vehicle reliability can lead to improvements in operator morale, passenger comfort, and
most importantly public perception.
The Contractor must compare Petaluma Transit vehicle maintenance programs to other publicly
funded transit programs of similar size providing a similar service schedule.
3.2.3 Audit Report
The Executive Summary shall include the following items:
• Introduction
• Audit Objectives
• General Conclusions
• Summary of findings and recommendations.
The detailed report shall include the following:
• Background Information
• Audit Scope and Methodology
• Vehicle condition reports, including body diagrams highlighting damage, and
written narratives of defects found.
• Photographs of all significant discrepancies organized by vehicle
• Overview of findings with maintenance programs, and adherence to vehicle
preventive maintenance program provision
• Comparison to other similar public transit programs
• Recommendations with action plans for program improvements
In addition to the written reports, it is important to the City that the Contractor follow-up with a
question and answer session to insure all elements of the report are understood. The Contractor's
report must be presented in draft form and allow for comment by the City prior to its final
acceptance.
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 1
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. The Bidder's attention is called to the fact
that this contract is subject to a financial assistance contract between the City of Petaluma and the
Federal Transit Administration of the United States Department of Transportation ("DOT"). The
contract to be let, therefore, is subject to the terms of the contract between the City of Petaluma
and the DOT. The successful bidder is required to comply with the conditions required by
applicable federal regulations.
The Contractor understands that Federal laws, regulations, policies, and related administrative
practices applicable to this contract on the date the contract was executed may be modified from
time to time. The Contractor agrees the prevailing Federal requirements will govern the
administration of this contract at any particular time, except if there is sufficient evidence in the
contract of a contrary intent. Such contrary intent might be evidenced by express language of this
contract or a letter signed by the Federal Transit Administrator the language of which modifies or
otherwise conditions the text of a particular provision of this contract. Likewise, new Federal laws,
regulations, policies, and administrative practices may be established after the date the contract
has been executed and may apply.
1.0 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)
The City of Petaluma or its Contractor agrees to take the following measures to facilitate
participation of disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) in the Project.
1.1 The City of Petaluma or its Contractor agrees to comply with current US DOT regulations
on participation of DBEs in US DOT financial assistance programs.
1.2 The City of Petaluma or its Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, age, or sex in the award and performance of any third -
party contract, subgrant, or sub -agreement financed with Federal assistance derived from
US DOT. The City of Petaluma or its Contractor agrees to take all necessary and
reasonable steps required by US DOT regulations to ensure that eligible DBEs have the
maximum feasible opportunity to participate in third party contracts financed with Federal
assistance awarded by US DOT. If the City of Petaluma is required by US DOT regulations
to have a DBE program, the DBE program approved by US DOT is incorporated by
reference and made part of the Grant Agreement or Cooperative Agreement.
Implementation of that DBE program is a legal obligation, and failure to carry out its terms
shall be treated as a violation of this Agreement. Upon notification to the City of Petaluma
or its Contractor of its failure to carry out its approved program, US 'DOT may impose
sanctions as provided for under its regulations and may, in appropriate cases, refer the
matter for enforcement under 18 USC Section 1001, and/or the Program Fraud and Civil
Remedies Act, 31 USC Section 3801 et seq.
1.3 Whether or not the City of Petaluma is required to have a DBE program, City of Petaluma
agrees to include the clause required by the US DOT regulations on DBEs, modified as
necessary to identify the affected parties, in each agreement between itself and its sub
recipients and in each third party contract financed with Federal assistance awarded by US
DOT.
21 `
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.0 STANDARD DOT TITLE VI ASSURANCES
During the performance of this contract, the Contractor for itself, its assignees and
successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor") agrees as follows:
Compliance with Regulations
The Contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally -
assisted programs of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT") Title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter
referred to as the "Regulations"), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a
part of this Contract.
Nondiscrimination
The Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the Contract, shall not
discriminate on the ground of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin in
the selection and retention of equipment. The Contractor shall not participate either directly
or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including
employment practice, when the Contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the
Regulations.
2.3 Solicitations for Subcontract, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment
In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the Contractor for
work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials or leases of
equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Contractor of
the Contractor's obligations under this Contract and the Regulations relative to
nondiscrimination on the grounds -of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national
origin.
2.4 Information and Reports
The Contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations or
directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts,
other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by City of Petaluma or
the FTA to be pertinent and to ascertain compliance with such regulations, orders and
instructions. Where any information required of a Contractor is in the exclusive possession
of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the Contractor shall so certify to
City of Petaluma or to the FTA, as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made
to obtain the information.
2.5 Sanctions for Noncompliance:
In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this
Contract, the City of Petaluma shall impose such Contract sanctions as it or the FTA may
determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
a) Withholding of payments to the Contractor under the Contract until the Contractor
complies, and/or
b) Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Contract, in whole or in part.
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
2.6 Incorporation of Provisions
The Contractor shall include the provisions of Sections 2.1, Compliance with Regulations,
through 2.6, Incorporation of Provisions, in every subcontract, including procurements of
materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued
pursuant thereto. The Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontract or
procurement as the City of Petaluma or the FTA may direct as a means of enforcing such
provisions including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event a
Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or
supplier as a result of such direction, the Contractor may request the City of Petaluma to
enter into such litigation to protect interests of the City of Petaluma and, in addition, the
Contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the
interests of the United States.
3.0 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In connection with the execution of this contract, the Contractor shall not discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex,
age or national origin. The Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, age, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to,
the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and
selection for training, including apprenticeship. Contractor further agrees to insert a similar
provision in all subcontracts, except subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw
materials.
4.0 CARGO PREFERENCE
4.1 Minimum Percentage
The Contractor agrees to utilize privately -owned United States flag commercial vessels to
ship at least fifty percent (50%) of the gross tonnage (computed separately for dry bulk
carriers, dry cargo liners, and tankers) involved whenever shipping any equipment,
materials, or commodities pursuant to this Contract, to the extent such vessels are
available at fair and reasonable rates for United States flag commercial vessels.
4.2 Reporting Requirements.
The Contractor agrees to furnish, within thirty (30) days following the date of loading for
shipments originating within the United States, or within thirty (30) working days following
the date of loading for shipments originating outside the United States, a legible copy of a
rated, "on -board" commercial ocean bill of lading in English for each shipment of cargo
described in Section 4.1, Minimum Percentage, above, to both the Contracting Officer of
City of Petaluma (through the prime Contractor in the case of subcontractor bills of lading)
and to the Division of National Cargo, Office of Market Development, Maritime
Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590, marked with appropriate
identification of the project.
4.3 Subcontracts
The Contractor agrees to insert the substance of the provisions of Sections 4.1, Minimum
Percentage, through 4.3, Subcontracts, in all subcontracts issued pursuant to this Contract.
23
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
5.0 AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS
The Contractor agrees that the grantee, the Comptroller General of the United States, or
any of their duly authorized representatives, shall, for the purpose of audit and examination
be permitted to inspect all work, materials, payrolls, and other. data and records with regard
to the project, and to audit the books, records, and accounts with regard to the project.
6.0 CLEAN AIR ACT AND FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
REQUIREMENTS
Contractor agrees to comply with all applicable standards, orders of requirements issued
under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act [42 USC 1857 (h)], Section 508 of the Clean Water
Act (33 USC 1368), Executive Order 11738, and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
regulations (40 CFR, Part 15) which prohibit the use under nonexempt Federal contracts,
grants or loans, of facilities included on the EPA list for Violating Facilities. Contractor shall
report violations to FTA and to the EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, RESOURCE CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Environmental Protection
Contractor agrees to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of -1969, as amended, 42 USC Section 4321 et seq; Section 14 of the Federal Transit
Act, as amended, 49 USC app. — Section 1610; the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations, 40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.; and the joint FHWA/FTA regulations,
"Environmental Impact and -Related Procedures," at 23 CFR Part 771 and 49 CFR Part
622.
7.2 Air Pollution
The Contractor agrees to comply with the joint FHWA/FTA regulations, "Air Quality
Conformity and Priority Procedures for Use in Federal -Aid Highway" and 49 CFR Part 623.
The Contractor assures that any facilities or equipment acquired, constructed, or improved
as a part of the Project are or will be designed and equipped to limit air pollution as
provided in accordance with the following EPA regulations: "Control of Air Pollution from
New and In -Use Motor Vehicles Engines," 40 CFR Part 85; "Control of Air Pollution from
New and In -Use Motor Vehicles and New and In -Use Motor Vehicles Engines - Certification
and Test Procedures," 40 CFR Part 86; and "Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles," 40 CFR
Part 600; in accordance with applicable Federally -approved State Implementation Plan(s)
(in particular, the Transportation Control Measures); and in accordance with applicable
Federal regulations, directives and other standards.
7.3 Use of Public Lands
No publicly -owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of
National, State, or local significance as determined by the .Federal, State, or local officials
having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of National, State, or local
significance may be used for the Project unless specific findings required by 49 USC
Section 303 are made by the US DOT.
24
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
7.4 Historic Preservation
The Contractor agrees to assist the Government to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC Section 470f, involving historic and archaeological
preservation by:
(a) Consulting the State Historic Preservation Officer on the conduct of investigations, in
accordance with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations, "Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties," 36 CFR Part 800, to identify properties and
resources listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
that may be affected by the Project, and notifying the Government (FTA) of the
existence of any such properties; and
(b) Complying with all Federal requirements to avoid or mitigate adverse effects upon
such properties.
7.5 Energy Conservation
The Contractor shall comply with mandatory standards and policies relating to energy
efficiency that are contained in applicable State Energy Conservation Plans issued in
compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 USC Section 6321 et seq.
7.5.1 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Effects
Should the proposed Project cause adverse environmental effects, the Contractor agrees
to take all reasonable steps to minimize such effects pursuant to 49 USC app. Section 161
0, all other applicable statutes, and the procedures set forth in 23 CFR Part 771 and 49
CFR Part 622. The Contractor agrees to undertake all environmental mitigation measures
that may be identified as commitments in applicable environmental documents (such as
environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, memoranda of
agreements, and statements required by 49 USC Section 303) and with any conditions
imposed by the Government as part of a finding of no significant impact or a record of
decision; all such mitigation measures are incorporated in and made part of this Agreement
by reference.
7.5.2 Recycled Products - Applicability to Contracts
The Recycled Products requirements set forth in 42 USC 6962, 40 CFR Part 247,
Executive Order 12873, apply to all contracts for items designated by the EPA, when the
purchaser or contractor procures $10,000.00 or more of one of these items during the fiscal
year, or has procured $10,000.00 or more of such items in the previous fiscal year, using
Federal funds. New requirements for 'recovered materials" became effective May, 1996.
These new regulations apply to all procurement actions involving items designated by the
EPA, where the procuring agency purchases $10,000.00 or more of one of these items in a
fiscal year, or when the cost of such items purchased during the previous fiscal year was
$10,000.00.
8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
8.1 Compliance and Evidence
All materials and supplies and/or construction furnished pursuant to this Contract shall be
in compliance with the laws and regulations of the State of California and the United States
25
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
of America. Contractor shall, if requested by the City of Petaluma, supply certification and
evidence of such compliance.
9.0 PATENT AND DATA RIGHTS
9.1 Patent Rights
If any invention, improvement, or discovery of the Contractor is conceived or first actually
reduced to practice in the course of or under this Contract, which invention, improvement,
or discovery may be patentable under the laws of the United States of America or any
foreign country, the Contractor shall immediately notify the City of Petaluma and FTA and
provide a detailed report. The rights and responsibilities of the Contractor, City of Petaluma
and FTA with respect to such invention, improvement, or discovery will be determined in
accordance with applicable Federal laws, regulations, policies, and any waiver thereof.
9.2 Rights in Data
The following restrictions apply to all "subject data" first produced in the performance of this
Contract:
(a) Except for its own internal use, the Contractor may not publish or reproduce such data
in whole or in part, or in any manner or form, nor may the Contractor authorize others to
do so, without the written consent of the City of Petaluma and FTA, until such time as
City of Petaluma and FTA may have either released or approved the release of such
data to the public.
(b) The City of Petaluma reserves, and, as authorized by 49 CFR Part 18.34, FTA
reserves, a royalty -free, non- exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or
otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes:
(i) any work developed under a grant, cooperative agreement, sub -grant, sub -
agreement, or third party contract, irrespective of whether or not a copyright has
been obtained; and
(ii) any rights of copyrighted work or material to which the City of Petaluma, a sub -
recipient, or a third party Contractor purchases ownership with Federal assistance.
(c) When FTA provides assistance to the City of Petaluma for a project involving planning,
research, development, or a demonstration, it is FTA's intent to increase the body of
mass transportation knowledge, rather than to limit the benefits of the project to those
parties that have participated therein. Therefore, the City of Petaluma as the recipient
of FTA assistance to support planning, research, development, or a demonstration
financed under Section 4(i), 6, 8, 9, 18, 18(h), or 20 of the Urban Mass Transportation
Act of 1964, as amended, understands and agrees .that, in addition to the rights set
forth in (b)(ii) of this subsection, FTA may make available to any FTA recipient, sub-
grantee, sub -recipient, third party Contractor, or third party subcontractor, either FTA's
license in the copyright to the "subject data" derived under this contract or a copy of the
"subject data" first produced under this contract.
(d) The Contractor shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the City of Petaluma and FTA,
its officers, agents, and employees acting within the cope of their official duties against
any liability, including costs and expenses, resulting from any willful or intentional
violation by the Contractor of proprietary rights, copyrights, or right of privacy, arising
26
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
out of the publication, translation, reproduction, delivery, use, or disposition of any data
furnished under this Contract.
(e) Nothing contained in this clause shall imply a license to the City of Petaluma or FTA
under a patent or be construed as affecting the cope of any license or other right
otherwise granted to the City of Petaluma or FTA under any patent.
(f) Paragraphs "b", "c", and "d". of this subsection are not applicable to materials furnished
to the Contractor by the City of Petaluma or FTA and incorporated in the work furnished
under the Contract; provided that such incorporated material is identified by the
Contractor at the time of delivery of such work.
(g) In the event that the Contract is not completed, for any reason whatsoever, all data
developed under the Contract shall be come subject data and shall be delivered as the
City of Petaluma or FTA may direct.
9.3 Infringement of Patents
The Contractor agrees that he will, at his own expense, defend all suits or proceedings
instituted against the City of Petaluma and pay any award of damages assessed against
the City of Petaluma in such suits or proceedings, insofar as the same are based on any
claim that the materials or equipment, or any part thereof, or any tool, article or process
used in the manufacture, operation or use thereof, constitutes an infringement of any
patent, trade secret, copyright, or any other proprietary right.
10.0 RETENTION OF RECORDS
Contractor shall retain and make available to the City of Petaluma records showing
compliance with the Section and with Section 32.0 for three (3) years after completion of a
project, or until an audit is completed and all questions, claims disputes, negotiations, and
other actions arising there from are resolved, whichever occurs last. Additional retention
periods may be required as appropriate and stipulated in writing.
11.0 ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
The Contractor agrees to comply with, and assure that any subcontractor, or third party
Contractor under, this project complies with all applicable requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 USC Section 12101 et seg.,and 49 USC Section
322; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation , Act of 1973, as amended, 29 USC Section 794;
Section 16 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, 49 USC app. Section 1612; and the
following regulations and any amendments thereto:
(a) US DOT regulations, "Transportation Services for Individuals with Disabilities (ADA)",
49 CFR Part 37;
(b) US DOT regulations, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and
Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance," 49 CFR Part 27;
(c) US DOT regulations, "Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Accessibility Specifications for
Transportation Vehicles," 49 CFR Part 38;
(d) Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability
in State and Local Government Services, " 28 CFR Part 35;
27
3�
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
(e) US DOT regulations, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public
Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities," 28 CFR Part 36;
(f) General Services Administration regulations, "Construction and Alteration of Public
Buildings," "Accommodations for the Physically Handicapped," 41 CFR Part 101-19;
(g) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) "Regulations to Implement the
Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 CFR Part
1630;
(h) Federal Communications Commission regulations, "Telecommunications Relay
Services and Related Customer Premises Equipment for the Hearing and Speech
Disabled," 47 CFR Part 64, Subpart F; and
(i) FTA regulations, 'Transportation for Elderly and Handicapped Persons," 49 CFR Part
609.
12.0 PRIVACY
The foregoing are applicable to all contracts that involve the administration of any system
of records (as defined in the Privacy Act of 1974) on behalf of the Federal Government.
The City of Petaluma and Contractor agrees:
(a) To comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC Section 552a (the Act) and the rules and
regulations issued pursuant to the Act when performance under the Contract involves
the design, development, or operation of any system of records on individuals to be
operated by the City of Petaluma, its Contractors or employees to accomplish a
Government function;
(b) To notify the Government when the City of Petaluma or Contractor anticipates
operating a system of records on behalf of the Government in order to accomplish the
requirements of this Agreement, if such system contains information about individuals
which information will be retrieved by the individual's name or other identifier assigned
to the individual. A system of records subject to the Act may not be employed in the
performance of this Agreement until the necessary approval and publication
requirements applicable to the system have been carried out. The City of Petaluma or
Contractor, as appropriate, agrees to correct, maintain, disseminate, and use such
.records in accordance with the requirements of the Act, and to comply with all
applicable requirements of the Act;
(c) To include the Privacy Act Notification contained in this Agreement in every subcontract
solicitation in every subcontract when the performance of work tinder the proposed
subcontract may involve the design, development, or operation of a system of records
on individuals that is to be operated under the Contract to accomplish a Government
function; and
(d) To include this clause, including this paragraph, in all subcontracts under which work for
this Agreement is performed or which is awarded pursuant to this Agreement or which
may involve the design, development, or operation of such a system of records on
behalf of the Government.
2. For purposes of the Privacy Act, when the Agreement involves the operation of a system of
records on individuals to accomplish a Government function, the City of Petaluma, third
28
33
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
party Contractors and any of their employees is considered to be an employee of the
Government with respect to the Government function and the requirements of the Act, are
applicable except that the criminal penalties shall not apply with regard to contracts
effective prior to September 27, 1975. In addition, failure to comply with the provisions of
the Act of this clause will make this Agreement subject to termination.
3. The terms used in this clause have the following meanings:
(a) "Operation of a system of records" means performance of any of the activities
associated with maintaining the system of records on behalf of the Government
including the collection, use and dissemination of records.
(b) "Record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that
is maintained by the City of Petaluma or Contractor on behalf of the Government,
including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and
criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number,
symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or
voice print, or a photograph.
(c) "System of records" on individuals means a group of any records under the control of
the City of Petaluma or Contractor on behalf of the Government from which information
is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or
other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
13.0 BUY AMERICA
This procurement is subject to the FTA Buy America Requirements as set forth in 49 CFR
Part 661. Except as provided in 49 CFR 661.7 and 661.11, no funds may be obligated by
FTA for a project unless all steel and manufactured products used in the project including,
but not limited to, structural steel, running rail, and contract rail, are produced in the United
States. A Buy America Certificate as provided in the attached forms, must be completed
and submitted with the bid. A bid which does not include the Buy America Certificate will
be considered non-responsive. Unless the product bid contains 100 percent domestic
material, Certificate of Non -Compliance must be signed.
13.1 Exception:
An exception from the Buy America provisions may be sought by the City of Petaluma if
grounds for an exception exist. 49 CFR Section 661.7 and 661.11 sets forth conditions For
which exceptions will be granted. Specifically for this procurement, an exception to the Buy
America requirements may be applicable if,
(a) No responsive and responsible bid is received offering an item produced in the United
States.
(b) The inclusion of a domestic item or domestic material will increase the cost of the
contract between the City of Petaluma and its supplier by more than 25 percent.
29
3`
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
14.0 RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING (For contracts over $100,000.00)
(a) In accordance with 31 USC Section 1352, Contractor hereby certifies that no Federal
appropriated funds have been or will be paid by or on behalf of Contractor, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in connection with the
awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant or loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal
amendment, or modification of Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement.
If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
a Member of Congress, an officer or Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, Contractor shall complete and
submit standard form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its
instructions.
(b) The Contractor shall require that the language of this certification be included in the
award documents for all subawards at all tiers and that all subcontractors shall certify
and disclose accordingly.
(c) The Bidder/Contractor shall require that the language of this certification be included in
any subcontract exceeding $100,000.00 at any tier and that any such subcontractor
shall certify and disclose accordingly.
15.0 INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF, OR DELEGATES TO, CONGRESS
In accordance with 18 USC Section 431, no member of, or delegates to, the Congress of
the United States shall be admitted to a share or part of this Contract or to any benefit
arising there from.
16.0 CONFLICTING INTERESTS
If any employee of the City of Petaluma, or any person related within the third degree of
consanguinity or second degree of affinity to a City of Petaluma employee has directly or
indirectly any financial interest in or has sought any financial gain from this bid or contract,
bidder shall disclose to the Contracting Officer the interest or potential gain and the
relationship before contract award or as soon as the bidder could with diligence have
learned of the interest or seeking of gain; failure to comply with this disclosure requirement
will constitute a default and major breach of contract by the bidder if awarded the contract.
No City of Petaluma employee nor any person related within the third degree of
consanguinity or second degree of affinity to a member of the City of Petaluma City Council
or to a City of Petaluma employee shall have any financial interest in or seek any financial
gain from, any contract to which City of Petaluma is a party and in which the related
employee plays a role in selection, award, or administration.
19.0 DEBARRED BIDDERS
The Contractor, including any of its officers or holders of a controlling interest, is obligated
to inform the Recipient whether or not it is or has been on any debarred bidder's list
maintained by the United States Government. Should the Contractor be included on such a
list during the performance of this project, it shall so inform the Recipient.
31
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 2
SAMPLE AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(Title of Transportation)
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into and effective as
of , 20 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Petaluma, a municipal corporation
and a charter city ("City") and , a ("Consultant") (collectively, the "Parties").
WHEREAS, the Parties enter into this Agreement for the purpose of Consultant providing
professional services to City under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Services. Consultant shall provide the services as described in and in accordance with the
schedule set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Services").
2. Compensation; Business Tax Certificate.
A. For the full performance of the Services as described herein, City shall compensate
Consultant under the following terms:
B. Consultant shall submit detailed monthly invoices reflecting all services performed
during the preceding month, and including a revised schedule for performance and
additional documentation requested by City, as applicable.
C. Consultant shall be compensated for services in addition to those described in
Exhibit A, only if Consultant and City execute a written amendment to this
Agreement describing the additional services to be performed and the
compensation to be paid for such services. In no case shall the total compensation
under this Agreement exceed without prior written authorization of the City
Manager. Further, no compensation for a section or work program component
attached with a specific budget shall be exceeded without prior written authorization
of the City Manager.
D. Notwithstanding any provision herein, Consultant shall not be paid any
compensation until such time as Consultant has on file with the City Finance
Department current information requested on the "Vendor Information" form
available from City, and has obtained a currently valid Petaluma business tax
certificate.
E. City's obligation to pay compensation to Consultant as provided herein is contingent
upon Consultant's performance of the Services pursuant to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto.
3. Term. The term of this Agreement commences on the Effective Date, and terminates on
, unless sooner terminated in accordance with Section 4. -Upon termination, any and
32
37
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
all of City's documents or materials provided to Consultant and any and all of the
documents or materials prepared for City or relating to the performance of the Services,
shall be delivered to the City as soon as possible, but not later than fourteen (14) days after
termination of the Agreement.
4. Termination. City may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ten (10) days' written
notice. City may immediately terminate or suspend this Agreement for cause. Cause for
immediate termination or suspension shall include, but not be limited to, any breach of this
Agreement by Consultant or Consultant's bankruptcy or insolvency. Upon receipt of notice
of termination or suspension for cause, Consultant shall immediately stop all work in
progress under this Agreement. In the event of early termination of this Agreement by City,
Consultant shall be entitled to payment for all Services performed to the date of termination
to the extent such Services were performed to the satisfaction of City in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If City terminates this Agreement for cause,
Consultant shall be liable to City for any excess cost City incurs for completion of the
Services.
5. Consultant's Representation; Independent Contractor. Consultant represents that
Consultant possesses distinct professional skills in performing the Services. City has relied
upon said representation as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement.
Consultant shall, therefore, provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to
perform all Services under this Agreement. It is expressly understood that Consultant and
its agents and employees, shall act in an independent capacity and as an independent
contractor and not as officers, employees or agents of City. This Agreement shall not be
construed as an agreement for employment.
6. Facilities and Equipment. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all
facilities and equipment that may be required for furnishing Services pursuant to this
Agreement. City shall furnish to Consultant no facilities or equipment, unless the City
otherwise agrees in writing to provide the same.
7. Licenses, Permits, Etc. Consultant shall, at Consultant's sole cost and expense, keep in
effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits or other such
approvals which are legally required for performing the Services.
8. Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of the Services as may be
reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of Consultant's obligations pursuant to
this Agreement.
9. Inspection. Consultant shall provide the City every reasonable opportunity to ascertain
that the Services are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions
of this Agreement. All work done and materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to
inspection and approval by the City. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
Consultant of any of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
10. Progress Reports. Upon the City's request, Consultant shall provide, in a form acceptable
to City, written progress reports of. all oral and written observations, opinions,
recommendations, analyses, progress and conclusions related to Consultant's
performance of the Services.
33
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
11. Confidentiality. In the course of Consultant's employment, Consultant may have access
to trade secrets and confidential information, disclosure of which is protected or limited by
law. Consultant shall not directly or indirectly disclose or use any such confidential
information, except as required for the performance of the Services.
12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant represents that it presently has no interest, and covenants
that it shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services hereunder.
Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not employ
any subcontractor or person having such a conflict of interest. Consultant represents that
no one who has or will have any financial interest under the Agreement is an officer or
employee of City. If such conflict of interest arises during this Agreement or any extension,
Consultant will immediately advise City and City may, at its sole discretion, immediately
terminate this Agreement.
13. Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an
agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement
to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
14. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all the Services in a manner
consistent with the standards of Consultant's profession. All instruments of service of
whatsoever nature, which Consultant delivers to City pursuant to this Agreement, shall be
prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner and conform to the standards
of Consultant's profession. All such instruments of service shall become the sole and
exclusive property of City upon delivery of the same.
15. Assignment/Transfer. No assignment or transfer in whole or in part of this Agreement
shall be made without the prior written consent of City.
16. Subcontractors. Consultant shall directly perform all Services, and shall not subcontract
any portion of performance of the Services without the prior written consent of City. Any
such subcontractors shall be required to comply, to the full extent applicable, with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to, procuring and maintaining
insurance coverage as required herein and which shall name City as an additional insured.
17. Compliance With All Laws. Consultant shall fully comply with all applicable local, state
and federal rules, laws, regulations and ordinances pertaining performance of the Services
required hereunder. To the extent that any other government agency or entity provides
compensation for any Services, Consultant shall comply with all rules and regulations
applicable to such fiscal assistance.
18. Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion,
creed, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, age or physical or mental
disability in violation of any applicable law.
19. Notice. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent pursuant to
34
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective
addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written
notice delivered to the other Party in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall
be sent by:
(i)personal delivery, in which case notice is effective
upon delivery;
(ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be
deemed delivered on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt;
(iii) nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the
sender's account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is
confirmed by the delivery service; or
(iv) facsimile transmission, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon
transmittal, provided that (a) a duplicate copy of the notice is promptly delivered by
first-class or certified mail or by overnight delivery, or (b) a transmission report is
generated reflecting the accurate transmission thereof. Any notice given by
facsimile shall be considered to have been received on the next business day if it is
received after 5:00 p.m. recipient's time or on a nonbusiness day.
City: City Clerk
City of Petaluma
Post Office Box 61
Petaluma, California 94953
Telephone: (707) 778-4360
Facsimile: (707) 778-4554
And:
Consultant:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
20. Ownership of Documents. All original papers, documents or computer material on disk or
microfilm, and copies thereof, produced as a result of this Agreement, shall be the property
of City and may not be used by Consultant without the written consent of City. Copies of
such documents or papers shall not be disclosed to others without the written consent of
the City. Manager or his or her designated representative.
35
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
21. Performance Bond. Consultant shall provide an annual Performance Bond, executed by
Consultant and a surety company licensed to do business as such in the State of
California, to CITY in the amount of one -hundred percent (100%) of the estimated
expenditure for each contract year. The Performance Bond shall be furnished forty-five
(45) days prior to the commencement of each contract year for the term of Agreement.
The condition of such bond shall be that Consultant shall fully and faithfully perform all
conditions and covenants of Agreement or that the face amount of such bond shall be
forfeited to CITY.
The bond may be a renewable one-year bond, and shall be renewed annually before its
expiration date, provided, however, that such bond must remain in full force and effect from
and after the date CITY makes any demands for payment on the bond until the CITY
releases such claim. Provision of such bond is a material covenant of Agreement.
22. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel acceptable to City, and
hold harmless City and its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and
against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses, and costs (including, without
limitation, attorney's fees and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, "Liability") of every
nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant's performance of the Services or its
failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such
Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, to the extent that this Agreement is a "construction contract" within the definition
of Civil Code Section 2783, as may be amended from time to time, such indemnity shall not
include Liability for the active negligence of City.
23. Insurance. Consultant shall comply with the "Insurance Requirements for Consultants"
included with this RFP.
24. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by
both Parties.
25. Litigation. If litigation ensues which pertains to the subject -matter of Consultant's services
hereunder, Consultant, upon request from City, agrees to testify therein at a reasonable
and customary fee.
26. Construction. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part
of both Parties and that the Parties agree that, notwithstanding Civil Code section 1654,
any uncertainty in the Agreement shall not be construed against the drafter of the
.Agreement.
27. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted under the laws
of the State of California and the City of Petaluma. Any action arising from or brought in
connection with this Agreement shall be venued in a court of competent jurisdiction in the
County of Sonoma, State of California.
28. Non -Waiver. The City's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement or the waiver
thereof in a particular instance shall not be construed as a general waiver of any part of
36
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
such provision. The provision shall remain in full force and effect.
29. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or
otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of
this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
30. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties do not intend to create, and nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to create any benefit or right in any third party.
31. Mediation. The Parties agree to make a good faith attempt to resolve any dispute arising
out of this Agreement through mediation prior to commencing litigation. The Parties shall
mutually agree upon the mediator and shall divide the costs of mediation equally.
32. Consultant's Books and Records.
A. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of accounts, invoices,
vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating
to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to the City for
a minimum period of three (3) years or for any longer period required by law, from
the date of final payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate
performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years or for
any longer period required by law, from the date of termination or completion of this
Agreement.
C. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement
shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business
hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Finance
Director, or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such
documents shall be provided to the City for inspection at Petaluma City Hall when it
is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the
records shall be available at Consultant's address indicated for receipt of notices in
this Agreement.
D. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or
discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant's business,
City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that
custody of the records be given to the City and that the records and documents be
maintained in Petaluma City Hall. Access to such records and documents shall be
granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant's representatives, or
Consultant's successor in interest.
33. Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not
intended to affect the interpretation or construction of any provisions herein.
34. Survival. All 'obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all
provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive
the termination of this Agreement.
35. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the exhibits attached hereto and
37 U
1�
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
incorporated herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to
the Services, and supersedes all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written,
between the Parties in this regard.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this document the day, month and
year first above written.
CITY OF PETALUMA
City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
APPROVED:
Department Director
APPROVED:
Risk Manager
38
CONSULTANT
By
Name
Title
Address
City State Zip
Taxpayer I.D. Number
Petaluma Business Tax Certificate Number
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
APPROVED:
Administrative Services Director
T
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 3
CERTIFICATION OF PRIMARY PARTICIPANT REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS
The Primary Participant (primary bidder), certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its
principals:
1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or Local) transaction or
contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements,
or receiving stolen property;
3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (2) of this
certification; and
4) Have not within a three-year period preceding the application/proposal had one or more public
transaction (Federal, State, or Local) terminated for cause or default.
If the Primary Participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, the participant shall
attach an explanation to this certification.
THE PRIMARY PARTICIPANT CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE
THERETO.
The undersigned chief legal counsel for the
Signature and Title of Authorized Official
hereby certifies that the has authority under State and local law to
comply with the subject assurances and that the certification above has been legally made.
Signature of Applicant's Attorney
Date
40
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 4
CERTIFICATION OF LOWER TIER PARTICIPANTS REGARDING DEBARMENT,
SUSPENSION, AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION
The Lower Tier Participant (sub -contractor), certifies by submission of this proposal, that neither it is nor its
principals are presently debarred, suspends proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
If the Lower Tier Participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such participant
shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
THE LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE
THERETO.
The undersigned chief legal counsel for the
Signature and Title of Authorized Official
hereby certifies that the has authority under State and local law to
comply with the subject assurances and that the certification above has been legally made.
Signature of Applicant's Attorney
Date
41
i�
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 5
CERTIFICATION OF RESTRICTION ON LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, that,
No Federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into the
cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of
any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement.
If any funds other than the Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its
instructions.
The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award Documents for
all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loan, and
cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of the fact upon which reliance is placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S.C. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to civil penalty of not less than $1.0,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Executed this day of 12007.
Company Name:
By (signature of company official here):
Name and Title of Company Official: _
42
X17
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 6
BUY AMERICA CERTIFICATE
Certificate of Compliance with Section 165 (a)
The bidder hereby certifies that it will comply with the requirements of section 165 (a) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, and the applicable regulations in 49 CFR part 661.
Date:
Signature
Company Name
Title
Or
Certificate of Non -Compliance with Section 165 (a)
The bidder hereby certifies that it cannot comply with the requirements of section 165(a) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, but it may qualify for an exception to the requirement
pursuant to Section 165(b)(2) or 165(b)(4) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and
regulations in 49 CFR 661.7
Date:
Signature
Company Name
Title
43
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 7
PROPOSAL PROTEST PROCEDURES
Under certain circumstances, an interested party to a procurement may protest to the City the
award of a contract that may or may not involve the direct application of funds from the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA). The mere fact that the City is a recipient of FTA funds
cannot be construed as evidence of FTA involvement in a particular procurement.
These procedures are intended to insure that valid complaints are properly handled and
responded to. Spurious bid protests may be subject to civil proceedings for the recovery of
compensatory and/or punitive damages.
Detailed below are the City's Proposal Protest Procedures and instructions for, when applicable,
obtaining the bid protest procedures of FTA.
A. City Level Protest Procedures - General Conditions
1. The City's review of any protest will be limited to:
a. Violations of State or Local laws or regulations. Violations of Federal laws or
regulations shall be under the jurisdiction of FTA.
b. Violations of the City's purchasing procedures.
C. Violations of the City's protest procedures or failure to review a complaint or
protest.
2. Protests must be filed with the City's Transportation Manager within three days of
the RFP opening or closing date for the receipt of RFPs if the protest is based on:
Restrictive or severely defective specifications. Defective specifications must
represent a material weakness that affords an undue advantage to one
bidder over another.
Improprieties in any type of solicitation that are apparent prior to bid opening or
closing date for bids.
Protests must be filed with the City's Transportation Manager within three days of the
award of a contract arising from an Invitation for Proposal or Request for Proposal if
the protest is based on:
a. The City's failure to adhere its purchasing procedures.
b. The City's failure to adhere to its procedures.
4. The initial protest filed with the City shall:
a. Include the name, address and telephone number of the protestor.
b. Identify the number of the .solicitation contract.
44
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
C. Contain a statement of the grounds for protest and any supporting
documentation. The grounds for the protest must be supported to the full
extent feasible. Additional materials in support of an initial protest will be
considered only if filed within the time limits specified in paragraph "C"
below.
d. Indicate the ruling or relief desired from the City.
5. No formal briefs or other technical forms of pleading or motion are required, but a
protest and other submissions should be concise, logically arranged, clear and
legible.
B. Time for Filing
Protests shall be filed within the specified limits set forth in the specifications, which
are the subject of the procurement and must adhere strictly to any procedures
specified therein. The time period established for the filing of protests as set forth in
all such specifications will be controlling and will take precedence over a time period
established herein.
Protests must be filed within the time limits set forth in paragraphs "Al" and "A2"
above in order to be construed as timely. If the requirements and scope of work,
which are the subject of a particular procurement, set forth a different period for
filing a protest, then the provisions of paragraph "1" above will apply.
A protest may be considered, even if the initial filing is late in the following circumstances
■ Good cause based on a compelling reason beyond the protestor's control,
whereby the lateness is due to the fault of the City in the handling of his/her
protest submission.
■ The City determines the. protest -raised issues significant to a procurement
practice or procedure.
■ The City is directed by FTA to either consider or reconsider protest.
■ A court of competent jurisdiction invites, expects, or otherwise expresses
interest in the agency's decision.
C. Time for Submission of Additional Information
Any additional information requested or required by the City from the protestor or interested
parties shall be submitted as expeditiously as possible, but in no case later than five (5)
days after the receipt of such request unless specifically excepted by the City.
D. Confidentiality
Materials submitted by a protestor will not be withheld from any interested party outside of
The Agency or from of information is permitted or required by law or regulation. If the
protestor considers that the protest contains proprietary material which should be withheld,
a statement advising of this fact may be affixed to any Government agency which may be
involved in the protest, except to the extent that the withholding the front page of, the
protest document and the alleged proprietary information must be so identified wherever it
appears.
45
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
E. Furnishing of Information of Protests
The City shall, upon request, make available to any interested party information bearing on
the substance of the protest which has been submitted by the protestor or interested
parties except to the extent that withholding of information is permitted or required by law or
regulation. Any comments thereof shall be submitted within a maximum of ten (10) days.
F. Withholding of Award
When a protest has been filed before the contract award, the City will not make an award
prior to the resolution of the protest. When a protest has been filed before the opening of
bids, the City will not open bids prior to the resolution of the protest. When a protest has
been filed after the award of a contract and prior to the resolution of the protest, the City will
notify the CONTRACTOR to suspend activity unless the City determines that:
I. The items to be procured are urgently required; or
Delivery or performance will be unduly delayed by failure to either make the award promptly or to
continue with the procurement; or
2. Failure to make prompt award or to continue with the procurement will otherwise
cause undue hardship to the City or other Local, State or Federal Governments.
G. Protest Review - Level One
Upon receipt of a protest, the City of Petaluma City Manager will create an ad hoc
Protest Review Panel to review all relevant materials associated with the protest.
The Panel shall be comprised of two representatives of the City appointed by the
City Manager. The Panel shall determine the validity of the protest and what
actions will be taken.
2. The Panel will be directed to prepare a report within fifteen (15) days. The Panel will
notify the protestor and any interested parties of their findings, actions and of the
procedures for requesting reconsideration. The report shall include the following:
■ Copies of all relevant bids;
■ A copy of the Invitation for Bid or Request for Proposal including pertinent
provisions of the specifications;
■ A copy of the abstract of bids;
■ Any other documentation that pertains to the protest including
correspondence with the bidders; and
■ A statement by the City explaining its actions and the reasons for them.
3. A conference on the merits of the protest with members of the panel may be held at
the request of the protestor. The request for a conference should be made in a
timely manner so as not to interfere with the resolution of the protest and not later
than twenty (20) days after the initial protest was filed.
46
5�
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
K Protest Review - Level Two
I. Reconsideration of a decision by the City may be requested by the protestor or any
interested party. The request for reconsideration shall contain a detailed statement
of the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed
warranted specifying any errors of law made or information not previously
considered.
2. The request for the reconsideration of the Protest Review Panel's decision shall be
filed not later than ten (10) days after the Panel issues it's written report and shall
be filed with the City of Petaluma City Manager. The protest shall .not be considered
pending during the ten (10) day period specified in this paragraph.
3. Upon receipt of the request for reconsideration, the City of Petaluma City Manager
shall schedule an informal administrative hearing with the protestor and the Protest
Review Panel. The hearing shall be filed not later than fifteen (15) days after the
receipt of the request for reconsideration.
4. The City of Petaluma City Manager shall issue in writing the City's final
determination of the reconsidered protest within five (5) days of the administrative
hearing.
I. Effect of Judicial Proceedings
The City may refuse to -decide any protest where the matter involved is the subject of
litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction or has been decided on the merits by such
a court. The foregoing shall not apply where the court requests, expects or otherwise
expresses interest in the City's decision.
47 }
Jrf
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
Fleet List
48
m
VEHICLE ROSTER 2007
AS OF 4/01/07
AB
C
D E
F
G
H
1
2
3
CITY OWNIED
;: VEH #
STATUS--
YEAR MAKE
MODEL «
�E1EL
CURRENT `MILE S
4
Paratransit
#7
IN SERVICE
2003 FORD
E350
GAS
61,841
5
6
#10
IN SERVICE
1997 FORD
CANDIDATE
DIESEL
178,216
7
8
#30
IN SERVICE
2000 FORD
BUS
GAS
178,285
9
10
#31
IN SERVICE
2001 FORD
BUS
GAS
181,139
11
12
PPSC owned
#4
IN SERVICE
2003 BRAUN TRANSPORTER
GAS
35,132
13
14
#5
IN SERVICE
1997 FORD
AEROTECH
DIESEL
146,278
15
16
17
Fixed Route
11
IN SERVICE
1989 Orion
Orion II
Diesel
388,468
18
19
21
IN SERVICE
2003 Chevy
Cut-a-wayGas
85,472
20
21
22
IN SERVICE
2003 ChevV
Cut -a -way
Gas
70,123
22
23
23
IN SERVICE
2003 Chevy
Cut -a -way
Gas
71,497
24
25
24
IN SERVICE
2003 Chevy
Cut -a -way
Gas
83,121
26
27
25
IN SERVICE
2003 Chevy
Cut-a-wayGas
72,290
28
29
26
IN SERVICE
2003 Chevy
Cut -a -way
Gas
75,693
30
31
27
IN SERVICE
2000 Ford
Cut -a -way
Gas
214,244
32
33
28
IN SERVICE
2000 Ford
Cut -a -way
Gas
233,597
34
35
29
IN SERVICE
2000 Ford
Cut -a -way
Diesel
178,564
36
37
32
IN SERVICE
2000 Ford
Cut -a -way
Diesel
192,162
38
39
33
IN SERVICE
2007 Gillig
Transit Bus
Diesel
150
40
41
34
IN SERVICE
2007 Gillig
Transit Bus
Diesel
175
42
43
35
IN SERVICE
2007 Gillig
Transit Bus
Diesel
172
44
45
36
IN SERVICEI
2007 Gillig
ITransit Bus
Diesel
1 145
Presents this PROPOSAL for:
Nlay° 2; 2007
Petaluma Transit
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
5840 Red Bug Lake Road
Suite 165
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Phone. (407) 977-4500
Fax. (407) 977-7333
Email: tranrc@earthlink.net
12036 Nevada City Highway,
#200
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Phone: (530) 271-0177
Fax: (530) 271-0626
Email:
cliffchambers@earthlink.net
55
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
a division of AmeriTran Service Corporation
April 30, 2007
Ms. Clair Cooper
City Clerk
City of Petaluma
11 English Street,
Petaluma, CA 94952
Dear Ms. Cooper,
Transit Resource Center (TRC) is pleased to present this proposal for a Fleet Maintenance
Audit of the Petaluma Transit program.
TRC is the leading firm in North America offering technical support to transit systems in the field
of bus maintenance and bus technology.
TRC is unique in its comprehensive scope of bus engineering, technology, and maintenance
services. The firm has an outstanding reputation among large and small public transit systems
throughout the U.S. and Canada. We have been repeatedly recognized by the National
Academy of Sciences Transit Cooperative Research Program which has awarded our firm a
number of contracts in the fields of bus maintenance and advanced bus technology.
TRC has built its reputation on the work of our nationally recognized staff. Allen Pierce, for
example, served for two terms as the most recent Chairman of APTA's Bus Equipment and
Maintenance Committee. Mr. Pierce will be the Project Manager for the Petaluma Transit audit.
He will manage the project from our Northern California office.
John Schiavone was APTA's Director of Bus Maintenance Programs for eight years before
joining TRC's staff in 1997. He authored TRC's report to TCRP on best bus maintenance
practices. John will serve as the Deputy Project Manager on the Petaluma Transit maintenance
audit.
Dan Denman served as Neoplan's Manager of Engineering in recent years and spent 21 years
at Neoplan in the engineering design of all of Neoplan's U.S. product line. Mr. Denman joined
TRC last year and will serve as project engineer on the Petaluma Transit audit.
TRC's tremendous technical strength separates us from all other organizations involved in the
conduct of bus maintenance audits. We have been successful in attracting a number of
California clients to our firm as a result of the high quality of work we deliver. SamTrans, AVIA
in Lancaster, CA, and the City of Glendale, CA are only a few of the clients who have_ recently
selected TRC to support them in maintaining their fleets to high standards.
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., # 165 • Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011 • (407) 977-4500 PH • (407) 977-7333 FAX • tranrc@earthlink.net SL
12036 Nevada City Hwy., #200 • Grass Valley, CA 95945-8461 • (530) 271-0177 PH • (530) 271-0626 FAX • cliffchombers@earthlink.net
April 18, 2007
Page 2
TRC is keenly interested in developing an outstanding relationship with Petaluma Transit. Our
presence in the region will be an asset in making this project a success for many years.
Transit Resource Center is the registered trade name of AmeriTran Service Corporation, Inc., a
Florida corporation registered to do business in California.
The proposal will remain in effect for a period of 90 days. I am the business contact person for
this proposal, and I may be reached at the address and phone number below:
Mr. Edward W. Pigman
President
Transit Resource Center
5840 Red Bug Lake Road, #165
Winter Springs, FL 32708
407-977-4500 TEL
407-977-7333 FAX
tranrc@earthlink.net
All of the staff at TRC looks forward to the prospect of working with the PetalumaTransit staff.
Sincerely,
Transit Resource Center
Edward W. igman
President
EWP/ejc
Fleet Maintenance Audit
CoverLetter................................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................. 4
FirmQualifications........................................................................................................5
Relevant Project Descriptions.......................................................................................6
ClientSpotlights.........................................................................................................14
Five -Year Client History ..............................................................................................17
Technical Approach and Work Scope........................................................................................21
Introduction................................................................................................................21
WorkScope................................................................................................................21
Task 1 — Pre -Audit Activities.................................................................................. 21
Task 2 — Establish Audit Inspection Standards......................................................22
Task 3 — Conduct Vehicle Inspections...................................................................22
Task 4 — Maintenance Record Reviews.................................................................24
Task 5 — Follow -Up Maintenance Record Reviews................................................25
Task 6 — Distribution of Draft Audit Report............................................................. 26
Task 7 — Prepare Final Audit Report......................................................................26
Task 8 — Special Projects — Value Added Service ................................................. 27
StaffingPlan.............................................................................................................................28
Biosof Key Personnel................................................................................................28
OrganizationalChart..................................................................................................32
Resume— Edward Pigman.........................................................................................
33
Resume—Allen Pierce...............................................................................................
36
Resume— John Schiavone.........................................................................................37
Resume— Dan Denman.............................................................................................40
Resume— Vim Villapana............................................................................................41
Resume— Sean Burr..................................................................................................43
Resume— Doug Thomas............................................................................................44
CostProposal...........................................................................................................................46
Forms......................................................................................................................................47
Proofof Insurance.................................................................................................'........48
Attachment3: ................................................................................................................. 49
Attachment4: ................................................................................................................ 50
Attachment5: ................................................................................................................ 51
Attachment6: ................................................................................................................ 52
Appendices:
Appendix A — Sample Service Contract Standards........................................................ 53
Appendix B — Sample Audit Inspection Forms...............................................................55
Appendix C Sample Fleet Maintenance Audit Report ................................................. 62
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May Z 2007 3
Introduction
Fleet Maintenance Audit
INTRODUCTION
The City of Petaluma is seeking the assistance of a professional transit maintenance consultant
to carry out periodic audits of the condition of its transit bus fleet, and to assist in creating an
overall fleet plan in support of the City's transit program.
The City of Petaluma currently owns a fleet of about twenty-one (21) transit vehicles which are
operated under contract to a private bus service provider, MV Transportation. MV
Transportation is responsible for the day to day operation and maintenance of the City's buses.
One purpose of the fleet maintenance audit is to ensure that the Contractor is performing
maintenance on the fleet in a proper and timely fashion.
To conduct a fleet maintenance audit of the City's transit vehicles, the maintenance consultant
will be required to send a fleet inspection crew to Petaluma to physically examine the bus fleet,
the maintenance shops, and the maintenance records.
The Consultant's audit crew must be composed of transit industry bus maintenance specialists
who have experience in performing audits on transit maintenance programs. Prior to
conducting an audit of Petaluma Transit, the Consultant's audit crew must become familiar with
the entire Petaluma Transit Maintenance Program, including the written maintenance plan,
staffing levels, training programs etc.
The inspections will be carried out at the City's transit maintenance facility on North McDowell
Blvd. or some other location approved by the City. The inspections will include all revenue and
non -revenue vehicles assigned to the transit system.
Inspections will be scheduled for evenings and weekends to avoid impacting regular bus
operations activity. One inspection bay with a vehicle lift will be set aside for the Consultant's
inspection crew.
City personnel will be responsible and available to move buses on and off the lifts and to
perform any other driving needed to carryout the maintenance audit.
The maintenance audit will include the Consultant's inspection findings in at least the following
areas:
• Fleet appearance
• Vehicle cleanliness
• Shop areas
• Safety issues
• Maintenance scheduling
• Warranty management
• Maintenance work order processing
• Parts issues
The first audit conducted under this program is expected to encompass 100% of the fleet in
order to establish a baseline to measure fleet condition in future audits.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
Fleet Maintenance Audit
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
Transit Resource Center (TRC) is a consulting organization that is focused exclusively on
supporting clients in the public transportation field. The core of TRC's consulting business is its
Vehicle Engineering and Maintenance Group, which has a strong international practice in the
areas of transit bus design, manufacturing, maintenance, and new technology, including
alternative fuels and advanced electronics.
TRC was recently recognized for its outstanding leadership role in the field of bus technology
and bus maintenance practices with the award of a prestigious contract by the National
Academy of Sciences Transit Cooperative Research Board (ICRP E-5). This contract is to
evaluate best maintenance practices among North American bus systems. TRC is also a
subcontractor to West Virginia University on a second prestigious contract to assess hybrid -
electric bus technology (TCRP C-15).
TRC is known for its vigorous and technically advanced maintenance auditing practice. In this
capacity, TRC conducts physical inspections of client bus fleets to determine overall fleet
conditions and the effectiveness of existing maintenance programs. TRC recently completed
such audits for the City of Glendale, CA., the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans),
Centre Area Transit Authority in State College, Pa., and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority
(AVTA) in Lancaster, CA.
In addition to providing regular fleet maintenance audits to our clients, TRC also offers a wide array
of maintenance consulting services to our clients. TRC is well regarded, for example, in the field of
alternative bus fuels and related storage technology. The firm has completed evaluations of
alternative fuels strategies in the Atlanta region, and for the Humboldt Transit Authority and
Imperial Valley Transit in California. Currently TRC, in association with West Virginia University, is
conducting a detailed study of the emissions of low -sulfur diesel fuels for Westchester County DOT
(suburban New York City).
TRC's maintenance consulting practice often focuses on the people who staff bus maintenance
departments. TRC evaluates the credentials of mechanics and maintenance foreman, and we
design programs to improve their technical and administrative skills. Sometimes TRC serves as
a recruiting organization to help clients find qualified maintenance managers (Portland, ME;
New Haven, CT). TRC has helped clients review and evaluate vendor proposals for fleet
maintenance programs in Santa Maria, CA, and Bridgeport, CT. Bus maintenance is best
conducted in clear well-designed spaces organized for this purpose. TRC acts as advisors on site
selection and repair shop design (New Haven, CT; San Luis Obispo; Santa Maria, CA).
As companion pieces to our maintenance audits, TRC often prepares comprehensive
maintenance plans for clients who want to improve the quality of maintenance on their bus fleets
(Phoenix, AZ; New Haven, CT).
TRC provides consultation on a host of maintenance technical issues that create problems for
our clients. TRC has conducted investigations of bus fires (Philadelphia; PRTC), malfunctioning
fareboxes (Tempe, AZ), premature engine failures (Bridgeport, CT), excessive brake wear
(HSTC), and bus re -powering projects (San Diego County Transit).
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
Fleet Maintenance Audit
TRC routinely assists clients in the development of technical specifications for new bus fleets.
For example, TRC recently, developed specifications for several different models of buses for
Rockland County (suburban New York City) and for Illinois DOT's statewide vehicle purchases.
The development of bus specifications is done in preparation for soliciting bids from
manufacturers. TRC ,often runs turn -key procurements for clients where we act as the client's
agent in conducting pre-bid conferences, responding to vendor's requests for approved equals,
evaluating bids, and conducting contract negotiations with the selected bus builder. We are now
providing these services for Rockland County and Illinois DOT, as we have for many previous
clients like Topeka, KS and New Haven, CT.
Once buses enter production, TRC provides ongoing technical support services to our clients
through assignment of resident quality control inspectors in the factories who watch over every
step of the bus assembly process. Senior TRC engineers provide technical guidance to the
resident inspectors and help clients arbitrate problems that arise during production. TRC also has
conducted scores of Buy America audits to ensure manufacturers' compliance with FTA
regulations on domestic contents and final assembly. TRC has conducted such inspections on
more than 15,000 new buses since the company's start in 1990. In this capacity, TRC has
supported some of North America's leading transit systems, including the Toronto Transit
Commission, PACE (suburban Chicago), SamTrans (suburban San Francisco), Delaware Transit
Corporation, Denver RTD, Rochester, NY, and numerous other agencies, both large and small.
RECENT BUS MAINTENANCE AUDITING EXPERIENCE
Antelope Valley Transit Authority — Lancaster, CA
Maintenance Operations Review Air
2005 to 2006 nWA-WrAr
The Antelope. Valley Transportation Authority (AVTA) in Lancaster, CA contracted with TRC to
assist in resolving a number of serious bus maintenance issues that had developed with their
bus operations and maintenance contactor. An acute deterioration in overall fleet. maintenance
led to AVTA's inability to meet scheduled pullout due to engine failures and unsafe bus
conditions. TRC responded with a multi -tier approach that included:
➢ Performing a complete physical inspection of all buses to identify defects, prioritizing the
repair of those defects, and identifying the effort in terms of the labor and parts needed
to correct the defects;
➢ Calculating the damage caused to the fleet by the contractor to assist AVTA in
recovering liquidated damages;
➢ Accessing whether it would be more beneficial and cost effective for AVTA to continue
contracting its maintenance and operations to another vendor, or taking the functions in-
house;
➢ Sending staff to oversee the operation to ensure that vital maintenance tasks were being
addressed;
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Developing and carrying out an engine testing program to assess fleet engine conditions
as a way of prioritizing rebuilding to prevent future catastrophic failures;
➢ Overseeing the rebuilding process and working with the engine manufacturer to recover
warranty claims;
➢ Working with the parts department to determine inventory levels and to order the
necessary spare parts;
Through the assistance provided by TRC, AVTA was able to:
➢ Restore the bus fleet to an operable condition.
➢ Bring the contract with AVTA's then -current contractor to a conclusion.
➢ Complete the procurement process for a new bus contractor.
➢ Find solutions to the engine failure problem and start a program of engine rebuilding.
Key TRC Staff: Edward Pigman, John Schiavone, Al Pierce, Doug Thomas, Gary Duerst, Larry
Petersen, Howard Subbert, Scott Jorstad
Client Contact: Randy Floyd, Executive Director
422106 th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
(661) 729-2206
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 7
Fleet Maintenance Audit
SamTrans —San Mateo County, CA -MmTra 1
Mult-Year Contract to Conduct Bus Maintenance Audits/Turnover Audits
2006
The Sam Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) recently awarded TRC a multi-year contract
to conduct quarterly bus maintenance audits and turnover audits of its contracted Urban Bus
Service (CUBS). This contract is designed to monitor the on-going fleet condition of 57 forty -
foot transit buses that are contracted out to a private service provider. TRC conducts a full-
scale audit of part of the fleet on a quarterly basis. This involves a physical inspection of the
vehicles, testing of oil samples, a review of maintenance records, and the development of a
comprehensive data base which records trend lines in fleet condition over time.
TRC has recently completed the first quarterly fleet audit under this contract.
The contract also provides for the performance of turnover audits of 100 percent of the fleet in
the event of a change in service contractors.
Key TRC Staff: John Schiavone, Dan Denman
Client Contact: Paul Lee, Manager
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070
(650) 508-6433
Montgomery County, Maryland
Transit Bus End of Contract Inspection Services
2007
Montgomery County, Maryland recently retained TRC to conduct a 100 percent fleet turnover
audit on 93 medium -duty paratransit vehicles prior to a change in service contractors. The
County recognized that the fleet was not being well maintained and wanted to conduct a
turnover audit which documented the outgoing contractor's liability, and provided a base line for
the fleet condition for the fleet condition before the new contractor took over possession of the
fleet. TRC documented over 2,100 significant defects in the County's transit fleet, including
many Class "A" defects that required vehicles to be removed from service until repairs were
made.
Subsequent to the completion of the audit, the County retained TRC to calculate the cost of
repairs to this fleet.
Key TRC Personnel: Edward Pigman, Dan Denman
Client Contact: Patrick Cauley, Contract Manager
16630 Crabbs Brand Way
Rockville, MD 20855
(240) 777-5732
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
The City of Glendale, CA
Quarterly Fleet Maintenance Audit Services
2006
Fleet Maintenance Audit
The City of Glendale, CA recently awarded TRC a contract to conduct quarterly fleet
--_ maintenance audits and ADA reviews of the contractor that operates the City of Glendale's
transit buses. This contract is designed to monitor a fleet of thirty-five (35) transit buses to
ensure that they meet all federal, state, and CHP safety standards and that they are being
maintained in ways that will maximize their useful life while remaining compliant with ADA
regulations.
TRC has completed the first two quarterly fleet audits under this contract.
Key TRC Staff: Edward Pigman, Dan Denman, John Schiavone
Client Contact: David Cole, Maintenance Coordinator
633 East Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206-4384
(818) 548-3960
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
Central Florida RTA (LYNX) — Orlando, FL
Maintenance Audit Services
2005 to Present
Fleet Maintenance Audit
46A ho, � LYNX
To assess the effectiveness of its fleet maintenance operation, the Central Florida Regional
Transportation Authority (LYNX), Orlando, FL, selected TRC to benchmark its overall
performance, identify deficiencies, and make meaningful recommendations. Following a site
visit to become familiar with LYNX's operation, TRC approached the project in two tasks. In
Task I TRC conducted a physical audit of a random number of buses and their related
maintenance records to obtain a general indication of the overall fleet condition and the
agency's approach to maintenance documentation.
After analyzing the initial Task I findings, TRC conducted a more complete investigation of
LYNX's maintenance department with a focus on:
➢ Content, accuracy, legibility and consistency of maintenance -related records;
➢ Maintenance information system (MIS) utilization;
Adherence to schedule preventive maintenance inspection (PMI) intervals;
➢ Administration of fluid analysis program to detect early sign of major component
damage;
➢ Maintenance workflow process, policies and procedures;
➢ Outsourcing of goods and services;
➢ Tire program management;
➢ Safety and hazardous materials handling;
➢ Maintenance facility condition and utilization;
➢ Technical training and workforce adequacy;
➢ Workforce morale and management;
➢ Procurement and materials management;
➢ Warranty management;
➢ Monitoring of maintenance performance; and
➢ Comparing the maintenance performance of LYNX to similar agencies
TRC recently completed its Phase II evaluation of LYNX and comprehensive action plan that
established priorities for addressing the needs of LYNX's maintenance department. In doing so
TRC identified the deficiencies observed and the corrective actions needed, ranked all remedial
actions to be taken according to the most urgent in terms of safety and service reliability, and
identified the resources, timeframe and estimated costs required to make LYNX's maintenance
operation more efficient and cost effective.
Key TRC Staff: Edward Pigman, Allen Pierce, John Schiavone, Doug Thomas, Larry Petersen,
Roger Matthews
Client Contact: Joe Cheney
455 North Garland Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801-1518
(407) 841-2279
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
10 �j�
Fleet Maintenance
Capital District Transportation Authority – Albany, NY
Fleet Maintenance Consulting Services
2003 to Present��
In 2003 conducted a comprehensive fleet condition audit for the Capital District Transportation
Authority as part of an overall assessment of the maintenance department of this 280 bus transit
system. The fleet condition audit encompassed a total evaluation of the physical condition and
maintenance records of 75 buses selected at random from the 280 bus fleet. Findings from the
fleet audit were reported separately then incorporated into the overall maintenance department
evaluation.
Since 2003, CDTA has conducted Semi -Annual Fleet Maintenance Audits for the Capital District
Transportation Authority.
Key TRC Staff: John Schiavone, Doug Thomas, Roger Matthews, Scott Jorstad, Howard
Subbert
Client Contact: Ray Melleady, Director of Maintenance
110 Watervliet Avenue
Albany, NY 12206
(518) 482-1125
PRTC – Woodbridge, VA I&_
Fleet Maintenance Consulting Services PRTC
2002 to Present V—
In 2002, the Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) TransportnnonnC mm ss on
retained TRC to provide multi-year fleet maintenance consulting services on its fleet of 90
commuter buses and local transit buses. In the first year of the project TRC conducted a 100%
maintenance audit of PRTC's active bus fleet as a means of reviewing the performance of
PRTC's third -party contractor.
TRC more recently conducted the first phase of a turnover bus maintenance audit following a
decision by PRTC to change bus contractors in mid -2003. Both of the above audits involved a
detailed a physical inspection of every bus, including performing oil sample analysis on the fleet,
testing all A/C units, reviewing maintenance records, and analyzing the cost of deferred
maintenance.
TRC also provides a variety of miscellaneous maintenance consulting services to PRTC. These
projects have included an investigation into the causes of a bus fire, the review of a contractor's
bus maintenance plan, the preparation of Buy America audits, and inspection of new buses.
Key TRC Staff: John Schiavone, Larry Petersen, Doug Thomas, Roger Matthews, Scott
Jorstad, Howard Subbert
Client Contact: Bill Leisen, Manager of Contract Operations
14700 Potomac Mills Rd
Woodbridge, VA 22192
(703) 580-6116
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007
Fleet Maintenance Audit
or
San Diego County Transit System — San Diego, CA
Quarterly Maintenance Audits
2000-2002
The San Diego County Transit System (CTS) contracts out the daily operations of its bus fleet to
private contractors. In order to assure that the contracted -out bus fleets are being maintained to
high standards, CTS retained Transit Resource Center over a three-year period to conduct
quarterly maintenance audits of the 57 buses in its fleet.
In mid -2001, during a turnover of contract operations, CTS contracted with TRC to conduct a
two-stage maintenance audit of 100% of the CTS bus fleet. These audits involved a physical
inspection of each bus, including oil sample analyses and a review of all maintenance records.
Key TRC Staff: Edward Pigman, John Schiavone
Client Contact: John Vater
1501 National Ave, Ste 100
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 595-7032
City of Phoenix
Bus Maintenance Monitoring Program
1997 to 2000
Transit Resource Center was retained under contract by the City of Phoenix, AZ to provide the
City's first on-going bus maintenance monitoring program for the Phoenix Transit System's fleet
of over 750 buses. The City of Phoenix contracts out the operation and maintenance of its
transit routes to private contractors, an arrangement which requires continuous verification of
compliance with bus maintenance standards. TRC provided a full-time, on-site maintenance
assurance manager to carry out a program of bus inspections, record keeping, and overall
monitoring of Contractors' maintenance programs. TRC build the City's first comprehensive
database for tracking maintenance conditions of the City's transit bus fleet.
Key TRC Staff: Edward Pigman, John Schiavone, various inspectors
Client Contact: Mike Navarro
302 North First Avenue, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 262-7242
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007
12
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Norwalk Transit — Norwalk, CA
Comprehensive Maintenance Audit
1999 to 2005
Transit Resource Center and Halsey King and Associates (HKA) contracted with Norwalk
Transit to provide a comprehensive overall analysis of Maintenance Department processes and
functions. HKA issued a final report with its findings and recommendations. In addition, we
provided interim management at the shop floor level and put together a search for a Fleet
Superintendent. HKA assisted in the development of a new facility, training of the new
maintenance staff, PM program reviews, and the purchase of several new buses.
Recently TRC developed a Maintenance Department Policies and Procedures manual as well
as a system safety program plan.
Key TRC Staff: Halsey King, Ross Nightingale
Client Contact: Jim Parker, Director of Transportation
PO Box 1030
Norwalk, CA 90651-1030
(562) 929-5700
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 13
f
lop -
TRANSIT CE CENTER
IWIEWMI TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
Of THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Transit Cooperative Research Program
A Guidebook for Developing and Sharing Transit Bus Maintenance Practices
ransit Resource Center was recently recognized for
its outstanding leadership role in the field of bus
technology and bus maintenance practices with the
award of a prestigious contract by the National Academy of
Sciences Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).
This contract is to evaluate best maintenance practices
among North American bus systems.
Under this project TRC has recently completed `*A Guide-
book for Developing and Sharing Transit Bus Maintenance
Practices." The Guidebook will allow agencies to write detailed descriptions
on how to perform routine maintenance tasks suited to their particular op-
erating environment based on climate, duty -cycle, shop needs and other
local factors. It will also contain guidance on how to collect and synthesize
the information needed to write the practice, insert photos, write clearly,
and address legal issues. A TRB WebBoard dedicated to bus maintenance
practices will be established to help agen-
cies obtain the information they need to
write the practices and to share them with
others.
The Guidebook involves researching and
evaluating bus maintenance practices in
current use on all of the important main-
tenance functions of types of bus in op-
eration in North America.
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., #165 • Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011 • (407) 977-4500 PH • (407) 977-7333 FAX • tranrc@earthlink.nett
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER 12036 Nevada City Hwy., #200 • Grass Valley, CA 95945-8461 - (530) 271-0177 PH • (530) 271-0626 FAX • cliffchambers@earthlink.net
CE CENTER
tLIGHT
Is a
Roadmap to a State of Ideal Repair
MBTA Systemwide Condition Assessment & Capita/ Investment Plan
(tThe Massachusetts Bay Transportation Author
(MBTA) operates one of the nation's largest
most complex networks of subway, bus, and co
muter rail services. Transit Resource Center (TRC) part'
pated as part of the DMIM/Harris team in conducting a S,
temwide Condition Assessment & Capital Investment P
(SCACIP) for the MBTA. This project involved preparing
inventory and condition report of all MBTA capital assets
cluding all transit vehicles and fixed base facilities. Trar
Resource Center was responsible for conducting the invf
tory and evaluating the physical condition of over 1,000 d
sel buses and electric trolleybuses owned by the MBTA.
Once the inventory and condition assessment phases of
the project were completed, TRC was responsible for de-
veloping the forecasts for bringing the MBTA's bus fleet
and trolleybus fleet up to a state of good repair. This
forecast involved an evaluation of future MBTA bus fleet
size and fleet
composition to
meet current and anticipated ridership growth pat-
terns. The forecast evaluated the cost of fleet ex-
pansion requirements, replacement schedules and
costs for the existing MBTA bus fleet, and the cost of
mid-life rehabs for those portions of the fleet that
were not close to retirement.
The product of the MBTA's SCACIP project was a
computer program that helps predict the need for
capital actions, ranks capital actions by priority, de-
velops cash flow scheduling based on ranking, and
determines system impacts. This capital planning
program tool is available under licensing agreements
to other transit systems.
MWIAW
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., #165 - Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011 - (407) 977-4500 PH - (407) 977-7333 FAX - tranrc@earthlink.net
7AANSRRESOURCI' CENTER 12036 Nevada City Hwy., #200 - Grass Valley, CA 95945-8461 - (530) 271-0177 PH - (530) 271-0626 FAX - cliffchambers@earthlink.net
City of Edmonton, Alberta
Electric Trolleybus Fleet Condition Audit and Remedial Action Plan
dmonton Transit in Edmonton, Alberta is one of several transit
systems in North America that operates an extensive network
of electric trolleybuses, sometimes called "trackless trolleys."
The Edmonton Transit trolleybus fleet is made up of about 100 1981
Brown-Boveri vehicles. Approximately 59 of these trolleybuses were
kept in regular daily service, while another 40 were kept in perma-
nent storage.
The City of Edmonton contracted with Transit Resource Center (TRC) to conduct a condition
assessment of the trolleybus fleet and to prepare a Remedial Action Plan to return the fleet to
a state of good operational repair.
TRC conducted a thorough physical inspection of these 25 -year-old. trolleybuses and then de-
veloped a remedial action plan to enable the City to operate trolleybus service with this fleet
until the year 2008. By 2008 the City expects to replace the 1981 Brown-Boveri trolleybuses
with either new trolleybuses, hybrid -electric vehicles, or conventional diesel buses.
T"C's remedial action plan involved the following:
• Consolidating the best of the active and inac-
tive trolleybuses into a single maintainable
fleet.
• Developing a modern preventive mainte-
nance plan for the electric trolleybus fleet.
• Developing and implementing a technician
training program to improve the skills of the
trolleybus maintenance personnel.
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., #165 • Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011 • (407) 977-4500 PH • (407) 977-7333 FAX • tranrc@earthlink.net
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER 12036 Nevada City Hwy., #200 • Grass Valley, CA 95945-8461 - (530) 271-0177 PH - (530) 271-0626 FAX • cliffchambers@earthlink.net
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Five -Year Client Histoty
HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY
LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT
2200 Upper James Street
P.O. Box 7070
R.R.#1
Eugene, OR 97401
Mount Hope, ON
Jeanette Bailor, Purchasing Manager
LOR 1WO
(541) 682-6100
Douglas Murray, Transit Fleet Maintenance Manager
(905)528-4200
HAMPTON ROADS TRANSIT
LEHIGH AND NORTHAMPTON TRANSPORTATION
3400 Victoria Blvd.
AUTHORITY (LANTA)
Hampton VA 23661
1060 Lehigh Street
Perry McCoy, Director of Fleet Maintenance
Allentown, PA 18103-3898
(757) 592-0094
Randy Flyte, Materials & Maintenance
(610)435-5739 .
HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT
LIBERTY LINES TRANSIT
(HART)
475 Saw Mill River Road
4305 21st Ave. East
Yonkers, NY 10703
Tampa, FL 33605-2300
Jerry D'Amore, President
Richard Bannon, Purchasing Agent
(914) 969-6900
(813)623-5835 x1196
ILLINOIS DOT
LYNX
Division of Public Transportation
455 N. Garland Avenue
310 S. Michigan Ave., 16th Fl.
Orlando, FL 32801
Chicago, IL 60604
Joe Cheney
Dave Spacek, Bureau Chief
(407) 254-6216
(312) 793-3507
INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORP
MERCED TRANSPORTATION
(INDYGO)
715 Martin Luther Jr. Way
1501 W Washington St
Merced, CA 95340
Indianapolis, IN 46222
Larry Shankland, Transportation Manager
Maurice Frye, Director of Maintenance
(209) 385-7600
(317)614-9281
INTERNATIONAL DESTINATION MANAGEMENT
METRO MOBILITY
SERVICE
230 East 51h Street
30044 Beverly Road
St. Paul, MN 55105
Romulus, MI 48174
Paul Colton
Chuck Covington
(651)602-1668
(734)467-7000
JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
MISSISSAUGA, CITY OF
100 N. Myrtle Ave.
350 Hazelhurst Road
Jacksonville, FL 32204
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Doff Stover, Maintenance Director
L5J4tB
(904) 630-3140
Allison Stark, TMS Supervisor
(905)577-5298
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 17
Fleet Maintenance Audit
MODESTO AREA EXPRESS (MAX)
OMNITRANS
Transit Division, Suite 4500
1700 West Fifth Street
P.O. Box 642
San Bernardino, CA 92411
Modesto, CA 95353
Robert Bach, Director of Administrative Services
Fred Cavanah, Transportation Manager
(909) 379-7182
(209) 577-5298
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT
ONEONTA, CITY OF
One Ryan Ranch Road
City Public Transit Garage
Monterey, CA 93940
18 Silas Lane
Richard Burton, Director of Facilities & Maintenance
Oneonta, NY 13820-3540
(831) 899-2555
Paul Patterson, Maintenance Director/Manager
(607)432-4620
MONTGOMERY COUNTY RIDE ON
OTTAWA, CITY OF
101 Monroe Street, 51h Floor
110 Laurier Avenue W
Rockville, MD 20850
Ottawa, Ontario
Rodney Martin
KIP 1J1 CANADA
(240) 777-5739
Moe Carbone
(613) 580-2424 x 25537
MOUNTAIN METRO TRANSIT
PACE SUBURBAN BUS —CHICAGO
1015 Transit Drive
550 W. Algonquin Rd.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Glen Law
Larry Braun, Chief Inspector
(719)385-7458
(708)225-3039
NEW CASTLE AREA TRANSIT
PALM BEACH TRANSIT (PALMTRAN)
107 Taylor Street
3201 Electronics Way
New Castle, PA 16101
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
Leonard Lastoria, General Manager
Butch Sibley
(724)656-1195
(561)841-4250
NORWALK, CITY OF
PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY
12700 Norwalk Boulevard
3201 Scherer Drive
Norwalk, CA 90651
St. Petersburg, FL 33716
James Parker, Director of Transportation
Ron Albright, Maintenance Director
(562)929-5700
(727)540-1800
NORWALK TRANSIT DISTRICT
POTOMAC & RAPPAHANNOCK
275 Wilbon Avenue
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PRTC)
Norwalk, CT 06854
14700 Potomac Mills Rd.
Louis Schulman, Administrator
Woodbridge, VA 22192
(203) 852-0000
Bill Leisen, Manager of Contract Operations
(703)580-6116
OAKVILLE TRANSIT
POTOMAC & RAPPAHANNOCK
480 Wyecroft Road
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (PRTC)
Oakville, ON
14700 Potomac Mills Rd.
L6J 5A6
Woodbridge, VA 22192
Richard Preyde
Bill Leisen, Manager of Contract Operations
(905)845-6601 x3510
(703)580-6116
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 18
Fleet Maintenance Audit
RALEIGH — CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT
SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
1430 S. Blount Street
(SAMTRANS)
Raleigh, NC 27603
3001 N. Access Rd., Bldg. 100
Scott McClellan, General Manager
S. San Francisco, CA 94080
(919) 833-5701
Ken Quijano, Project Director
(650)508-6418
RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA)
SANTA BARBARA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
45 Erick Rd
DISTRICT
Lancaster PA 17601
550 Olive Street
James Lutz, Executive Director
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(717) 397-5613
Jerry Estrada, Assistant General Manager/Controller
(805)963-3364
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SANTA MARIA AREA TRANSIT (SMAT)
(RTC) OF SOUTHERN NEVADA — LAS VEGAS
City of Santa Maria
600 S. Grand Central Pkwy.
110 S Pine St, Ste 101
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Santa Maria, CA 93458-5082
Wayne Meissner, Maintenance Director
Joe Rye, Transit Services Manager
(702)676-1814
(805)925-0951 x480
ROCHESTER-GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSIT
SCOTTSDALE, CITY OF
AUTHORITY (RGRTA)
City of Scottsdale, Transportation Dept
1372 E. Main St.
7447 E Indian School Rd, Ste 205
Rochester, NY 14609
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Chip Walker, Project Manager
Debra Astin, Transit Planner
(585)654-0247
(480)312-2526
SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
SOUTH COAST AREA TRANSIT (SCAT)
DISTRICT
301 E. Third Street
120 DuBois St
Oxnard, CA 93030
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Ken Mills, Director of Transit Operations
Lloyd Longnecker, District Buyer
(805) 483-3959 x111
(831)426-0199
ROCKY MOUNT, CITY OF (TARC)
SUFFOLK COUNTY TRANSIT
P.O. Box 1180
335 Yaphank Avenue
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
Yaphank, NY 11980
David Eatman
Gary Lenberger
(252)972-1596
(631)852-4872
ROSEVILLE, CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
311 Vernon Street
1150 Osos Street, Suite 202
Roseville, CA 95678
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Michael Wixon, Public Works & Transportation
Elaine Guillot, Project Manager
(916)774-5293
(805)781-5711
SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION
TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT (TALTRAN)
10016 th Street
555 Appleyard Drive
San Diego, CA 92112
Tallahassee, FL 32304
David Burnett, Manager of Quality Assurance
Ralph Wilder, Maintenance Director
(619) 238-0100 x517
(850) 891"-5217
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 19
Fleet Maintenance Audit
TEMPE, CITY OF
WESTMORELAND COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
City of Tempe, Department of Public Works
41 Bell Way
20 East 6`h St.
Greensburg, PA 15601-2301
Tempe, AZ 85281
Larry Morris, Executive Director
Carlos DeLeon, Asitant Transit Manater
(724) 834-9282
(480)350-8527
TOMPKINS CONSOLIDATED AREA TRANSIT
WILLIAMSPORT BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION
(TCAT)
1500 West Third Street
737 Willow Ave.
Williamsport, PA 17701
Ithaca, NY 14850-3214
John Kiehl, Assistant Manager
Suzanne Willcox, Purchasing & Projects Manager
(570) 326-2500
(607)277-9388 x540
TOPEKA, CITY OF
YORK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
201 N. Kansas Avenue
1230 Roosevelt Avenue
Topeka, KS 66603
York, PA 19095
Ronald Butts, General Manager
Richard Farr, Executive Director
(913)233-2011
(717)849-0725
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION (TTC)
YORK REGION TRANSIT
1138 Bathurst St.
50 High Tech Rd, 5th Fl
Toronto, Ontario
Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 4N7
CANADA M5R 3H2
Canada
Donna Barba, Senior Contract Administrator
Donald Gordon, General Manager
(416)393-4791
(905)762-1282 x5625
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD (TCRP)
ULSTER, CITY OF
500 5`h Street, NW
234 Golden Hill Lane
Washington, DC 20001
Kingston, NY 12401
Robert Reilly, Director, Cooperative Research Program
Cynthia Ruiz, Director
(202) 334-3224
(845) 340-3335
VISALIA, CITY OF
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (TCRP-C-15).
425 E. Oak Avenue
P.O. Box 6106
Visalia, CA 93291
Morgantown, WV 26506
Monty Cox, Transit Manager
Nigel Clark, Professor and Director
(559)713-4100
(304)293-3111 x2311
WESTCHESTER COUNTY DOT (NY)
100 E. 1 st St.
Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Bob Rudd, Program Administrator
(914)813-7781
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 20
Technical Approach &Work Scope
I1
Fleet Maintenance Audit
TECHNICAL APPROACH AND WORK SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
Transit Resource Center (TRC) has tailored the following Technical Approach and Scope of
Work to meet all of the objectives and standards set forth in the City of Petaluma's Request for
Proposal for a maintenance audit of its transit fleet.
Based on TRC's review of the RFP document, and information gathered during the Pre -
proposal Conference in Petaluma, we recognize that this maintenance audit involves a good
deal more than a mere inspection of the bus fleet. This audit is also intended to act as a
baseline in creating a true fleet management program that encompasses complete vehicle
lifespans from fleet acquisition to fleet disposition when vehicle life cycles are complete.
To accomplish the audit objectives set by the City, TRC has chosen a Project Management
Team of specialists who are experts in the various different aspects of transit fleet management.
Allen Pierce, the TRC Project Manager, has 25 years of experience in hands-on fleet
management as the recent Director of Maintenance for the Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) in California where he oversaw maintenance on over 700 transit buses and
non -revenue equipment. Dan Denman has been assigned to the team to provide expertise on
new fleet acquisition and warranty management. Dan was Manager of Engineering at Neoplan
USA where he spent 21 years on design and production of new buses. John Schiavone is
TRC's author of the TCRP report "Best Maintenance Practices in the US Bus Industry". He is
considered the best analyst of bus maintenance issues in the US Transit industry, and
previously served as APTA's Director of Bus Maintenance services.
This TRC Project team has an enormous breadth of knowledge about transit bus technology
and maintenance. They will work as a coordinated team to become familiar with Petaluma
Transit's fleet and maintenance program prior to undertaking the first audit. They will then serve
as a team to help the City develop a true fleet management program, and they will be available
as a resource to the City at any time to provide advice on every aspect of fleet acquisition and
maintenance.
WORK SCOPE
TASK 1 Pre -Audit Activities
Before undertaking the first audit, the TRC Project Team will conduct an orientation
review of Petaluma's transit maintenance program. This will involve collecting and
reviewing pertinent information about the current fleet as well as the current written
maintenance plan. Other useful information such as staffing levels, technician work
schedules etc. will be included in this initial orientation review. We will also want to
collect information on the current status of warranty agreements and warranty
management practices. Any scheduled vehicle replacement or vehicle rebuilding
programs should also be made known during this opening task.
Also, before beginning any audit fieldwork, TRC's staff will conduct a conference with
Petaluma Transit staff to discuss the schedule for each maintenance audit, review
inspection procedures, and review the inspection forms to be used during the audit. This
conference will be used to seek consensus on the following matters:
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 21
Fleet Maintenance Audit
➢ Schedule for field inspections of vehicles and maintenance records. Schedules
to be arranged primarily on evenings and weekends.
➢ Accommodations needed at the inspection sites, e.g., availability of lifts or
inspection pits, office, phone, testing equipment, road tests, access to records
etc.
➢ Communications controls.
➢ Adjustments to the inspection forms to be used during the audit.
➢ Method of selecting vehicles for physical inspection.
TASK 2 Establish Audit Inspection Standards
Before undertaking the first inspection of Petaluma's transit fleet, it will be important to
establish the standards by which the fleet condition is to be judged. Such standards
may already exist in the contract between the City and MV Transportation. If so they will
be reviewed and discussed between TRC and the City at the outset of this project.
If clear standards are not established, TRC will work with the City to develop such a
document. The enforceability of such standards in the contract with MV may pose some
questions, or be subject to agreement between the parties. Nonetheless, as the
maintenance auditors, TRC will need guidelines for cataloging defects observed during
the inspections. In the appendices to our proposal, TRC has included sample fleet
condition standards from another city for your review. A similar guideline should be used
for Petaluma's audit process.
TASK 3 Conduct Vehicle Inspections
After all of the pre -inspection preparations have been made, TRC will send its inspection
team to the Petaluma Transit's maintenance facility to carry out the maintenance audit.
TRC's maintenance audits will have the following key elements:
➢ Vehicle condition appraisal;
➢ Vehicle safety and out -of -service checklist for compliance with applicable federal,
CHP, and local regulations and standards;
➢ Compliance with California Vehicle Standards, California Administrative Code
Title 13, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
➢ Review of vehicle history files;
➢ Fluids sample analyses;
➢ Determination if deferred maintenance, warranty and recall items are being
addressed;
➢ Compliance with preventive maintenance inspection (PMI) schedule
requirements;
➢ Review of maintenance shop conditions and equipment conditions such as
vehicle lifts.
Each of these key elements of TRC's maintenance audits is described below:
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007 22
Fleet Maintenance Audit
A. Vehicle Condition Appraisal
Petaluma Transit's service contract operator or the City will be responsible for
moving vehicles to and from the inspection area(s), and will provide a continual
supply of vehicles for TRC to inspect. An inspection bay with a vehicle lift or
inspection pit will be provided for performing all inspections.
The physical inspection of Petaluma Transit's buses will be comprehensive, with
the buses being inspected either on a lift or on an inspection pit. All basic areas
of each bus will be inspected, including:
1. Accessibility Features/ADA
2. Air System/Brake System
3. Climate Control
4. Destination Signs
5. Differential
6. Driver's Controls
7. Electrical Systems
8. .Engine/Engine Compartment
9. CNG Tanks, Valving, and Plumbing
10. Exhaust
11. Exterior Body Condition
12. Interior Condition
13. Lights
14. Passenger Controls
15. Safety Equipment
16. Structure/Chassis
17. Suspension/Steering
18. Tires
19. Transmission
20. Vehicle interior cleanliness and overall appearance
TRC's auditors will be equipped with digital cameras. They will generate photo
documentation of significant maintenance defects in the fleet as well as safety
and regulatory violations in the repair shops. This photo documentation will be
used as part of TRC's audit report.
B. Safety/Out-of-Service Observations
Public safety is the paramount concern in carrying out a fleet maintenance audit.
With this in mind, the first step in TRC's physical examination of Petaluma
Transit's buses will be to conduct a safety audit of each bus using USDOT and
California vehicle safety codes and California Highway Patrol motor carrier safety
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007 23 10
Fleet Maintenance Audit
regulations. Any vehicle found to have a major safety defect will be red tagged
as out -of -service on the spot by TRC's inspection team. Petaluma Transit staff
._. and the contract operator staff will be immediately informed of our findings and
the vehicle will be declared out -of -service until the necessary repairs have been
completed. An "A/B" designation system will be used to denote defects requiring
immediate repair from those that could be repaired at a later time.
A —indicates a safety-related defect that requires immediate repair and keeps
the vehicle from returning to revenue service until the defect is corrected.
B —indicates a non -safety -critical defect that requires attention at a later time.
C. Shop Safetv
To determine if safety precautions are being followed and equipment is being
properly maintained in the shop, an inspection will be made of the shops to
determine if:
1) Material Safety Data Sheets are completed and filed,
2) Hazardous materials are properly disposed of,
3) Hoists or pits are being properly operated and serviced,
4) Equipment is being cared for properly,
5) Overall shop cleanliness and safety is in order.
D. Fluids Sample Analysis
TRC will independently draw engine oil, transmission fluid, and coolant samples
for 20% of the vehicles selected for each audit. These samples will be sent to
TRC's lab for analysis. Results will be reported to TRC directly which we will
share with the City and MV Transportation. In reviewing the results TRC will look
for evidence of inappropriate levels of deterioration resulting from poor preventive
maintenance practices.
Task 4 Maintenance Record Reviews
Apart from inspecting the physical condition of the City's bus fleet, the next most
important means of determining the quality of a bus maintenance program is to conduct
an analysis of bus maintenance records. To conduct a complete. maintenance records
review, the TRC audit. team will carry out the following worksteps:
a. Verify PM Inspections
To determine if preventive maintenance inspections (PMI) were performed correctly
and on time, TRC will examine the last 2 PMI records for each bus selected.
Mileage between the last 2 PMI's will be calculated to determine if the inspections
were performed on time (i.e. within 250 miles of the scheduled interval) or if they
were late. We will look for evidence of repeat defects that may indicate lack of
proper maintenance.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007 24
Fleet Maintenance Audit
b. Driver Defect Cards
Verify that drivers are conducting pre -trip inspections and turning in vehicle defect
cards on a daily basis. Verify that the maintenance department is routinely
collecting and acting on data from the defect cards. Examine defect cards for
evidence of repeat failures or defects that may indicate improper maintenance.
c. Fluid Samples
Determine whether the maintenance department is conducting scheduled fluid
sample analyses and reacting in a timely and appropriate way to the results from
these analyses.
d. Road Call Data
Determine if the maintenance department is collecting road call data and converting
that data into proper repair orders. Examine road call data for evidence of repeat
defects of the same type, or trends that indicate a lack of proper repairs.
e. Repair Orders
Determine if defect information from driver defect cards, road calls, PM inspections,
and fluid sample analyses are being converted routinely into correct Repair Orders
(RO). Also verify that work listed on RO's is being fully completed.
Warranty Claims
If the vehicles are still under warranty, the contractor will be asked to describe its
warranty and recall procedures. TRC will ask to see any written documentation that
establishes a process for handling warranty claims, warranty claim forms, a list of
claims submitted, and status of reimbursement. Petaluma Transit will select two
buses for TRC to examine to determine if the contract operator has actually
followed its own procedures in obtaining warranty reimbursement. TRC will also
ask the contractor to provide proof that it has followed up on manufacturer's recall
notices.
g. Parts
Verify that the transit contractor, MV Transportation, is using OEM replacement
parts in its repair program, and that the transit contractor has an adequate supply of
parts on hand to meet day to day fleet maintenance needs. Verify that the transit
contractor has open account relationships with parts suppliers that ensure the
availability of parts and materials.-
h.
aterials:
h. Trend Lines
TRC will synthesize the information we collect from work steps listed above and
convert that information into trend lines which will assist the City in seeing visually
the direction in which the transit maintenance program is moving. This trend line
analysis will provide a tool to the City to ensure that its transit fleet remains safe,
and that its expected life span is achieved economically.
Task 5 Follow -Up Maintenance Record Reviews
In the second and subsequent maintenance audits, TRC will conduct follow-up
maintenance record reviews on all buses inspected previously by TRC to ensure that
defects recorded in earlier inspections have been corrected by the Contract Operator in
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 25
Fleet Maintenance Audit
a manner that meets Petaluma Transit's standards as well as industry standards. As part
of the follow-up review, TRC will verify whether all defects were properly corrected within
thirty (30) days following the original inspection. A written report of the findings from the
follow-up record reviews will be included in the next audit report.
TASK 6 Distribution of Draft Audit Report
Upon completion of all physical inspections of the vehicles and the vehicle history
records, and before preparation of the Final Audit Report, TRC will provide copies of the
preliminary findings and raw inspection sheets to Petaluma Transit and MV
Transportation for review. This step will ensure that Petaluma Transit can take any
necessary corrective actions immediately while awaiting the final audit inspection report.
It will also offer an opportunity for all parties to ask questions about the audit findings
and to submit comments which can be incorporated into the report.
TASK 7 Prepare Final Audit Report
Upon completion of the on-site audit work, and review of the draft audit report, TRC will
furnish Petaluma Transit with two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the Final
Audit Report within ten (10) days following completion of comments on the draft audit
report. The Final Audit Report will be prefaced by an Executive Summary.
The Executive Summary shall include the following items:
o Introduction
o Audit Objectives
o General Conclusions
o Summary of findings and recommendations.
The detailed report shall include the following:
o Background Information
o Audit Scope and Methodology
o Vehicle condition reports, including body diagrams highlighting damage,
and written narratives of defects found.
o Photographs of all significant discrepancies organized by vehicle
o Overview of findings with maintenance programs, and adherence to
vehicle preventive maintenance program provision
o Comparison to other similar public transit programs
o Recommendations with action plans for program improvements
The format of TRC's Final Audit Report will be a combination of textual description, data,
charts, photos, and other graphic displays. TRC is capable of customizing these reports
to highlight information that Petaluma Transit wants to emphasize in monitoring its
contracted bus services. TRC's Final Report will be in a Microsoft Excel file that will
permit Petaluma Transit to manipulate data to be viewed by various vehicle makes,
models, years, mileage, and defect trend lines.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007 26
M
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Task 8 Special Projects — Value Added Service
As an Added Value to Petaluma's transit maintenance audit, TRC will provide the City
with up to sixteen (16) hours per full audit of technical support services at no additional
cost on the following types of issues:
a. New bus procurements (i.e. specifications, Buy America audits, bid
evaluations, etc.)
b. New technology research (i.e. engine, fuels, electronics)
c. Maintenance issues (i.e. warranty negotiations, trouble -shooting on fleet
defects, best practices, etc.)
The City of Petaluma will have access to any of TRC's senior consulting experts for
advice or assistance in any field under this value added service.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May Z 2007 27
Staffing Plan
■
Fleet Maintenance Audit
STAFFING PLAN
EDWARD PIGMAN — PROJECT DIRECTOR
Mr. Pigman is the President and CEO of Transit Resource Center, and will be responsible for
contractual administration and overall project direction for the City of Petaluma's maintenance
project.
Mr. Pigman has directed and managed many evaluations of transit maintenance departments
and advised clients on organizational restructuring of transit maintenance programs. Mr. Pigman
has recently directed three major fleet management audits and studies for transit systems in
Orlando (LYNX), State College, PA (CATA), and Rochester, NY (R-GRTA). For LYNX, Mr.
Pigman directed a comprehensive maintenance department audit for this transit system which
has 248 buses and two division garages. For CATA in State College, Mr. Pigman directed a
comprehensive review of the maintenance program which supports a fleet of 57 fixed -route
buses and 18 paratransit vehicles. For R-GRTA in upstate New York, Mr. Pigman directed a
feasibility study of merging the separate maintenance departments of the fixed route system
(248 buses) with the paratransit division (63 buses). These two divisions operate from two
separate facilities, each with its own work force.
Mr. Pigman also conducted a major evaluation of the maintenance program for the Antelope
Valley Transit Authority in Lancaster, CA. In addition to conducting a physical inspection of
AVTA's fleet of 100 buses and related maintenance records, this evaluation focused on the
feasibility of taking maintenance in-house from an outside contractor. The emphasis was on
cost comparisons and quality of workmanship.
For the Greater New Haven Transit District in Connecticut, Mr. Pigman carried out a cost/benefit
analysis of whether the transit district should take maintenance and operations' in-house, or
continue to outsource the work. When the transit district reviewed the. findings, the district
decided to take these functions in-house. Mr. Pigman directed the development and
implementation of the transition takeover plan, including the development of a new maintenance
facility.
For the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Mr. Pigman directed and managed an
analysis of the feasibility of creating a centralized maintenance facility that would serve the fleet
support needs of multiple public transit operators in that region. For the York County Transit
Authority (YCTA) in Pennsylvania, he managed a comprehensive evaluation of the Authority's
maintenance department, and subsequently directed TRC's interim management of the
department during a lengthy executive search for a new maintenance director. The interim
management of YCTA's maintenance program involved running a turnaround program for a
highly troubled maintenance department.
For the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) in Albany, NY, Mr. Pigman directed a
comprehensive evaluation of a failing transit maintenance program, and the subsequent
management of a reorganization project to renew CDTA's fleet maintenance operation involving
over 290 buses. Much earlier, he directed a similar evaluation, interim management, and
turnaround program for the maintenance department of the Greater Bridgeport Transit District in
Connecticut, which operates about 70 buses.
For Chase Manhattan Bank in New York City, Mr. Pigman managed an evaluation of a private
bus remanufacturing company that was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Pigman's
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 28
Fleet Maintenance Audit
evaluation for the bank focused on the condition of the remanufacturer in relation to a large
contract the company had for rebuilding several hundred buses for the New York City Transit
Authority. Mr. Pigman developed and monitored a program for completing the NYCTA contract
which allowed Chase Manhattan Bank to recover most of its lending to the company prior to its
complete shutdown.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Pigman managed the complete reorganization of the failing
maintenance and operations departments of the Canton Regional Transit Authority in Ohio
which operated a fleet of nearly 100 buses. The RTA was in serious financial jeopardy, and its
fleet and fleet maintenance program were in complete disarray. Mr. Pigman directed and
managed a complete agency turnaround which involved shrinking the fleet size, rebuilding some
buses, and reorganizing the maintenance department completely.
ALLEN PIERCE — PROJECT MANAGER
Allen Pierce, Senior Maintenance Consultant, will serve as the Project Manager for the City of
Petaluma's fleet management audit. Mr. Pierce has recently been serving as part of TRC's
maintenance audit team for Lynx,'the transit system serving the Orlando area with over 230
fixed route buses and 80 vans. Mr. Pierce is also serving as the Assistant Project Manager of
an evaluation of bus investment and maintenance options for Edmonton Transit System in
Alberta, Canada. He also managed TRC's maintenance safety audit of the Norwalk Transit
District in California.
Mr. Pierce was previously assigned as TRC's project specialist on the evaluation of large scale
premature engine failures on transit buses owned by the Antelope Valley Transit Authority in
Lancaster, California which were maintained by an outside contractor. Mr. Pierce also served
as TRC's project manager on a contract with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System to
investigate the causes of structural failures in articulation joints on a group of 50 New Flyer
articulated buses. Mr. Pierce directed strain tests, metallurgic tests, and maintenance reviews
as part of the overall evaluation of the causes of the structural failure and the formation of
remedial designs for this fleet.
Prior to joining TRC, Mr. Pierce served as Manager of Bus Maintenance for the Orange County
Transportation Authority in Anaheim, California, a position he held for 11 years. In this capacity
he was responsible for managing the maintenance of 510 buses, 150 support vehicles and all
transit maintenance facilities which involved a budget of $34 million annually and management
of 290 employees. Before becoming Manager of Maintenance at OCTA, Mr. Pierce served as
Superintendent of Bus Engineering for 8 years where he was responsible for managing
component rebuilds for almost 700 vehicles, parts and materials procurement, and facilities
planning, design, construction management and maintenance.
Mr. Pierce is the immediate past chairman of the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) Committee on Bus Maintenance and Technology, where he served two terms.
Mr. Pierce is a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 29
Fleet Maintenance Audit
DAN DENMAN — ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER
Dan Denman has over 23 years in bus transit maintenance and bus engineering. Recently, Mr.
Denman has been TRC's Project Manager for bus maintenance audits for Glendale, California,
for SAMTRANS in San Mateo County, California, and for Montgomery County, Maryland's Ride -
On bus transit system. Additionally, Mr. Denman has been assigned as Project Manager on
several domestic bus engineering projects, including the hydrogen fuel cell bus development
project for the Greater New Haven Transit District (CT), engineering investigation into steering
axle problems with SCAT's (Oxnard, CA) newly delivered New Flyer buses, plus engineering
oversight on Edmonton Transit System's (Alberta, Canada) order of 231 New Flyer buses.
Mr. Denman has also been serving as TRC's Project Engineer for a major bus design project
with a bus manufacturer in the People's Republic of China. On this project, he is responsible for
providing engineering and technical assistance to ensure conformance of these Chinese -made
buses with US DOT bus design standards and FMVSS regulations.
Prior to joining TRC, Mr. Denman was the Chief Engineer in charge of bus engineering and
design at Neoplan USA in Colorado. Mr. Denman was at Neoplan USA for 20 years where he
was involved with the design of many varied bus products, including transit, commuter, and
highway buses. Mr. Denman was in a lead role in the design and testing of Neoplan's low floor
buses, articulated transit buses, and standard 40 -foot transit and commuter buses. Neoplan
USA was the first North American bus builder to design a prototype hybrid diesel-electric bus
well before the market was ready for such advanced technology. Mr. Denman was involved in
this hybrid project from its inception.
JOHN SCHIAVONE — PROJECT RESEARCHER
John Schiavone, TRC's Senior Consultant on Bus Technology, will serve as the Project
Researcher for the City of Petaluma project. Mr. Schiavone is a nationally recognized leader in
the U.S. in the field of transit bus technical design and bus maintenance practices. Prior to
joining TRC, Mr. Schiavone served for eight years as the Director of Bus Technology for the
American Public Transit Association (APTA) where he provided technical support nationally to
APTA's transit members. For APTA he developed more than 25 national workshops on such
topics as alternative fuels for buses and exhaust emissions reductions.
Mr. Schiavone provides project management and technical guidance on bus procurement
projects, fleet maintenance audits, and other bus maintenance consulting assignments. He
recently served as Principal Investigator for TRC's contract with National Academy of Sciences
TCRP to investigate and document best bus maintenance practices in the U.S. transit industry.
He is currently serving on another TCRP project (C-15) to evaluate hybrid bus technology. He
served as Project Manager for vehicle turnover inspections at Potomac and Rappahannock
Transportation Commission (PRTC), Las Vegas' Bus Rapid Transit Irisbus project, RGRTA's
NABI project (Rochester, NY) and GNHTD (New Haven, CT), and Illinois DOT paratransit
projects. He also serves a Senior Consultant to TRC clients on bus. technology issues. For
example, he acted as the TRC Project Manager to the Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority
during an assignment to determine the cause of premature engine failures; he managed the
total powerplant retrofit project for Bridgeport's 38 RTS buses affected by these engine
problems. Mr. Schiavone also directed the development of a comprehensive bus maintenance
plan and PM program for the City of Phoenix Transit System, which contracts out virtually all of
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 30
Fleet Maintenance Audit
its bus operations to private operators. He currently is managing the Capital District Transit
Authority's multi-year fleet maintenance audit program.
Mr. Schiavone served as a Senior Consultant to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
APTA on updating technical specifications for 40 -foot transit buses procured with FTA grants,
and acted as a Senior Consultant to the National Academy of Services Transportation Research
Board (TRB) on critical topics related to bus maintenance, performance, and environmental
regulations. He recently managed a project for TRC involving the development of a new bus
maintenance facility and maintenance program for paratransit buses for the Greater New Haven
Transit District.
Mr. Schiavone began his transit career in 1978 as Service Manager for Saab—Scania of
America, Scania Bus Division, a leading European bus manufacturer. He assisted Scania with
the development and engineering of its 40 -foot and articulated bus products designed for the
U.S. market. With Saab—Scania, and later as APTA's Director of Bus Technology, Mr.
Schiavone worked on a wide array of bus technology issues, including projects on fuels and
emissions, propulsion systems, accessibility issues, specification development, approved
equals, warranty issues, Buy America audit issues and aftermarket support.
TRC'S FLEET INSPECTION TEAM
TRC has assembled one of the finest groups of maintenance auditors in the U.S. With over 75
years combined experience in bus maintenance, bus repair, and vehicle engineering, Petaluma
Transit can be assured of the highest quality inspection audit possible.
The TRC Maintenance Auditing Team has worked together in the past on numerous
maintenance audits for clients such as SanMateo County Transit (SamTrans), the City of
Glendale CA., Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) in Lancaster, CA, the Capital District
Transportation Authority (New York), PRTC (suburban Washington, D.C.), and the Central
Florida Regional Transportation Authority (FL).
For the Petaluma Transit Inspection Services project, TRC plans to draw upon the following
members of the Maintenance Auditing Team.
➢ Vim Villapana
➢ Sean Burr
➢ Doug Thomas (alternate)
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 31
8
O O
L (Z
a. Q
NVN
:Q
i
v1 (D
0°
e
L N
V
C O)
O O
L
C O
°)
V O ..
N
-2
O m
O a)
E
O
.0
CL
V W
U
Vcm
o
f
cL
r
Q Y
U
+�+ -0
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
(1991 - Present) Transit Resource Center, President
As President of TRC, Mr. Pigman is responsible for client relations and project direction for the
firm's consulting practice in the fields of bus maintenance and technology as well as in strategic
operations planning.
Bus Maintenance and Technology
Mr. Pigman has directed dozens of maintenance audits and fleet condition evaluations for TRC
clients. He has been responsible for the development of TRC's sophisticated bus maintenance
auditing system that offers clients an interactive report in CD format that permits clients to
manipulate collected data into a variety of report formats depending on issues of interest. He
recently has directed projects for Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany, NY);
Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC); Yolo County, CA; New Haven,
CT; and San Diego County Transit. Major bus condition assessments have been done also for
the MBTA in Boston and Antelope Valley Transit Authority in Los Angeles County, California.
Mr. Pigman has also directed numerous maintenance related studies and investigations for
clients such as San Diego Transit Corp., San Diego County Transit, the Phoenix Transit
System, the Greater Bridgeport Transit District, the Greater New Haven Transit District, the
Tempe, Arizona Transit Department and numerous other transit systems.
Mr. Pigman recently directed two transit facility design/implementation projects in New Haven,
Connecticut and in Fairfield County, Connecticut, which also involved significant reorganization
of two public transportation entities. Mr. Pigman also served as the Principal Investigator for two
transit maintenance facility consolidation studies for Santa Maria, California and for San Luis
Obispo where transit systems were working from multiple facility locations.
For the private bus industry, Mr. Pigman has been responsible for directing the design and
development of numerous bus maintenance/operations facilities. For Gray Line of Jacksonville
and related companies he developed maintenance bases in Jacksonville, Orlando, and Ft.
Lauderdale. At National Transit Services, Mr. Pigman developed central maintenance facilities
and satellite service centers for a 120 bus contracted commuter operation in Houston, Texas.
He also developed smaller maintenance facilities for the City of Nashua, New Hampshire and
Palm Beach County, Florida for contracted bus operations. Additionally, as part of the municipal
takeover of transit service in St. Joseph, Missouri, Mr. Pigman directed an engineering
evaluation of a transit maintenance facility owned by St. Joseph Light and Power Company,
nearly the last public utility company in the U.S. to own and operate a city transit system. This
facility, which originated as a streetcar barn, had been converted to bus operations in the early
1950's. Mr. Pigman directed an engineering study of the building prior to its purchase by the
City of St. Joseph, and he then directed its refurbishment under the City's ownership, for a
continuing use as a bus garage.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 33 q I
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Strategic Planning
■ Team member in the development of a new 21St century transit service vision for. Marin
County, CA. The plan involved the conversion of some express bus routes into "fast ferry"
service across San Francisco Bay, the development. of new express bus service to meet
inter -county travel needs, and the design of improved local neighborhood transit service
using such novel modes as small taxi -bus operations in the steep hillside neighborhoods.
■ Directed the development of bus operational concepts for a "rapid bus corridor" for the
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (San Jose) in California. The project involved reserved
bus lanes, signal pre-emption technology, pre -paid fare boarding stations, and limited stop
operations. The rapid bus corridor concept was planned as a pre -light rail development for
the EI Camino Real corridor.
■ Prince Williams County (VA) - Conducted an evaluation of high frequency bus corridor
linking the suburbs of this county with downtown Washington, D.C. Analysis focused on
express as well as limited -stop service on US 1 and 1-95.
■ Developed consolidation plan for 3 fixed route transit carriers operating on different
segments of US 1 in Connecticut and won Access to Jobs grant funding to finance system
start-up.
■ Managed the FTA alternatives analysis for the intermodal transit terminal in Bridgeport, CT.
When it is completed, this project will serve Metro North commuter trains, Amtrak, local and
intercity bus, ferry boat service to Long Island, and airport bus operations.
(1979 -1990) National Transit Services (NTS), President
Mr. Pigman was the founder and Chief Executive Officer of National Transit Services, Inc. until
the sale of the company in February 1990. In this capacity he first developed an extensive
transit consulting practice offering services in route/schedule analyses, labor-management
conflicts including labor contract negotiations, grant preparation and management, marketing
programs, risk management plans, finance referenda and many other support programs for
transit managers and boards of directors.
As the firm grew, Mr. Pigman developed NTS into a major player in direct contract
management. The role of the firm shifted from one of pure advice giving to actual operations.
This involved fleet acquisitions, garage design and operations, labor management, finance,
grants, comprehensive service plans, referendum management, FTA relations and long range
planning. When the movement towards transit privatization began to take root, NTS developed
a significant share of the market: At its peak, prior to the sale of the company, NTS owned or
managed over 2,000 buses and operated transit systems in 18 cities throughout the U.S.
Mr. Pigman was also the lead consultant advisor to Chase Manhattan Bank on a bankruptcy
case of a major railcar/bus remanufacturing company in New York State.
(1978 - 1979) Virginia Dept. of Highways & Transportation Director, Public Transportation
Division
Mr. Pigman served as the State of Virginia's first Director of Public Transportation. Organized
and staffed the Division. He worked directly with the Governor, the Secretary of Transportation,
the State Legislature, and the Commissioner of Highways and Transportation to create policies
and laws on public transportation for the State of Virginia. Mr. Pigman directed a comprehensive
financial analysis of the impact of the Washington, D.C., Metrorail construction on the financial
capabilities and credit ratings of local governments in Northern Virginia. In addition, he directed
q
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 34
Fleet Maintenance Audit
various studies and review of new rail rapid transit services into Virginia including the major
airports and he directed a comprehensive study of insurance programs for all publicly operated
transit systems in Virginia. Established the state's first transit demonstration grant program.
Mr. Pigman also served as the State's voting member on the following transit boards: Northern
Virginia Transportation Commission (Washington, D.C.); Tidewater Transportation District
Commission (Norfolk area); Peninsula Transportation District Commission (Newport News
area).
(1976 -1978) Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public Transportation,
Chief of Technical Studies and Program Development
As Chief of Technical Studies, Mr. Pigman supervised staff and consultant involved in technical
and financial analyses of public transportation systems that were funded by the State of Illinois,
directed a comprehensive audit of bus systems operated in Illinois by the Bi -State Development
Authority (St. Louis), directed a comprehensive restructuring of the routes and schedules of the
Springfield, Illinois bus system, and directed a comprehensive risk analysis of vehicle insurance
programs for all bus systems except those in Chicago. In addition, he directed staff and
consultant studies of proposed extensions of Chicago Transit Authority rail rapid transit services
to Chicago's O'Hare Airport and of new subway service beneath Franklin Street in downtown
Chicago. He also initiated target group marketing effort aimed at two selected public
transportation corridors in Peoria, Illinois.
(1974 -1976) DeLeuw, Cather & Co., Project Manager, Technical Studies
Mr. Pigman served as Project Manager for public transit studies, management audits and transit
development programs including the following projects: Des Moines, Iowa Transit Study;
Freeport, Illinois — Preparation of a Transit Development Program; Danville, Illinois Transit
Feasibility Study; Northwest suburban Mass Transit District (Chicago); North Suburban Mass
Transit District (Chicago) Transit Plan.
(1973 -1974) Champaign — Urbana Mass Transit District, Trustee
As one of five Trustees for WCDOT,
management and financing of a 28 -bus
and on the University of Illinois campus.
EDUCATION
University of Georgia, A.B., 1966
University of Georgia, M.A., 1968
University of Illinois, Ph.D., 1976
Mr. Pigman had the responsibility for overseeing the
system operating in the cities of Champagne -Urbana
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 35
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
Allen Pierce, Senior Maintenance Consultant, will serve as the Project Manager for the
Petaluma Transit fleet management audit. Mr. Pierce has recently been serving as part of
TRC's maintenance audit team for Lynx, the transit system serving the Orlando area with over
230 fixed route buses and 80 vans. Mr. Pierce is also serving as the Assistant Project Manager
of an evaluation of bus investment and maintenance options for Edmonton Transit System in
Alberta, Canada. He also managed TRC's maintenance safety audit of the Norwalk Transit
District in California.
Mr. Pierce was previously assigned as TRC's project specialist on the evaluation of large scale
premature engine failures on transit buses owned by the Antelope Valley Transit Authority in
Lancaster, California which were maintained by an outside contractor. Mr. Pierce also served
as TRC's project manager on a contract with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System to
investigate the causes of structural failures in articulation joints on a group of 50 New Flyer
articulated buses. Mr. Pierce directed strain tests, metallurgic tests, and maintenance reviews
as part of the overall evaluation of the causes of the structural failure and the formation of
remedial designs for this fleet.
Prior to joining TRC, Mr. Pierce served as Manager of Bus Maintenance for the Orange County
Transportation Authority in Anaheim, California, a position he held for 11 years. In this capacity
he was responsible for managing the maintenance of 510 buses, 150 support vehicles and all
transit maintenance facilities which involved a budget of $34 million annually and management
of 290 employees. Before becoming Manager of Maintenance at OCTA, Mr. Pierce served as
Superintendent of Bus Engineering for 8 years where he was responsible for managing
component rebuilds for almost 700 vehicles, parts and materials procurement, and facilities
planning, design, construction management and maintenance.
Mr. Pierce is the immediate past chairman of the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) Committee on Bus Maintenance and Technology, where he served two terms.
Mr. Pierce is a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
(1988 to 2006) — Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County, CA
Responsible for facilities and rolling stock for a fleet of 850 buses ranging in length from 22 feet
to 60 feet, plus 150 support vehicles. Facilities maintenance for 90 acres and 700,000 square
feet of transit -related facilities for a multi -division operation. Managed a $34 million budget and
over 290 employees.
Affiliations
Immediate past Chairman American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Maintenance
and Technology Committee, two terms served.
Member Society of Automotive Engineers
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 36
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
(1996 to Present) Transit Resource Center, Senior Consultant — Bus Technology
Mr. Schiavone currently serves as Project Manager and Principal Researcher for bus
maintenance and bus technology projects.
Recent Projects include:
• Project Manager for bus emissions testing project for Westchester County DOT in New
York.
• Principal Investigator for TCRP E-5 A Guidebook for Developing and Sharing Transit
Maintenance Practices.
• Lead Support Investigator for TCRP C-15 Evaluation of Hybrid Drive Bus Propulsion
Systems.
• Project Manager for Greater New Haven Transit District hydrogen fuel cell bus
development project.
• Project Manager for Illinois DOT's multi-year vehicle procurement program.
• Project Manager for Greater Vancouver Bus Specifications project.
• Project Manager for Las Vegas CIVIS tram -bus engineering project.
• Project Manager for Westchester County DOT bus emissions testing project.
• Development of bus specifications for Illinois DOT statewide vehicle purchasing
program.
• Completing over 15 pre -award and post delivery Buy America audits.
• Project manager for maintenance performance audits on service providers (i.e.,
contractors) for San Diego County, Yolo County, CA, Potomac and Rappahannock
Transit Commission, Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany, NY), and Antelope
Valley Transit Authority (CA).
• Project Manager for more than 40 in -plant bus quality assurance inspection projects.
FTA/APTA
Mr. Schiavone was part of a consulting team charged with updating the technical specifications
used by FTA grantees to procure full size transit buses: responsible for driveline and operator's
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 37
Fleet Maintenance Audit
workstation sections. Currently serves as consultant to the TRB C-12 project to rewrite the
section on advanced onboard electronics.
National Academy of Sciences/Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Mr. Schiavone prepared four research reports:
• Retrofit of Buses to Meet Clean Air Regulations
• Transit Bus Service Line and Cleaning Functions
• Monitoring Bus Maintenance Performance
• Understanding and Applying Advanced On -Board Bus Electronic
(1984 to 1990) Director -Bus Technology/American Public Transit Association (APTA) -
Washington, DC
Mr. Schiavone provided technical support for trade association representing public
transportation in North America. Developed 26 workshops on bus equipment and specifications,
in -plant inspections, maintenance, and technology including alternative fuels and exhaust
emissions reduction.
(1978 to 1984) SAAB -Scania of America, Inc./Scania Bus Division
Sales Manager (1979 to 1984) .
Mr. Schiavone conducted bus demonstrations and negotiated transit bus sales valued at over
$26 million.
Service Manager (1978 to 1979)
Mr. Schiavone established the U.S. technical services department for leading European bus
manufacturer.
• Assisted with technical specifications for both 40 -foot and articulated buses for the US
market, Including low -floor design and wheelchair lift applications.
• Worked with manufacturing and engineering personnel to optimize bus design.
• Provided technical and product service support for demonstration bus fleet.
• Assisted with Structural Stress analysis.
• Assisted with emission certification.
• Developed service and spare parts manuals.
(1975 -1978) Technician - Guilford Motor Company
Mr. Schiavone serviced Peugeot automobiles (gasoline and diesel).
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 38
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EDUCATION
B.S., Southern Connecticut State University —1974
TECHNICAL TRAINING
Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., Van Hool Bus Works — Belgium
SAAB -Scania of America, Inc., Voith Transmissions - Germany
Scania Bus Division — Sweden
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 39
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
Dan Denman has over 23 years in bus transit maintenance and bus engineering. Recently, Mr.
Denman has been TRC's Project Manager for bus maintenance audits for Glendale, California,
for SAMTRANS in San Mateo County, California, and for Montgomery County, Maryland's Ride -
On bus transit system. Additionally, Mr. Denman has been assigned as Project Manager on
several domestic bus engineering projects, including the hydrogen fuel cell bus development
project for the Greater New Haven Transit District (CT), engineering investigation into steering
axle problems with SCAT's (Oxnard, CA) newly delivered New Flyer buses, plus engineering
oversight on Edmonton Transit System's (Alberta, Canada) order of 231 New Flyer buses.
Mr. Denman has also been serving as TRC's Project Engineer for a major bus design project
with a bus manufacturer in the People's Republic of China. On this project, he is responsible for
providing engineering and technical assistance to ensure conformance of these Chinese -made
buses with US DOT bus design standards and FMVSS regulations.
Prior to joining TRC, Mr. Denman was the Chief Engineer in charge of bus engineering and
design at Neoplan USA in Colorado. Mr. Denman was at Neoplan USA for 20 years where he
was involved with the design of many varied bus products, including transit, commuter, and
highway buses. Mr. Denman was in a lead role in the design and testing of Neoplan's low floor
buses, articulated transit buses, and standard 40 -foot transit and commuter buses. Neoplan
USA was the first North American bus builder to design a prototype hybrid diesel-electric bus
well before the market was ready for such advanced technology. Mr. Denman was involved in
this hybrid project from its inception.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Committee member for ADA design regulations
Transportation Association.
Committee Member for Alternate Fuel Systems
American Public Transportation Association.
EDUCATIONITRAINING
and guidelines for the American Public
regulations and design guidelines for the
Kennedy -Western University — B.S. Engineering — 2006
Lamar Community College
- Associate of General Studies — December, 1993
- American Management Association Certificate of Management — 2003
- Fundamentals of Welding
Colorado State University — 1982 to 1983
Bendix Airbrake Design System Certificate
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 40
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Villapana has over 24 years of experience in transit bus maintenance, bus maintenance
consulting, and bus Q/A inspections.
(2000 to Present) Transit Resource Center, Senior Maintenance Consultant
For the past six years Mr. Villapana has been assigned to a wide range of bus inspection and
bus maintenance audit projects for Transit Resource Center (TRC) clients. These projects have
included bus maintenance audits for
- Antelope Valley Transit Authority (Lancaster, CA.) —100 buses
- City of Glendale Transit (California) — 35 buses
- San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) — 57 buses
Additionally, Mr. Villapana serves as TRC's Chief Inspector for Quality Assurance on new bus
manufacturing projects at the Gillig Corporation at Hayward, CA. In this role Mr. Villapana has
conducted inspections on new buses for over 70 TRC clients during the past seven years
involving 2,300 new buses.
(1999 to 2000) Bus Maintenance Supervisor, AC Transit — Oakland, CA
Mr. Villapana's duties included the supervision of journey level and apprentice mechanics on the
inspection, repair and preventative maintenance of AC Transit's fleet of transit buses comprised
of Gillig, New Flyer and NAB[ buses. Directed/supervised personnel while conducting major and
minor inspections, identifying defects and repairs accordingly. Ensured that the work performed
was completed accurately and in a timely manner; processed warranty items; identified common
failures and trends; and provided training sessions, evaluation and performance appraisals for
the mechanics. Was assigned as a member of the inspection crew at the NABI plant in Alabama
when AC Transit participated on a 50 -bus, low floor bus buy in 2000.
(1982 to 1999) Coach Maintenance Supervisor, Valley Transit Authority — San Jose, CA
Duties entailed the supervision of transit mechanics on the inspection, repair and preventative
maintenance of a transit bus fleet of nearly 500 buses. Assisted staff in conducting major and
minor inspections, identifying defects and repair accordingly. Duties also included the assurance
of quality work performed; processing of warranty items; projection of trends and component
tracking. Also led a team of bus inspectors when VTA purchased 100 high floor Gilligs in 1998.
The team conducted "shake down" inspections, identified fleet defects and corresponded with
the Gillig representatives to ensure that buses delivered were within specifications. Also
responsible for coordinating with subcontractors such as Cummins, Detroit Allison, Voith,
Thermoking, Motorola, Lift -U, Luminator and GFI to ensure that subcomponents are within
specifications prior to bus delivery.
11
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 41
l�
1 [
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Other Related Experience
• Supervisory, maintenance and mechanical experience
• Led teams of bus inspectors at 2 prominent transit authorities (VTA and AC Transit)
a Attended APTA convention sessions on new transit bus developments
• Attended the California Hybrid Seminar & Consortium on January 14, 2005 as part of the
compliance for Diesel Hybrid Transit Coaches in Stockton, California
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 42
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EDUCATION
College of San Mateo, Associates Degree in Aeronautics, 1995
San Mateo, CA
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES
Airframe and Power Plant License, 1995
Automotive Service Certification, 1996
Heavy Duty Coach Mechanic Journeyman Certification, 2002
EXPERIENCE
(2003 to Present) Bus Maintenance and Q/A Inspector, Transit Resource Center
For the past four years, Mr. Burr has been assigned to a number of Transit Resource Center
bus inspection projects for both new bus Q/A programs as well as bus maintenance audit
programs. Most recently, Mr. Burr served as a member of TRC's maintenance audit team for
SamTrans maintenance audit and for the City of Glendale, CA maintenance audits.
Additionally, Mr. Burr has served as one of TRC's Q/A bus inspectors at the Gillig Corporation in
Hayward, CA. Mr. Burr has participated in the inspections of new bus orders for over 25 TRC
clients involving more than 750 new buses.
(1998 to Present) Maintenance Supervisor, Alameda County Transit
Mr. Burr is a lead bus maintenance technician who works the late shift at AC Transit where he
makes repairs to AC Transit's fleet of 680 transit buses and serves as a part-time shift
supervisor. He is experienced in engine and transmission overhaul, brake and hydraulic
systems, steering and suspension systems. Mr. Burr's seniority and unconventional work
schedule allows him ample flexibility to work on TRC bus maintenance audits and QA inspection
projects.
(1991 to 1998) Automotive Technician, Sears Automotive Center, San Bruno, CA
Responsibilities included automotive and light truck repairs on front ends, steering, brakes, four-
wheel alignment, and repairs to support equipment.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program - May 2, 2007 43 ok
Fleet Maintenance Audit
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Thomas has over 25 years of experience in bus maintenance, including preventive
maintenance, assemblies and sub -assemblies repairs, structural repairs, quality assurance
inspections and maintenance audits.
(2003 — Present) Transit Resource Center, Senior Maintenance Consultant
Mr. Thomas has been the lead inspector on several bus maintenance audits for TRC clients
including the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) in suburban
Washington D.C. (100 buses), and the Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) in Albany,
NY (300 buses). Other maintenance audit projects he has been involved in include Central
Florida RTA and Antelope Valley Transportation Authority (Lancaster). Mr. Thomas has also
conducted many in -plant quality assurance inspections of new buses for TRC clients including
large orders for the Illinois Department of Transportation.
(1999 — 2003) Bullitt County Board of Education, Maintenance Technician
Primary responsibilities included all aspects of inspection and maintenance on the County's school
buses equipped with International 466 engines and Allison transmissions.
(1980 —1998) Transit Authority of River City (TARC), Maintenance Technician
Served as A -Mechanic. Duties included:
➢ Troubleshooting, preventative maintenance. Experience with Detroit Diesel, Cummins,
and Caterpillar engines, Allison transmissions, Bendix air systems, and Wedge and S -
Cam brake systems and components.
➢ Preventative maintenance to include vehicle emissions testing,. brake inspections, fluid
changes, engine tune-ups, electrical systems and pneumatic air systems.
➢ Repair and maintenance of A/C systems
➢ Floor electrician to include troubleshooting electric components on Detroit Diesel Electric
Controls (DDEC) and Allison Transmissions Electric Controls (ATEC), and belt or gear -
driven alternator systems.
➢ Maintenance and repair and gear -driven alternators and Delco starters; including
troubleshooting rotors, starters, slip rings, armatures, field coils, diodes, and commutators.
Cleaning and turning of alternator components on lathe and load testing of various
components.
➢ Component repair on Bendix air compressors, fuel pumps, pneumatic valves in relation to
brake systems, door control valves, treadle valves, read -end ring and pinion rebuilds and
power -steering units.
➢ Structural and body repair, including MIG, stick and gas welding. Repair of damaged
buses including frame, glass, metal, fiberglass, upholstery, preparation and finish painting.
➢ Supervision of repair shop employees and machinists.
Prepared By Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 44
Fleet Maintenance Audit
➢ Liaison between union and management to negotiate/resolve work-related issues and
grievances.
➢ Experienced with the following equipment: Kansas jack, plasma cutter, brake, shear, and
water -fed belt sanders.
(1979 —1980) Waste Management of Kentucky, Equipment Maintenance
Responsible for equipment repairs and operation of Fiat -Allison bulldozers, Michigan Scrapers
with elevator systems, backhoes, Onan light plants, Michigan Packers, Multi -Plate clutch Pack
Systems (planetary gear systems),and Final Drives.
(1975-1979) United States Coast Guard, E-4 Machinery Technician
Responsible for all off -base housing, to include electrical and A/C. Worked on generators, diesel
and gas engines, fixed and mobile fire -fighting systems, pumps, and de -watering systems.
Honorable discharge.
EDUCATION
Graduate, Boarding School — U.S. Coast Guard
Certificate, Machinery Technician School — U.S. Coast Guard
Graduate, Valley High School, Louisville, KY
CERTIFICATIONS
HVAC Certified
EPA Certified
Vehicle Emissions Testing Technician
Certified Kentucky State Bus Inspector
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 45
• � •II
Fleet Maintenance Audit
Cost proposal submitted in a separate sealed envelope as requested.
Prepared by Transit Resource Center for City of Petaluma Transit Program — May 2, 2007 46
Required Forms
OID
4
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
a division of AmeriTran Service Corporation
Note
Error and Omissions Coverage
The City's requirement for $10 million in errors and omissions insurance
coverage can not be met economically for a small project of this size.
Upon advice from the City staff we have submitted this proposal with
our standard coverage of $2,000,000 in Professional Liability coverage.
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., #165 • Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011 • (407) 977-4500 PH • (407) 977-7333 FAX • tranrc@earthlink.net
12036 Nevada City Hwy., #200 • Grass Valley, CA 95945-8461 • (530) 271-0177 PH • (530) 271-0626 FAX • cliffchombers@earthlink.net
R®,CERTIFICATE OLIABILITY I N JM
0
'AT -
-25-2 007
PRODUCER
BEARDSLEY BROWN & BASSETT, INC/PHS
803739 P: ( 866) 467-8730 F:(800)308-5459
4401 MIDDLE SETTLEMENT RD
NEW HARTFORD NY 13413
THIS CERTI TE S ED ASA MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
hSORED
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER DBA &
AMERITRAN SERVICE CORPORATION
5840 RED BUG LAKE RD. S TE 165
WINTER SPRINGS FL 32708
INSURER A: Hartford Casualty Ins Co
INSURERe: Twin City Fire Ins Co
INSURER c: Landmark American Insurance Co
INSURER D:
INSURER E:
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
NTSR
TYPE OF 1NSL�ANCE
POLICY AMBERPOLICY
EFFECTNE
DATE IMMIDDIYVI
POUCY EXPIRATION
DA TE MM
LIM?S
GENERAL UARH?V
EACH OCCURRENCE _ s2,000,000
A
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
31 SBA PA6 6 8 2
03/19/07
03/19/08
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ 3 0 0 0 0 0
CLAIMS MADE FX] OCCUR
MED EXP (Any one person) $10,000
X Business Liab
PERSONAL &ADV INJURY s2,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE 14,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPUES PER:
PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG s4,000,000
PDucv �O X LOG
AUTOA90RILELIARAITY
A
ANYAUTO
31 SBA PA6682
03/19/07
03/19/08
COMBINED SINGLE UMIT (Ea accident) s2,000,000
,
ALL OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY $
SCHEDULED AUTOS
(Per person)
X
HIRED AUTOS
X
NON -OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY $
(Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $
(Per accident)
GARAGE UARILI7Y
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $
OTHER THAN EA ACC S
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY: AGG $
EXCESS UARIUTY
EACH OCCURRENCE $1 000 000
AGGREGATE $1,000,000
AX
OCCUR F CLAIMS MADE
3 1 SBA PA6 6 8 2
03/19/07
03/19/08
$
S
DEDUCTIBLE
�1
X RETENTION $10, 0 000
$
WORKERS COWENSATIONANO
X WOC SUATU• OTH-
B
EMPLOYERSLLneaTry
31 WEC NK6 9 8 0
03/19/07
03/19/08
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT sl 0 0 0 0 0 0
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $1 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER
C
Professional
LHR713059
04/14/07
04/14/08
$1,000,000 EA CLAIM
Liability 1
$2,000,000 AGGREGATE
DESgt#1770N OF OPERATIONS/L OCA TIONSIWIECLESVEXCLUSYONS ADDED R Y EADORSEMENT/SPELYAL PROVISIONS
Those usual to the Insured's Operations. Please see additional wording on
cover page.
Mr. John Siragusa
Transportation Manager
City of Petaluma
555 N. Mcdowell Blvd.
Petaluma, CA 94954
HL,UHU ZO-5 (LI`JL)
JULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
NRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL
DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE (10 DAYS FOR NON-PAYMENT) TO THE CERTIFICATE
LDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO
-IGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
'RESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVE
®ACORD CORPORATION 1988
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 3
CERTIFICATION OF PRIMARY PARTICIPANT REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION,
AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS
The Primary Participant (primary bidder), certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its
principals:
1) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency;
2) Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in. connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or Local) transaction or
contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements,
or receiving stolen property;
3) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(Federal, State, or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (2) of this
certification; and
4) Have not within a three-year period preceding the application/proposal had one or more public
transaction (Federal, State., or Local) terminated for cause or default.
If the Primary Participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, the participant shall
attach an explanation to this certification.
THE PRIMARY PARTICIPANT CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE
THERETO. �---�
The undersigned chief legal counsel for the .
Signatur d Title of Worized Official
hereby certifies that theTrans it Resource Centerhas authority under State and local law to
comply with the subject assurances and that the certification above has been I9gally rr�de.
40 1"
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 4
CERTIFICATION OF LOWER TIER PARTICIPANTS REGARDING DEBARMENT,
SUSPENSION, AND OTHER INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION
The Lower Tier Participant (sub -contractor), certifies by submission of this proposal, that neither it is nor its
principals are presently debarred, suspends proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
If the Lower Tier Participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such participant
shall attach an explanation to this proposal.
THE LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFIES OR AFFIRMS THE TRUTHFULNESS AND ACCURACY OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED ON OR WITH THIS CERTIFICATION AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF 31 U.S.C. SECTIONS 3801 ET SEQ. ARE APPLICABLE
THERETO.
The undersigned chief legal counsel for the N/A NO SUB—CONTRACTORS
Signature and Title of Authorized Official
hereby certifies that the has authority under State and local law to
comply with the subject assurances and that the certification above has been legally made.
Signature of Applicant's Attorney
Date
41
f
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 5
_ CERTIFICATION OF RESTRICTION ON LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, that,
No Federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into the
cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of
any Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement.
If any funds other than the Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress,
an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its
instructions.
The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award Documents for
all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loan, and
cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of the fact upon which reliance is placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S.C. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Executed this 30TH day of April , 2007.
Company Name: Ameritran---Servic Corn Tne db ransit Resource Center
By (signature of company official here):
Name and Title of Company Official: Edward W Pigman, President
42
I I 1
RFP — Fleet Maintenance Audit
ATTACHMENT 6
BUY AMERICA CERTIFICATE
Certificate of Compliance with Section 165 (a)
The bidder hereby certifies that it will comply with the requirements of section 165 (a) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, and the applicable regulations in 49 CFR part 661.
Date: Apr -i 1 3� r 07
l
Signature
Ameritran Seriz ce Corp., Inc, dba Transit Resource Center
Company Name
President
Title
M
Certificate of Non -Compliance with Section 165 (a)
The bidder hereby certifies that it cannot comply with the requirements of section 165(a) of the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, but it may qualify for an exception to the requirement
pursuant to Section 165(b)(2) or 165(b)(4) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 and
regulations in 49 CFR 661.7
Date:
Signature
Company Name
Title
43
Appendices
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE
SERVICE CONTRACT STANDARDS
a. All vehicles, bus equipment and other equipment necessary to provide services shall be
maintained by the contractor in acceptable appearance and in good repair and condition.
b. The contractor shall maintain a satisfactory California Highway Patrol (CHP) terminal
inspection throughout the term of the agreement.
C. At all times the contractor shall, at its sole expense, cause all components of each
Revenue Vehicle, including body, engines, transmissions, tires, frame, furnishings,
mechanical, electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or other operating systems, to be maintained
in proper working condition free from damage and malfunction.
d. The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the appearance of all revenue
vehicles. All vehicles must be kept clean, including, but not limited to the following
actions:
• Wash exterior at least three times a week, sweep or vacuum interiors daily,
remove all dirt, debris, graffiti, and trash daily. Repair or replace promptly any
worn, broken, cut, torn, or vandalized components that are visible to, and
accessible by the public to eliminate hazards, minimize discomfort, and/or
maintain appearance.
• The monthly cleaning procedure must include, but need not be limited to, all
areas of the vehicle including bumpers, wheels, aluminum wheels, windows,
panels, and seats.
e. The contractor shall conduct routine preventive maintenance inspections and servicing
at intervals of 6,000 miles or that recommended vehicles manufacturer's specifications,
whichever is lower. The contractor shall conduct a more extensive inspection and
servicing at 12,000 -mile intervals or as specified by the transit vehicle manufacturer,
whichever is lower. The contractor shall conduct an annual or 48,000 -mile preventive
maintenance inspection containing all items required by the component manufacturers.
The contractor shall conduct weekly brake/safety inspections.
As part of its maintenance program, the contractor shall maintain a fluid analysis
program:
• Oil -analyzed in advance of each preventive maintenance inspection.
• Transmission fluid - analyzed every six months.
• . Fuel, coolant, differential fluid — analyzed at intervals deemed appropriate.
g. Vehicles utilized in service under the agreement shall be safe for operations on public
streets and freeways and meet all requirements of the California Vehicle Safety Code.
All parts of vehicles and all equipment mounted on or in the vehicles shall conform to the
California Vehicle Standards, California Administrative Code, Title 13, the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the CHP Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
h. Tires must meet the following standards;
00
• Front Axle — tires shall have a tread depth of 12/32 inch, minimum. Recapped or re -
grooved tires are not acceptable.
• Rear Axle — tires should have a thread depth of 8/32 inch, minimum. The tire height
between two tires on the same hub should not vary by more than 3/32 inch.
• Tires with cuts, grooves, or evidence of curb damage (past the manufacturer's rub
bars) are not acceptable.
i. If any of the following items is found to be defective or not up to standards, the bus is to
be taken out of service and reported to the service contractor's maintenance manager
and to the Agency as soon as possible.
• Any item relating to the brake system that does not meet acceptable standards;
• Brake adjustments, worn linings and air leaks are automatic "out of service" items.
j. Air systems must be clean and properly maintained. There are no acceptable
exceptions.
k. Steering box, lines, king pins, tie rods, radius rods, bellows, valves, bushings, shock, etc.
that are worn close to or past the limits dictated by good preventive/predictive
maintenance practices must be replaced.
I. Dirty engine compartments, any fluid leaks, worn hoses, lines, and belts, exhaust leaks,
excessive smoke, etc. are not permitted.
M. Air conditioning must be operational. No defects will be acceptable.
n. Wheelchair lifts must be operational. No defects will be acceptable.
o. Destination signs must be operational and readable to the public. No more than 5% of
the pixel can be out, if the full sign is still readable.
P. Interiors must be clean and graffiti free.
• No torn, stained or dirty seats.
• No dirty or damaged rear or side panels.
• No loose handrails, loose screws, etc.
• Any scratches of'% inch or longer may be considered to be graffiti.
• Damaged or missing decals are not acceptable.
q. Windows must be clean, spot and graffiti free; windows must be operations.
r. Exteriors must be clean and free of all body damage, including:
• Tree scratches.
• Faded or torn bumpers and fenders flares.
• Excessive soap build-up and water spots.
• Damaged or missing decals.
S. Tires and Wheel Thread depth must not be less than 3/32 inch. Tire height between
inner and outer tires on the same side must not differ by more than 3/32 inch. Leaking
seals, loose or missing studs and lug nuts, and dirty wheels are not acceptable.
Appendix 8
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
5840 Red Bug Lake Rd., # 165
Winter Springs, FL 32708-5011
Client Name:
--.._.—_......-------
Coach
. ......------
Coach Manufacturer: OEMNear:
Chassis VIN: Hub Mileage:
Inspector: Inspection Date:
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703)
Pass (P)
Defective
(D)
Item Inspected
Cu I rb Side (CS)
Road Side (RS)
Front (F) • Rear (R)
Comments
Area
P
D
1, CS
RS
F
R
COACH
INTERIOR
Pump air down to 60 PSI
Check all bug lights; low air, low oil, gen., exit
door, stop lamp, hi -low beam, turn signal,
instrument panel light, step well light
Check air pressure build-up, 5 min. max @ fast
idle, 90 PSI to 120 PSI
Check driver's controls
Check A/C and heating system
Check parking brake operation
Check operation of brake interlock for all
systems.
Check throttle & brake pedals for hanging,
slipping & air leaks
Check horn operations
Check door buzzer & stop requested sign
Check wiper/washer, operation & speed
Check reflector kits
Check fire extinguisher
Check head sign, side/rear signs operation &
condition
Check seats, seat anchors & upholstery
Check stanchions, grab rails
Check windows, weather-strip, & glass
condition
BODY
Check exterior for damage
Check hi -low beam, turn signal, 4 -way flash
marker lights, brakes, tail, back up, & license
plate operation
Check entry & exit door glass
Check wiper blade condition, & arm tightness
Inspect all mirrors
Check access door latches
Check emergency exits
Check tire lug nuts
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703)
Page 2 of 4 MAW
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703) 9
Pass (P)
Defective-
(D) :
Item Inspected
Curb Side (GS) ,
Road Side (RS)
Front (F) • Rear (R)
Comments
Area
p
p
CS
RS
F .
R
BODY,
continued
Tire pressure: 100 rear, 110 front — Inspect tire
condition (3/32 rear, 4/32 front min)
Check bus numbers & logos
Check front wheel bearing oil level
Check rear axle flange gasket for leak
Take Hydrometer readings, all battery cells
Record highest/lowest readings
❑ Battery #1: Hi Low
❑ Battery #2: Hi Low
UNDER
CARRIAGE
Check engine & transmission mounts
Check for oil leaks at oil pan
Check radiator, water pump, & hose mounting
for leaks
Check for loose or missing crankcase breather
pipe, clamp, & air box drain tube
Check for ATF leaks @ transmission converter
piping, transmission oil pan, output seal, loose
or missing pan cap screws
Check shift actuator stud tightness, & rubber
bushing condition
Check u -joints, drive shaft slip yokes condition.
1/16 maximum play
Check hydraulic pump
Check for exhaust leaks, clamp condition
Check for power steering lines rubbing, & leaks
Check drive pinion seal for leaks
Check brake adjustment, lining thickness, &
"s" cam heights
Check for leaking wheel seals
Check brake chamber push rods for loose
locknuts. Not less than 5/16 inch lining
Check brake hose routing, condition
Check air bag beams for cracks, leaks
Check for loose or leaking shock absorbers
Check rebound bumpers
Check leveling valve link condition
Check differential level
Check all radius rods for bushing wear
Check tower for cracks and torque
Check lateral radius rod frame anchor for
cracks
Check for excessive oil, water.
Check petcocks & mounting
Check blower motor
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703) 9
Page 3 of 4
i
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703) .
Pass (P)
Defective
(D)
Item Inspected
Curb Side (CS)
Road Side (RS)
Front (F) • Rear (R)
Comments
Area
P
p
'CS
RS -
i F
R'
UNDER
Check fuel tank straps, piping, fuel leaks
CARRIAGE,
continued
Check for bent drag line
Check tie rod ends condition
Check str. Shaft U -joints, slip yokes condition.
1/16 maximum play
Check str. Box for leaks & torque
ENGINE
Take engine oil sample (Engine at operating
temperature)
Check air cleaner clamp tightness &
tubes/hoses for cracks
Check PIS oil level
Check pressure relief valve for proper operation
Check surge tank cap for leaks
Check coolant level
Check radiator mounting & upper rubber
insulators
Check all water hose condition
Start engine & check for leaks
Check all braided lines for leakage; air, ATF,
oil, & fuel
Check fuel filter mountings
Check engine blower coupling hose for
tightness
Check'hose condition
Check air throttle
Check accelerator ball joint linkage & cond.
Check "hot engine & low oil" motor guard
senders
Check "hot engine & low oil" lights
Check fuel filters
Check A/C & heating systems, & A/C alt
Check circulating pump
Check A/C compressor belt tension/condition
Check engine & transmission for unusual noise
Check belts for wear & tension
Check engine compartment
Exhaust stack straps
Check transmission level
WHEEL-
Check all WCL pans, with platform deployed
CHAIR
LIFTS/RAMP
Check hydraulic fluid level
Check that lift/ramp won't operate with door
closed
Check platform operation & lift clears door
Check that brake interlock is on when lift power
is on
Check that door won't close with lift deployed
i
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703) .
Page 4 of 4 4C&
Area
Pass (P)
Defective
(b)
Item Inspected
Curb Side (CS)
Road Side (RS)
Front (F) • Rear (R)
Comments
P
D
CS
RS
F
R
WHEEL-
Verify coach won't kneel with lift deployed
CHAIR
LIFTS/
Lift lowers, outside barrier operates smoothly
RAMP,
continued
Check that hydraulic & electric line to platform
clears steps & they don't rub on pans
Check that WCL handrails are secure
Check flip -up seats & wheelchair securement
systems
Check for pump handle
Check operation of inside barrier
Check that lift will not go to steps or stow with
weight on sensitive pad on platform
Check that lift stops when white sensitive
edges on top sides of platform are depressed
Check that lift will go directly into steps from the
raised & lowered position
Check operation of lights & push buttons
Check all hydraulic lines for leaks, rubbing
ROAD TEST
Road test on prescribed course
Check all instrument operation
Check transmission shift points
Check for hard downshift.
Check for unusual vibrations
Check steering: action, steering wheel play
Check brake performance
Check for brake pull
Use brake meter. Record stopping distance:
AFTER
Check for engine oil leaks
ROAD TEST
CHECK
Check for transmission ATF leaks
Check for water leaks & level
Check engine, transmission fluid levels
Rev -Service Vehicle Inspection Form (ver 0703) .2 t
H
D
Q W
W W
Z cn
Z ~
W LjjU
Z w
Z0
co
H D
W m
w
J
IL
H
z
W
J
U
m
&
W
J0
�
V
F-
LU
V
0>
Z
LU
U)
z
z
o
V
WI
z
IL
(nI
O
W
>
v
w
4t
w
w
a
O
m
}
W
J
m
a
F-
L) W
LL.
W
z
O
Q
O
LL
O0
J
Q }
a i-
o
>-
Om
O N
F- J
Q.
cn
U)=
E .2)
a) J
w
� o
cn
a)
U �
U°
W O
° LE
�O
COOU
ca �,
L -O
X O
W m
O
rn'c
c a)
a)L
� • N
0 o E
cn := n.
aa) c cr
c
a O LU
cn
U
CD o —
C/)
co c �
� c
c
C/)
U- U- c
C O
Nva
r a� n
CD
a�
U a U
=5 En
m
N
a
L
N
• � a)
O O LL
O co
cn
E N fn
N '> U
`o¢
o
c c
O
go
S'
c�
. E
�U
E
E
co
a(n
o
U U
c tYv
am m
W
i E
C N
C (n
W
0
Q W
W W
U Z
Z Cl)
Z ~
W U
W
_Z W
Q �
W m
W
J
LL
In
In
a
U
w
w
0
z
O
H
U
O
J
a
0
w
Q
U
RI
0
D�
Q Lu
LULU
U 2
Z fn
Z ~
W U
N LL
_Z Lu
Q �
U)
D
W m
W
J
LL
M
Appendix C
i f
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
Presents:
Fleet Maintenance
—June 2006
Audit Report
Presented to:
Potomac & Rappahannock
Transportation Commission
14700 Potomac Mills Road
Woodbridge, VA 22192
July 24, 2006
TRANSIT RESOURCE CENTER
5840 Red Bug Lake Road
Suite 165
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Phone: (407) 977-4500
Fax: (407) 977-7333
Email: tranrc@earthlink.net
12036 Nevada City Highway, #200
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Phone: (530) 271-0177
Fax: (530) 271-0626
Email: cliffchambers@earthlink.net
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC)
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AUDIT
Conducted June 19-23, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1= Executive Summary ...........................................................:.,.....................1
2 — Background `'
3 — Buses Inspected ,
4 — Evaluation Criteria and Methodology, fir .................. ... tt:.............5
Fleet Inspection...........................................,........:,..:.................5
Records and Fluid Analvsis:�At d t',........: :: ..........:::.:......................6
5 — Findings ............................
Overall Fleet Cond
Specific Defects St
Defect Analysis .....
PMI Schedule Adh
Repair,d-,P eats 1
Mechanic Trai: g
Management 6f:Qil
6—
...:........:................................................ 7
.....................................................7
:. ...................................................8
.......... ............................................10
......................................................11
Fled During PMIS........................................12
rtif&ion...................................................12
is Program ............................................14
...............................................16
A — Excel Spreadsheet Reports (Electronic copy provided on CD)
All Defects
■ Defects by Category
■ A Defects
N` Buses Inspected
Appendix B — Master List: "A" Category Safety Defects
POTOMAC AND RAPPAHANNOCK TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AUDIT
Conducted June 19-23,2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transit Resource Center (TRC) conducts maintenance audits for the Potomac and Rappahannock
Transportation Commission (PRTC) to ensure that buses owned by PRTC are maintained by its
contractor, First Transit, in accordance with contract provisions. This repprt'presents the findings
of the fifth maintenance audit of First Transit, which was conducted June 19-23, 2006. The audit
consisted of a Fleet Inspection of 90 buses and a Records and F1uid..Az4lysis of 2Q;buses selected
at random.
This most recent audit showed:
• On-time adherence to preventive in
mile intervals was at 100% for the
performance achieved by WMATA, I
• The number of defects per bus incree
this audit. The increase, which double
better than WMATA's best per fohr
industry has no standard way d�Qpn
TRC for other agencies revealed aVex;
• The summary table below shows the
audits conducted of Fixst;Transit for't
intenance,;irispections (PMIS) schedilled at 6,000
third conseciitiv_. audit. By donipaiison, the best
RTC's previous contractor, was' 93%.
;e `fromera 66i:` .8 in�4une 2005, to 3.8 for
Jul er of defects identified a year ago, is still
ince = of .4.;8°``def ects pet =`bus. Although the transit
pari ngMe condition, recent audits conducted by
gps of 8.6 °i d 10j defects per bus.
!ry of
indicators from the five
A signi ficari increase in defects was found in the following categories: Engine/Engine
Compartment (oil leaks), Transmission (fluid leaks), Suspension/Steering, Electrical
(battery faults), Air/Brake Systems (anti-lock warning lights on), Driver's Controls,
Passenger Controls (stop requests), Interior Condition, Lights, and Accessibility Features.
A significant increase in safety-related "A" defects were also found (from only two a year
ago to 19 for this audit). The findings follow a pattern of sharp decreases in safety defects
followed by sharp increases.
TRC also found signs that First Transit is not properly managing its new oil analysis
program. While oil samples were taken and sent to the lab for testing on a punctual basis,
First Transit is not effectively monitoring the lab's findings. While it does not appear that
Transit Resource Center
Oct. `03
'?.::Feli:`.04;,:
Jul `04
June `05
June `06
Average # of
Defects per
9.4 `<<i;.;,;,;.
4.4
4.3
1.8
3.8
Bus
Total # of
Safety
182
`'': `''
27
2
19
Defects't,`
PMI
Adherence:,:-,
39°fa' .
80%
100%
100%
100%
A signi ficari increase in defects was found in the following categories: Engine/Engine
Compartment (oil leaks), Transmission (fluid leaks), Suspension/Steering, Electrical
(battery faults), Air/Brake Systems (anti-lock warning lights on), Driver's Controls,
Passenger Controls (stop requests), Interior Condition, Lights, and Accessibility Features.
A significant increase in safety-related "A" defects were also found (from only two a year
ago to 19 for this audit). The findings follow a pattern of sharp decreases in safety defects
followed by sharp increases.
TRC also found signs that First Transit is not properly managing its new oil analysis
program. While oil samples were taken and sent to the lab for testing on a punctual basis,
First Transit is not effectively monitoring the lab's findings. While it does not appear that
Transit Resource Center
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
the life of major components was diminished, this essential early -warning system that
flags impending failures is not being fully utilized.
On the positive side:
o Bus interiors and exteriors were clean;
o The repair facility was also clean and well organized;
o First Transit management continues to show a willingness to minimize
defects by immediately repairing most safety-related defects as soon as they
were identified by TRC and drawing up work orders for all others;
o Management was again extremely cooperative in providing a constant supply
of buses for TRC to inspect and ensuring that the audit inspections were
efficiently carried out;
o PMI records were well organized and easy to locate;,,,,,,,
o Refrigerant -related air conditioning repairs wete`` performed by qualified
technicians;
o Differential pinion seal leaks identified during the�i;iprevious audit were
repaired; and
o A review of PMI records for 20 buses'selected at ran doiii:ieveal6d that the
vast majority of defects identified dufing;;First Transit's P1VYs#spections are
repaired before the next scheduled inspeat%on.
Audit findings are summarized in various
based on data contained in Excel spreadsh
report. A summary of recommendations i1.sj
BACKGROUND
This is the fifth maintenance
baseline for future audits.,
contractor's maintenance pert
BUSES
TRC identified 90 bus6"
random to ieceive a Rec
a physical inspection,
Analysis.
`: TABLE 1
Buses Ins ected
FLEET INSPECTION RECORDS & FLUIDS
ANALYSIS
1993 — MCI
142
143 X
144
145
146
2000 — ORION
171.
172
the 20
Oroughb t;:,this=::report. The tables are
)n a separat& eb as Appendix A to this
end of this report.
of First Tansit°conducted by TRC. The first audit served as a
"audits.,, are ctinducted periodically to determine if the
ce is ,reinaiting the same, deteriorating, or improving over time.
,physical fleet inspection and then selected 20 of them at
Analysis Audit. Table 1 shows the 90 buses that received
selected at random that received a Records and Fluids
Transit Resource Center 2 ) '
r
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TABLE 1
Buses Ins ected
FLEET INSPECTION RECORDS & FLUIDS
ANALYSIS
173
X
174
175
176
177
178
X
179
X
180
181
182
X
183
X
2005 — GILLIG
PHANTOM
184
185
186
187
2004 GILLIG LOW -
FLOOR
250
251
;X
252
256
257
X
259
266
X
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
X
2001— MCI
300
301
302
X
303
304
305
X
306
Transit Resource Center
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TABLE 1
Buses Ins ected
FLEET INSPECTION RECORDS & FLUIDS
ANALYSIS
307
308
309
311
312
313
X
314
315
316
317
318
X
319
320
2002 — MCI
321
322
323
324
325
326
X
327
X30
331 :_..
X
332
..333
33$i:`
336
337
..1 — MCI
338
339
340
341
X
342
X
343
344
X
345
2005 - MCI
346
347
348
349
Transit Resource Center
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TABLE 1
Buses Ins ected
FLEET INSPECTION
RECORDS & FLUIDS
ANALYSIS
350
X
TOTAL: 90
TOTAL: 20
EVALUATION CRITERIA & METHODOLOGY
TRC assigned a team of five bus inspectors to perform the maintenance,.audit and physically
inspect the buses and draw oil samples: Doug Thomas, Roger MatheYvs, Scott Jorstad, Mike
Sharpe, and Howard Subbert. Doug Thomas also served as on-site sut?ervisor, and Scott Jorsatd
was responsible for entering the defects identified by the inspection'te i,.John.S'6hiavorie served
as Project Manager, organized the overall inspection process, performed ;the kecords and Fluid
Analysis Audit, and prepared the final report.
The material below describes the evaluation criteria and`'irii thodology used by TRC to conduct
the Fleet Inspection and the Records and Fluid Analysis Audifs'c::: .
Fleet Inspection
Specific defects noted during the bus inspections we& -classified under "18 functional categories:
1) Accessibility Features
2) Air System/Brake System*
3) Climate Control,,;; : i*::: .
4) Destination Signs
5) Differential
6) Driver's'Controls
7) Electrical. Systeri
10) Exterior BodyConditi
12) Lights
13) Passenger:Controls
14) SafetyEquipment**
15) Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank
16) Suspension/Steering
17) Tires
18) Transmission
Transit Resource Center S
1
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
* Air and Brake Systems was combined into a single category
** Safety Equipment was added as a new category
An "A/B" designation system was used to denote defects requiring immediate repair from those
that could be repaired at a later time.
A — indicates a safety-related defect that requires immediate repair and keeps the vehicle
from returning to revenue service until the defect is corrected.
B — indicates a non -safety -critical defect that requires attention at a later time.
"A" category safety defects were discussed and agreed upon between First Transit and the TRC
inspectors. A copy of the A defects considered to be safety related for'�this audit is attached as
Appendix B. TRC informed First Transit of safety defects as soon-as'.:whey wei6:Identified, the
majority of which First Transit immediately repaired. During the inspect 5Q -,;F 'RC also shared the
list of B defects with Jim Hancock of First Transit, who schedules repairs."U ring the inspection
process, TRC inspectors verified operation of certain controls to ensure tat, defects were
legitimate ones and not the result of the inspectors not�"Ueing familiar with specific PRTC bus
equipment. None of the defects identified by TRC were cont&4ed, by First Transit:`
Records and Fluids Analysis Audit
Jim Hancock, John Schiavone, and Scott Jorstad selected 20 buses at _random for the Records and
Fluids Analysis Audits. The records examination set outto determine if:
• preventive maintenance (PM) had beeri'pexformeds'egrrectly and at prescribed intervals;
• repairs had been performed properly and made promptly;
• qualified mechanics pexfoxtned mairtenanc;:tasks by virtue of documented training
certification; and
• the fluids analysis program was being atininistered properly.
PM Intervals
To determine if preventive maintenance �rispections (PMIs) were performed correctly and on
time, TRC examined the PMI records.;of'the 20 buses selected at random. Mileage between the
last two ,PlYus was calculated to determine if the inspections were performed on time, (within
10% or `600 miles of the scheduled 6,000 -mile interval), or if they were late.
To deterniiiie if repairs; ere performed properly and made promptly, two audit procedures were
used:
1) PMI sheets going back to the previous two PMIs were selected and examined for each of
the 20 buses selected at random to determine if and when defects noted during the PMI
process were repaired.
2) Defects from the previous two PMIs were then compared to determine if any defects
were repeated from one PMI to the next.
From this comparison TRC could determine if the defects were repaired or if they were simply
noted on subsequent inspections.
Transit Resource Center 6
1
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
Mechanic Qualification
To determine if qualified mechanics performed maintenance tasks by virtue of documented
training and certification, TRC selected eight (8) air conditioning (AC) repairs at random from
the work orders. Since PRTC only requires mechanics to have certification in air conditioning
repairs, TRC focused its efforts in this area.
TRC examined the AC -related work orders to identify a) the nature of the repair, and b) the
mechanics performing the actual work. TRC then compared the name of the mechanic performing
the repair to the list of AC certified technicians that TRC had verified from a previous audit and
updated during this audit to determine if they were certified to perform the tasks. Technicians
performing routine mechanical tasks to AC systems (i.e., those that do not involve Freon) are not
required to be certified.
Fluids Analysis Management
To determine if the fluids analysis program is being administered properly ;TRC examined the
engine and transmission oil analysis records for each of the 20 buses selected at random going
back to the previous two PMIs (40 Records). TRC noted if ilie oil analysis was::;)?eing; performed
at the appropriate 6,000 mile PMI interval, if oil analysis 'Ecords were properly filed for easy
reference, and if any actions were being taken as a result of trail analysis findings.
TRC also drew engine oil, transmission fluid, ati' coolarf:i�amplesf.TQr,20,,gf"the buses selected at
random and reviewed those results (60 sampl'&Iotal). hf4eviewing`he'results TRC looked for
evidence of inappropriate levels of deterioration. TRP -,.,also' looked for -evidence that First Transit
was making use of the fluid analysis resultSs;•,,
FINDINGS
Overall Fleet Condition
Once again, the PRTC fleet was found to be"clean inside and out. The number of exterior body -
related defects increased., slightly. Overall, however, buses present well on the street and show
passengers and the cd that PRTCwaluesits patronage and support.
The numbor;.;of defects identified l��WC during this inspection increased to 345 for an average
of 3.8 defects'per bus. This compares to an average of only 1.8 defects per bus found during the
previous audit held in Junee2005, 4.3 defects found during the July 2004 audit, and WMATA's
best performanee,oef 4..8 defects per bus. Although the transit industry lacks a standard way of
comparing°'d6f66ts from:onefagency to another, recent audits conducted by TRC found averages
of 8.0 and 10.1 defectster bus.
The average of L defects per bus set by First Transit last year was exceptional and is difficult to
maintain over time. An average of less than four defects per bus represents a more realistic level.
However, many of the defects, especially lights, driver's controls, and others could be reduced
through a more aggressive PM inspection program. In addition, the sharp increase in safety-
related "A" defects is inexcusable and must be reduced.
Table 2 shows the historical defect trend for the last five audits of First Transit. Details are
provided in the next report section.
Transit Resource Center 7
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
Average Defects Per Bus
Specific Defect Summaries
All of the defects identified during the ins
generate a Master Defect Sheet. Data con
series of detailed Excel reports.
The following Excel spreadsheets produc
to this report:
• All Defects (Master Defect Sheet):
• Defect Summary: includes _a sums
categories
• Defects by Category: identifies spe
• "A" Defects: identifies all A-catego
• Buses Inspecte4;:A listing of all hu
® Average Defects
Per Bus
Audit of First Transit
Nere:;eptered�Ji ;a database iwhich was used to
that 'spreadsheet; were: Hien used to produce a
or.;PRTC are included as a CD attachment
all defects for all buses inspected
f ,ct ; totals and a summary of the 18 defect
fs under each of the 18 categories
Table 3 below summarizes ail:" ekots identified under each of the 18 functional categories and
compares __al em to the previous audit: Of the 18 categories, ten had a significant increase in
defects,*om a`year ago. Differential defects (primarily pinion seal leaks) were down sharply from
a yearago, indicating that First;Transit instituted a campaign to repair them.
Transit Resource Center 8
1
TABLE 3
Defects by Cate o
Defect Category
June '05
Defect
Totals
June '06
Defect
Totals
Categories with
Significant
Increases
Engine/Engine Compartment
17
31
+
Differential
5
1
Transmission
14
23
+
Structure/Chassis/Fuel Tank
0
0
Exhaust
0
0
Sus ension/Steerin
7
17
+
Transit Resource Center 8
1
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
*T
As mentioned earlier, each defect was gi
A — indicates the most serious
and keep the vehicle from
B — indicates a defect that, whiie-I
requires attention at a later'Iim
There were a total of`'I9"" defects,
breakdown of the A -Category refects is
t
severi.•y�;. ,code:
:defect, tho§ that present a significant safety risk
D revenue service until the defect is corrected.
vehicle from returning to revenue service,
1 only two a year ago. Table 4 below shows a
during this audit.
TABLE 4
TABLE 3
Defects by Catego
Defect Category
Number of Defects
Defect Category
June '05
Defect
Totals
June '06
Defect
Totals
Categories with
Significant
Increases
Electrical System
1
7
+
Air System/Brake System
5
13
+
Safety Equipment
*
1
Climate Control
2
1
Driver's Controls
3
57
+
Passenger Controls
0
4
+..
Interior Condition
10
19
Exterior Body condition
71
77
Tires
1
1
Lights
8
71
Accessibility Features
5
:;;18
+
Destination Signs
2
Totals: >�51' 34 `
dew cateaory for the June '06
audit
-
As mentioned earlier, each defect was gi
A — indicates the most serious
and keep the vehicle from
B — indicates a defect that, whiie-I
requires attention at a later'Iim
There were a total of`'I9"" defects,
breakdown of the A -Category refects is
t
severi.•y�;. ,code:
:defect, tho§ that present a significant safety risk
D revenue service until the defect is corrected.
vehicle from returning to revenue service,
1 only two a year ago. Table 4 below shows a
during this audit.
TABLE 4
A -Cate or De ects
Defect Category
Number of Defects
Accessibility Features
Bu ;267 - Wheelchair restraint
Bus' 263 - Wheelchair restraint
''Bus 174 - Wheelchair restraint
Bus 320 - Wheelchair lift
Bus 255 - Wheelchair restraint
7
Bus 342 - Wheelchair lift
Bus 338 - Wheelchair restraint
Air/Brake Systems
Bus 308 — Air leak
Bus 142 — Air leak
2
Transit Resource Center
9
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TABLE 4
A -Cate or De ects
Defect Category
Number of Defects
Driver's Controls
Bus 313 — Seatbelt
Bus 303 — Seatbelt
2
Interior Condition
Bus 326 — Sharp edge
Bus 336 — Sharp edge
2
Lights
Bus 313 — Brake lights
Bus 177 — Headlights
Bus 265 — Headlights
4
Bus 348 — Turn signals
Safety Equipment
Bus 181 — Emergency Window
Tires
Bus 331 —Flat
1
Total
19
All A -Category defects identified during the
scheduled for repair by First ..1 an it. Buses
repaired.
Defect Analysis
Defects identified by T
pose in temps of safety,
major cotr�ponents.
were either repaired immediately or
is were not to return to service until
determine the severity or detrimental impact they
ence, structural integrity, and life expectancy of
There v"erc:a ;fatal of 9, A -category defects identified during this inspection that would have kept
18 buses out of service`�if First Transit had not corrected them after being identified by TRC.
A significant iri6kease 'in safety-related defects occurred since the last audit where TRC identified
only two (2) suc"efects. It appears that First Transit has become more lax in identifying defects
during its PM inspections, including those pertaining to safety. Many of the defects, especially
lights and driver control defects, should have been identified by bus operators as part of the pre -
trip inspection. Increased bus operator training may help reduce these defects in the future.
Comfort and Convenience
TRC found that interiors and exteriors continue to be kept clean. However, a more aggressive
campaign to repair body damage would improve exterior bus appearance. Given the
environmental regulations that make it difficult to do bodywork and painting in-house and the
high cost of sending out body repairs, a certain amount of minor body damage is understandable.
Transit Resource Center 10
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
Regardless of the issues involved, more could be done to reduce. the number of body -related
defects.
Structural Integrity
There were no defects that impacted structural integrity.
Life Expectancy oMajor Components
First Transit's perfect adherence to scheduled PM inspections as shown below greatly increases
the life expectancy of major components. However, management of the new oil analysis system
needs to be improved to make better use of the early failure detection offered by this valuable
program. (See Management of Oil Analysis Program below for additional,;information.)
PMI Schedule Adherence
TRC examined the records of 20 buses selected at random to determine if the Wls._awere being
done at scheduled 6,000 -mile intervals. PMI intervals w&&ic6usidered "on time"'If"berformed on
or before 6,600 miles ("late window" of 10% or 600 miles).
All PMI records were well organized and easy;t6locate. '
Table 5 below shows the PMI intervals going h6c.k:<b the previods PMI performed by First
Transit for each of the 20 buses selected a,grldom.
Transit Resource Center 11
1t
TABI,5
PMI Scli'edule'Aagrence
Bus #Milea
a Intervals
Notes
143
= 59$
On time
173 569`1
On time
178
$542
On time
1795545
On time
182
5 515
On time
83
5556
On time
251
5759
On time
5732
On time
:260 5670
On time
267
5749
On time
342
6158
On time
305<'`
5992
On time
313
6112
On time
318
5770
On time
326
5918
On time
331
5876
On time
341
5862
On time
342
6074
On time
344
5899
On time
350
5820
On time
Transit Resource Center 11
1t
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
The review of records by TRC revealed that all 20 buses (100%) had their PM inspections done on
. time. In fact, all but three were done before the 6,000 mile scheduled interval with the "latest" one
only 158 miles past the 6,000 mile interval.
The on time PMI performance equals the 100% mark achieved during the last two audits. The
perfect score by First Transit exceeds the best performance of 93% achieved by WMATA in
April 2003.
Repair of Defects Identified During PMIs
To determine if repairs were performed properly and made promptly, TRG"'selected the last three
PMI sheets for all 20 buses chosen at random (60 PMI records total). aTRC examined the PMIS to
determine if First Transit has:
a process in place to distinguish those defects identified and"fiepaixed during 'the PMI
from those scheduled for repair at a later date; and
actually followed-up and repaired the defects identified during the prey �p0,s PM1
From its investigation TRC determined that First Transit` continues to hake a•'"record-keeping
system that clearly distinguishes those defects rep,aireiduring` aPMI from diose that need to be
scheduled at a later time. First Transit also h S`a quad' ty assura tee .program where buses are
inspected at random as a follow-up by management to elisbre that technicians properly identify,
repair, and/or schedule defects for repair.
Of the 60 bus records examined, TRC d6t&`iii ined thaf� *i three (3) defects were carried over
from one PMI to the next. Table 6 below s iQwsal p defect!4,0eated from one PMI to the next.
Mechanic Training 4tertification
TRC set out to determine if qualified mechanics are performing maintenance tasks by virtue of
documented training and certification. TRC selected eight (8) HVAC repairs/inspections , at
random and asked Jim Hancock to provide a copy of the repair order and the name of the
mechanic performing the repair or inspection.
Table 7 below shows the eight HVAC work orders examined.
Transit Resource Center 12 3
°Re .eat De c' is
Bus Number
PMI Dates
173
Et�ctxioal short in rear::.destination (run) sign
03/30/06
05/12/06
344
Operator'sgr,ea�dirty; :
12/30/05
03/7/06
3:A'4'
Exterior"".;.body damage
12/30/05
X.
03/7/06
Mechanic Training 4tertification
TRC set out to determine if qualified mechanics are performing maintenance tasks by virtue of
documented training and certification. TRC selected eight (8) HVAC repairs/inspections , at
random and asked Jim Hancock to provide a copy of the repair order and the name of the
mechanic performing the repair or inspection.
Table 7 below shows the eight HVAC work orders examined.
Transit Resource Center 12 3
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TABLE 7
A/C Re air/Ins ections
Proof ofAC:Certificati6n>:;: `'
Bus #
Date
HVAC Repair
Mechanic
James Hancock
172
03-31-06
AC PMI
Hancock
Motoxcoach Training Development, EPA Certification, Type
I&II
173
03-16-06
AC PMI
Crook
173
05-31-06
AC Inoperative
DeCosta
251
04-25-06
AC PMI
Crook
302
06-08-05
Seal leak -
Zaragoza
replace
302
04-20-06
Low Freon level
rook
-recharge
308
10-06-05
Low Freon level
Crook
-recharge
Zara''oza
Compressor
312
10-05-05
discharge line -
=°Zar'agoza
broken
TRC then compared the HVAC mechanic who preforme''d the repair to the listing of certified
technicians compiled from the earlier audit and updated during this audit: Table 8 lists the
mechanics certified to perform HVAC -related reparr's'4rtdtheir AC certification status.
Certi`.iedA Mechanics
Mechanic's #, Name
Proof ofAC:Certificati6n>:;: `'
Andy Velez
VGI Trairiin , Teehniciai `T e II (EPA cert)
Charles Johnson
Mobile AC;Socie .;;CFC -12 Recycling
James Hancock
ARIr T e I;'II
Nelson Zaragoza*
ASE, Refri``'etant Recovery & Recycling
Anthony Crook
Motoxcoach Training Development, EPA Certification, Type
I&II
Dervent DeCosta
IYacs, :•R12 and R22 Refrigerant Use, Recovery and
�'12ec``:c�lin
* No
TRC
have qualified
and certificatic
Transit Resource Center
at'PKIIC, but -was so at time of the HVAC repairs examined.
AC,.;,repairs involving refrigerant were performed by a certified AC
b16' 8. As a result of its examination, TRC finds that the contractor does
performing HVAC maintenance tasks by virtue of documented training
13
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
Management of Oil Analysis Program
First Transit is required to send engine oil and transmission fluid samples to a laboratory for
testing and evaluation at each PMI. Since the previous audit, First Transit changed its fluid
analysis vendor. Whereas the previous vendor immediately sent a fax to First Transit when a
sample was found to be abnormal, the current vendor posts all results on a website and leaves it to
the customer to look up the results for each vehicle sampled.
Specifically, TRC examined First Transit's records to determine if-
a)
fa) fluid samples were taken at each PMI;
b) fluid records were filed and easy to gain access to; and
c) the contractor is making use of the fluid analysis results as ,:part of, its maintenance
program.
In examining the last two PMIS for each of the 20 buses selected at random`'�:TRC found
• All transmission fluid samples were taken at theappropriate interval and results showed no
abnormal condition.
• In just one (1) case, proof could not be shoWn*that ari?.engine oilsample was actually
taken at the appropriate PMI. (Bus 141:66 03-07` 0:6).
• Due to the change in oil analysis vendors records weremore: `difficult to locate. When
asked to produce historical fluid.:rvsults for-each''bus, the records clerk could only locate
the most recent reports on the Vendor's website :Jt took several conversations with the
vendor's customer service dept. t4Jiri4; someone::', wledgeable enough to provide the
assistance needed to locate historical.,data-,-,;,,
• The new fluid analys i ndor ret4ns engine.- oil samples as either normal, monitor,
abnormal, or critical wrth.;ipstruCYtons provided in cases where action is required. Of the
40 engine oil samples reviewed by'TRC, none were found to be critical, eight (8) were
found to be:abnormal, and five.,(5) required monitoring. Of the 13 cases where action
was required'°asa:res,.ult of the oihisamples taken, six (6) involved high soot levels where
the recommenoatiori`as,_;to. change'the oil and filter, which First Transit does after taking
the: sample but"',, he vendor ss'',dparently unaware of. For the remaining seven (7) cases
,;Yvh'ere,,action was;tequired as `a result of the oil samples taken, there was no evidence that
;•={FFirst Transit responded to the recommendations. In six of the seven cases where the oil
'.,analys s,�vendor recommended re -sampling at one half the normal interval (i.e., at 3,000
;. mt1s) there was no''evidence that First Transit reacted to the recommendation.
• When given the opportunity to review the findings, First Transit provided explanations
for most.of.its'inactions:
■ lif the six (6) cases where high soot levels were found, First Transit claims that
level set by the vendor to trigger an abnormal condition is set too low (previous
vendor set a higher level to trigger an abnormal condition), which may be the
case regarding engines equipped with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). In any
case, soot is an abrasive and First Transit needs to work with the oil analysis
vendor and the engine manufacturer to develop a valid soot specification, and
then use that specification to establish a new trigger for high soot conditions.
■ In two (2) cases where a monitoring action was recommended and neglected by
First Transit, the very next sample came back with normal results implying that
there was nothing wrong with the original sample.
Transit Resource Center 14 1IA
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
■ In all cases, First Transit claims that the recommendations are just that —
recommendations.
- • Engine oil samples reported as monitor or abnormal by the oil analysis vendor are shown
in Table 9 below. The table also includes the action taken by First Transit, explanations
provided by First Transit as to why no action was taken, and other footnotes.
TABLE 9
Veri zcation That Engine Oil Sam le Findings Were Acted Upon
BUS No.
FINDING
ACTION
.ACTION TAKEN BY
& SAMPLE DATE
RECOMMENDED .•::''
FIRST TRANSIT
344*
Monitor
Resample at half regulai"
None ]Found
5-05-06
Ring Wear
interval
344
Monitor
Resample at half regular';
:iNone°Found
3-09-06
Several Conditions
interval
342
Monitor
Resample ,athalf regular
None:found:
4-17-06
Viscosity, Internal Wear
interval a; `i : ;.,
* * next sample came
back no`r n
331
AbnormalDri,,pil
& cge
Note Required ++
4-21-06
High Soot+
Fltier 5: i'
326
Monitor
:Resampkat half regular
None Found
3-09-06
Viscosity, Bearing Wear'
-:interval ;
** next sample came
back normal
313
Abnormal
DrairiOil & Change
None Required++
5-22-06
High Soot+
Filter(s)`i
313
Abnormal
`Drain Oil`B:Change
None Required++
3-02-06
Hi h Soot+
305
Abnormal`,:
Drau%�:Oil & Change
None Required++
5-16-06
High Soot-,''
Filter(s)
305
Abnormal '.
Drain Oil & Change
None Required++
4-04-06
Hi2h Soot+
"Filter(s)
182
ij Monitor
Drain Oil & Change
None Found
4-21-06
Silicon;..•,
Filter(s)
** engine was changed
after sample taken
179
:biormal
Drain Oil & Change
None Found
4-10-06::''f
Slfinated Oil, Other
Filter(s); Resample at
** aware that bus needs
Conditions
half regular interval
engine; S50 engine has
accumulated 260,497
miles
178 .:V
Abnormal
Drain Oil & Change
None Required++
5-11-06 :'
High Soot+
Filter(s)
143
Abnormal
Resample at half regular
None Found
8-12-05
Viscosity, Liner Wear
interval
** bus was out being
refurbished, could not
act on recommendation
* * Explanation given by First Transit as to why no action was taken
+ This level of soot was not reported as abnormal by previous vendor; EGR engines typically produce
higher levels of soot.
++ Vendor recommended changing the oil and filter, which First Transit does after taking the sample but
the vendor is apparently unaware of.
Transit Resource Center 15
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
TRC also drew engine, transmission, and coolant fluid samples from 20 buses selected at random
(60 samples). The results are as follows:
Coolant: All reports were normal.
Transmission Fluid: All reports were normal.
En ing e Oil:
Bus #326: High fuel soot detected — Indicator of incomplete combustion. Soot
thickens oil, accelerates wear, and promotes carbon deposits. Recommend change
lube oil and lube oil filter, if not already done. Recommend resample at next oil
drain interval.
Bus #179: Test results indicate excessive water present. Coolant additives appear
to be high — possible coolant contamination. Recommend pressure check cooling
system. Wear metal(s) high — indicating possible bearing wear. Recommend
change lube oil and lube oil filter, if not already done.
Bus #143: Coolant additives appear to be high — possible coolant contamination.
Recommend pressure check cooling system. Wear metal(s) high — indicating
possible bearing wear. Recommend change lube oil and lube oil filter, if not
already done. Recommend resample at next oil drain interval.
All fluid sample findings wer&xgported to `PRTCG land First Transit by email shortly after they
were received by TRC. Out of 66``flutdsamples taken'�'only three engine oil samples were found
to be abnormal as indicated abov&,`Jh&'l i'gl' issue needs to be resolved as discussed earlier,
and the two buses with coolant (143'atld 179) present in the oil need to be examined immediately.
Other findings (weai';:m Vials) for bus iiumbers 143 and 179 are consistent with early warnings
provided by First Trai slt's bwn sampling' vendor. (First Transit is aware that Bus 179 needs an
engine rebuild after 2601497 r illes; and .did not feel any action was needed). Taken in total, the oil
sampling,d4ne by TRC dQese°not shoe signs of neglected maintenance.
Based`''gn its .exam iiation,s'`-RC finds that the contractor's new oil analysis program could be
improved.::,:,lie. �•mab lity t6'`locate historical fluid sample results and to dismiss most of the
findings as invalid implies that First Transit is not effectively managing its new fluid monitoring
program. While it does not appear that the life of major components was diminished, this
essential early-watng system that flags impending failures is not being used to its full potential.
This was not the case during the last audit when oil analysis results were easy to locate, and First
Transit was acting on the vendor's recommendations to prevent more serious problems from
occurring. As a result, it is recommended that First Transit work with its new oil analysis lab to
become more familiar with how the new system functions, and to establish valid parameters and
feedback recommendations from the testing as a way of making better use of the program.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
- Reduce the number of safety-related defects by targeting these defects during scheduled
PMIS, and through a more comprehensive operator's pre -trip inspection program.
Transit Resource Center 16
PRTC Fleet Maintenance Audit (June 2006)
- Reduce the number of inoperative lights and driver control defects by targeting these
defects during scheduled PMIs, and through a more comprehensive operator's pre -trip
inspection program.
- Reduce the number of exterior body damage by sending buses out for body repair more
frequently and investigating the repair of minor body damage in house.
- Improve management of the oil analysis program by:
o becoming more familiar with the services offered by the new vendor;
o determining if the vendor can send e-mail notifications of any monitor, abnormal or
critical findings; and
o working with the vendor, engine manufacturer, and PRTC to:set valid triggers for
high soot and other conditions to avoid getting invalid recommendations.
Transit Resource Center 17 0