Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Bill 4.A 05/02/2011
l 4 �" 4. a Ig5$ DATE: May 2, 2011 II ♦ ® RA; TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Joseph Rye, Transit Division Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding a Contract to MV Transportation, Inc. for the Operations and Maintenance of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit Services RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a contract to MV Transportation, Inc. for the operation and maintenance of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit services. BACKGROUND The City has contracted for its transit operations since the inception of Petaluma Transit / Paratransit in the 1970s. Over the last two years, all available options to extend existing contracts with MV Transportation, Inc. (MV - fixed route operations and all maintenance) and Petaluma Peoples Services Center (PPSC — paratransit operations) were exercised. Both contracts expire on June 30, 2011. In anticipation of the expiration of the current contracts, art ad hoc Selection Committee was formulated to work with staff on the RFP selection process. Staff prepared a request for proposals (RFP), issued on January 10, 2011. Six proposals were received on February 24, 2011. The Selection Committee interviewed the top four firms on March 17 and reached consensus on the recommendation of MV Transportation to be awarded a contract for both modes (fixed route and paratransit). On April 7 the Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) added its support as well. At the April 18" City Council meeting, several questions were raised and the item was continued, to allow staff to address several procurement questions, and for MV and PPSC to enter into discussions on a potential opportunity for partnership. Agenda Review: I �� City Attorney Finance Director City Manager -q V .. DISCUSSI ®N Procurement Questions This is an FTA- involved procurement and as such, must follow FTA - specific requirements and the FTA Best Practices Procurement Manual. The predominant goal of all these guidelines is to ensure fair and open competition. Maintaining FTA - compliance is important to ensure that any audit of the City's use of FTA funds will confirm the City's compliance with applicable FTA guidelines, and to avoid potential return of funds to the FTA or other penalties or liability. In addition, compliance with FTA guidelines will help ensure that the City can take advantage of all future opportunities to receive federal operating assistance that may arise during the term of this contract. This is particularly relevant to the upcoming federal transit reauthorization, which may include increased federal operating support. FTA guidelines preclude awarding contracts based upon criteria not included in an RFP, or based upon a preference for a local vendor. At the April 18` meeting, Council questioned how MV could provide paratransit service at a far lower cost than PPSC. The reason is due to several factors: • MV combining manager and dispatch staff, saves $78,564 in year one of the contract • MV's combined overhead is only slightly higher than the overhead that PPSC requires for providing paratransit operations alone, saving $64,464 in year one • MV's ability to self - insure leads to lower insurance costs, saving $16,701 in year one • MV's employee benefits are less expensive than PPSC's, saving $14,500 in year one. Selection Committee RFP Scoring In accordance with scoring procedures contained in the RFP, the Selection Committee scored the proposals based on the following weighted criteria: pricing (40 %), experience & qualifications of local assigned personnel (30 %), history of contractor performing similar contracts (25 %), and innovative technologies (5 %). Consistent with FTA procurement guidelines, the City's solicitation for transit services used the "competitive proposal" method for selecting the successful proposer. Under that method, price alone is not determinative, meaning that the successful proposer may be other than the lowest cost bidder. Accordingly, the City's solicitation specified that in ranking the proposers and making its award recommendation to the Council, the Selection Committee would weigh the evaluative criteria as indicated above. Consistent with FTA guidelines, these same evaluative criteria must also be the basis for the Council's award decision, based on the facts in the record (consisting of the submitted proposals and staffs and the Committees' analysis of the proposals). (Note that because the City Charter and the City's purchasing ordinance do not apply to service contracts, the "competitive proposal" procurement method does not violate City purchasing requirements.) Therefore, for award of the City's transit services contract, price is a factor, but not the predominant factor. The Council is free to consider and give more weight to factors other than price, so long as the Council applies 2 the evaluative factors specified in the solicitation and the Council's determination is supported by facts in the record. While all proposers, except Petaluma Peoples Service Center (PPSC), submitted bids combining both modes under one management & support team, two other proposers submitted under the "paratransit only" option. In both categories, MV was determined to be the unanimous number one proposer. Best and final offers were requested from MV and PPSC (due to PPSC's uniqueness as 29 -year incumbent contractor). Note that the entire proposal from each firm, numbering 103+ and 44+ pages, respectively, is available for review in the City Clerk's Office, or electronically on the City's website with the agenda and staff report for this item. All MV Award Option Recap Since MV was ranked the number one proposer, the discussion focused on whether the City should combine operation of both modes (fixed route /maintenance and paratransit) or continue to operate with separate contractors. As can be seen in Table 1 below, the cost difference is significant. As depicted in Table 3 on page 5, over the seven total contract years (base 5, plus 2 option years) the City would save $1.4M by combining both modes under a single contract. The Selection Committee discussed the impact of a single contract on current PPSC employees, and found the greatest impact was to PPSC's onsite manager and dispatcher. Since these positions also exist for fixed route, in MV's proposal these positions would be combined and cross - trained, thus eliminating two positions. However, if the Council does award one contract for both services, PPSC drivers would be guaranteed an offer of employment. The MV proposal pledges that no PPSC drivers will receive lower wages as part of the transition; some may receive a slight wage increase, and all will be offered the same benefit package currently offered to the fixed route (union) employees. Table 1: Comparison of Contractor Costs FY 2011 -2012 (1st Year) Only The RFP requires that all proposers comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). The RFP also requires proposers to protect existing non - managerial employees from worsening of employment conditions, including reductions in wages and benefits, as required by federal law for transit systems supported with federal funds. Information was provided by proposers on the benefit package that would be provided, and it is summarized in Attachment 5. x FY 12- FY 12 FAY 11 All MV MV + � PPSC z (separate P � A - iLr ro ected (Option 1) contracts Fixed Route $61'2698 s $631,929 Paratransit RUM 65355 $460,455 Both Modes F $1078053; $918,155 $1,092,384 % over (under) current year Rft 1 -15% 1 +1% The RFP requires that all proposers comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (LWO). The RFP also requires proposers to protect existing non - managerial employees from worsening of employment conditions, including reductions in wages and benefits, as required by federal law for transit systems supported with federal funds. Information was provided by proposers on the benefit package that would be provided, and it is summarized in Attachment 5. .. Contractor & Subcontractor Option During the comment period of the April '18 City Council meeting, MV offered to enter into discussions with PPSC to partner on this project. Council expressed interest in this. concept and asked that the parties meet to discuss terms of a proposed agreement. The parties have met and discussed how their best and final offers can be reshaped to °:increase efficiencies and lower overall costs to the City, while also integrating PPSC into the contract: An agreement was reached that would create a prime .contractor /subcontractor relationship that would: ® provide the City with significant cost savings from streamlining of service • integrate PPSC into the continuing provision of paratransit service for Petaluma Paratransit as a subcontractor to MV • comply with overall FTA procurement regulations — enabling continued FTA funding s ° The negotiations have resulted ' n a revised best- and -final .offer from MV that now includes modified costs for administerin a subcontract with PPSC for paratransit operations. Please see Attachment 4 for the cost details: Under this arrangement, PPSC would continue to supply the drivers, insurance, and payroll /human resources support for the operation, while MV would provide the dispatching, scheduling, daily supervision, and maintenance for the paratransit function. MV already provides maintenance for paratransit, so that aspect does not change. PPSC would be a subcontractor to MV, who would be the responsible party (to the City) for the entire operation. PPSC would bill MV for services (fixed monthly fees and variable revenue hour costs) rendered. MV would bill the City for the monthly fixed and variable costs for both modes. While all terms of the contractor /subcontractor agreement have yet to be finalized, it is anticipated that PPSC will be protected against arbitrary contract termination. There is also an additional insurance advantage in this option. It is typically advantageous for the City to be able to rely on the insurance of one provider, as opposed to two. . The Contractor & Subcontractor option, depicted in Table 2 .below, provides much of the cost savings featured in the original MV (only) combined proposal: Table 2: Comparison of Contractor Costs FY 2011 -2012 (1st. Year) Only — Options 1 & 2 ld `'FrY 11 FY 12- All MV FY 12 Current (single MV + FY 12 MV + Year contract) PPSC PPSC `£^ + �. 7 ; Contractor & Protected with Subcontractor (separate , Separate Partnership contracts op tion 1 Contracts_ (Option 2 Fixed Route $612698 $631,929 $624,849 �� Paratransit$465;355 $460,455 $379,888 Both Modes $1078;®«53 $918,155 $1,092,384 $1,004,737 % over (under) FY l'l Costs 4`414 � -15% +1% -6.8 %o ld The Contractor & Subcontractor partnership saves the City,o:ver $73;000 in year one (FY 12), compared to FY 10 -11 costs, and'over $700,,000 over the 7 year contract term. While this is near half of the projected savirigs in utilizing MV alone (Option 1j''; this arrangement allows the City to continue utilizing PPSC (drivers),as the service provider for continuity -and stability, It also continues scheduling t and it su ngstanding' with PPSC. With MV providing continues (indirectly) the City' s to partnership ( y) Y' dispatch, g, y pervision ofiparatransit, it offers the City significant value by utilizing MV's wealth of paratransit experience and familiarity the latest technological . advances, including real -time paratransit appli cations. This will4naximize utilization of the new Trapeze scheduling system recently procured and being installed by the City. Option 1 - Recommended MV Transportation, the incumbent icontractorfor fixed route, was `the clear top bidder. The Selection `Committee also determined that the two separate modes should be combined under one operating contract, saving the City. up to $ I AM over the seven years of this contract. The Selection Committee and Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended at the April1 8, 2011 meeting that Council award a. single contract to MV Transportation for both fixed route and paratransit. MV' has a wealth of experience in paratransit and fixed route service, and has performed admirably over the last ten years as the City's fixed route contractor. This is the lowest cost option and remains the staff recommendation. Option 2 MV and PPSC have agreed in principle (see Attachment 3) to utilize PPSC as a paratransit subcontractor for the term ofthe contract, at the same variable ($22.44 per revenue hour for FY 12) rate that PPSC bid the project: This. will enable PPSC to continueto provide the same wage and benefit package to their drivers that they are currently providing: MV has agreed to provide PPSC with $2,729 per month ($32;748 annually) for overhead to' cover payroll. and other miscellaneous costs. MV will provide dispatching and scheduling utilizing the same manager and dispatcher staff (and costs) as their original proposal, thus saving the City a significant amount on these two duplicative positions. MV will be the prime contractor and sole point of contact with the ;City; and will provide scheduling and dispatching services to PPSC on a daily basis: This' partnership meets the City's goals of streamlining operations in order to free up precious, operating Tpnds to improve service, with the stability of maintaining its relationship with PPSC.as the,paratransit provider. PPSC drivers willmot only be retained, but will continue to work for, , and be provided,salary and benefits by PPSC. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Similar to transit agencies nationwide, Petaluma Transit has ;seen annual operating revenues decline dramatically in, recent years. Entering FY 10 -11, Petaluma Transit raised' fares and reduced service to address a $200,000 shortfall. Reserves were reduced to levels that provide little more than the local match for needed capital projects (bus replacements,). S gg Theo operations contracts are. the biggest impact Petaluma p p act to Transit's °annual budget, and will be the primary determinant of its ability, to make needed ffig ovemeri is. ` . ; ':ear Table 3: Comparison of Costs � l� and 2 - Seuen Funding realized by the cost savings .associated with either 0"' tioi l or 2 will be used to buffer Petaluma Transit against further increases in fuel costs, and to improve service. Specifically, riders have requested later weekday evening service, and Sunday service. These are financially feasible under Option 1 or 2, assuming continued economic:,recovery. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution — Option .1 2. Resolution — Option 2 3. _PPSC Letter of Intent to Subcontract with MV 4. MV Revised Best and Final Offer — Subcontracting with PPSC 5. Benefit Comparison Table 6. April 18, 2011 City Council Staff Report I w ATTACHMENT 1 (Option 1) RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT IO MV TRANSPORTA'T`ION, INC. FOR THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF PETALUMA TRANSIT AND PETALUMA PARATRANSIT SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma contracts for operations and maintenance of its public transportation services, and periodically conducts a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for these services; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the expiration of the current'contracts for fixed -route and paratransit services on June 30, 2011, an ad hoc Selection Committee was formed to assist City staff in evaluating responses to the RFP and making a recommendation for contract award; and WHEREAS, six proposals were received and evaluated, and four proposers were interviewed, including the two incumbent contractors, MV Transportation, Inc. (MV) and Petaluma Peoples Services Center (PPSC); and WHEREAS, the Selection Committee unanimously recommends that the City Council combine fixed route and maintenance with paratransit operations under a single contract to achieve economies of scale and to free'. up transit funding to be applied fa service shortfalls, such as those identified in recent rider outreach; and WHEREAS, the Selection Committee and staff unanimously recommend the City Council award the five year contract, with two -additional one -year options, to MV, based on the Selection Committee and staff review of their responsive proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma that the City Council awards a contract for the operation and maintenance of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit Services to MV Transportation, Inc. consistent with the responsive proposal submitted by MV Transportation, Inc. and any agreed modifications thereto (collectively, "Proposal ") and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute a professional service agreement with MV Transportation, Inc., conditioned on MV Transportation, Inc. timely executing the contract and submitting all required documents, including but not limited to, certificates of insurance and endorsements, in accordance with the RFP. 7 i . i ATTACHMENT 2 Option 2) RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO MV TRANSPORTATION —INC. FO THE OPERATIOl SAND .MMAI.N'TENANCE „OF PETALUMA TRANSIT AND PETALUMA PARATRANSIT SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma contracts for operations and maintenance of its .public transportation services, and periodically .conducts a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for these services; and WHEREAS, in anticipation of the expiration of the current ;contracts for fixed -route and paratransit services on June 30, 2011, ° , an ad hoc Selection Committee was formed to assist City staff in evaluating responses to the RFP and making a recommendation for contract award; and WHEREAS, six proposals were received and evaluated; four were interviewed, including the incumbent contractors,. MV Transportation, Inc;, (MV). and Petaluma People Services Center (PPSC); and WHEREAS, the Selection Committee unanimously recommends that the City Council combine fixed route and maintenance with paratransit operations, under a single contract to achieve economies of scale and to free up transit funding to be applied to service shortfalls, such as those identified in recent -rider outreach; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires the cost savings of combined contract with the benefits to the City of having 'PPSC ' continue to provide paratransit operations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal recordrehects that having the local social service agency, PPSC, provide paratransit operations that, include elder care trained drivers, referral of riders to other PPSC social service programs, and other social service programs, support a determination that the PPSC proposal for paratransit services provides the best value to the City for paratransit services; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal record reflects that having the incumbent fixed route and maintenance. operator,. MV, provide fixed route and maintenance services, and oversee both fixed route and paratransit services; combines the benefits of specialized paratransit services delivered by PPSC, and the benefits of combining fixed route and paratransit services into one contract, resulting in cost savings and making transit service enhancements financially feasible, resulting in the best overall transit service value for the City, consistent with the City's solicitation for transit service proposals and applicable FTA guidelines and other applicable law; acid �u t ti WHEREAS, City Council; is pleasedtliat MV and"'PPSC have agreed to partner, with MV utilizing PPSC as a subcontractor under a single;five -year contract, with two additional one- year options, to provide both fixed' route' and paratranst° service, based'on their revised responsive proposal. NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Petaluma that the City Council awards. a contract for the operation and - maintenance of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit to MV Transportation, Inc.;', con"sistent with the responsive proposal submitted, and any agreed modifications thereto (collectively "Proposal ") and authorizes' and directs the City Manager to execute a professional service agreernent with MV Transportation, Inc. conditioned on MV Tr ansportation, Inc., timely executing.thq contract and submitting all required documents, including but not limited to, certificates of in'suraric'er and endorsements, in accordance with the RFP. 1636065.1 Y t April 27, 2011 Mr. Joe Rye City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA. 94952 Mr. Rye: 1500 PPTALUNtA BOULEVARD SOUTH, SUITS A PGTALLINIA, CALIFORNIA 94052 (707) 765 5 <is8 FAX: (707) 765 -8482 ATTACHMENT 3 Petaluma People Services Center, has agreed to negotiate a sub - contract with MV Transportation to provide the ADA Paratransit Services portion of` the contract and in.accordance with the Scope of Services outlined in our subrnission of the RFP dated January 10, 201.1. PPSC has worked with MV, P Trans �ortation, and the Citrof Petaluma to conform to the numbers submitted. by MV Transportation as best we could. Total costs of $287,741 for 9,375 revenue hours with a 2% Cost of Living increaseper year as the contract extends out throughFY15. It is important that the. city understands that we have decided to move: into this contract with MV Transportation because we feel it is in the best interest of those we-serve. We assure the city of Petaluma, that we will continue to provide this quality service as'we have for the past 29 years. Sincerely; Ron Kirdey 7 Executive Director BUDGET'PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT 4 OPERATIONS AND'MAINTENANCE i„ Both Modes - ;Fixed,Abute and,Paratransit , Instructions to- Proposers; This Form 1:1 is usedto submit the budget proposed for all described'inthis RFP. The,proposed o budget must;consist of fixed hourly costs;,by mode of service and fixed monthly costs. Proposers should complete one form for each services proposed (i.e. fixed route and maintenance, paratransit operations all services). -, Base''Years ' O tiori'Yeais Fiscal'Year' FY12 means' FY ( 11 -12; July 2011 thru June 2012 FY12 FY13 FY1'4 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 .Variable Cost'Per Hours Fixed Route $' 2291 $ - 22.96 s ;22 . 23,62; y$ 24:28' $ :24.40 $ 24.50 Dial A Ride $` 20.90 $ 21.36 $ ,2224- ;$ 22:53; $ 23:08 $ _ -' 23.60. •$., 23.93 Monthly 'Fixed'Fee $ 37,891 $ 38;690 $ 39;555` $ 40,626 ;V 41;411 $ 43,299 '$ 43,985 Monthly Liability Insurance (General &'Auto) $ 4,123 $ 4;156 ,$ 4,276 i s 4',357 $ 4,440 $., 4,526 $ 4;613 TOtel'Annual,COsts , $ 1'004,737 $ _ 1,019,663 $ -1 ?038;064 $. 1,065,157 ;$ 1,089,439 s' 1,119;57'9 `$ 1,133,460 #Of 'Months _ 02 12' 12. 12 _._. 12 -, 12 12 # Revenue Hours _ ,� 13,300 � 13;300 13300 13,300, 13,300, .,_ 13;300' _ " 13;300 # of`.Para Revenue Hours, 9;375 9;375'. 9,375 9;375 ,, 9,375 9,375' _ 9,375 Elements,of Cost/Hour Operator Wages ^ $ 17:34 $ 17.47 's 17.65; '$I 18.08; ?$, 1947 $ 18.64 1,$ 18:75;, Operator Benefits '" $ 4:73 $ 4:81, $ 4.93. .5.08 :;$,, _ - 6:31. $ 5.42'. '$. 5:52:' Other +Operating" Costs .r 1 � „ Subtotal - $ 22.08 $ 22:29 $ _ 22.58 $ 23:16 $ 23.77 $ ,24.07' '$ 24.27 Monthly Costs,E /ernents Manager Salar , $ 3,852 $• 3 948. s, 4 $ 4 „168 $' 4;272, $ - 4;358” :$ 4,445 ProectMana $, 648 $. 878,:$ si4,'$ ° 946'., $' '979 _$ 1,009 $ 1 - ,043 Salary Benefits Salary Benefits Dis er /Rase ry ationisf ,;.. Salary, $ 3,877 $ 3;974.$ 4,093. $' 4,196, $' 4,301. $ 4;387. 4,474, Dispatcher /Rese rvation ist Benefits .. $ 629 $ 652, $ .690$ 719' $ 773 $ 806 $. 838 r Base "Years Optioh Years Fiscal Year (FY12 means FY 1' J u1y 1 12 �`;2011'tfiru,June 20 . FY12 FY13' FY14 FY15 FY1& FY17 FY18 Road<_Supervisor Salary $ 2 ,$ 2,848 $ 2;689, $ •2;756" $ 2,825' $ 2;882 $ 2,689. Road'Supervisor Benefits $ 443. $ 459 $ 455 $ 474 $ 510 $„ 532 '$ . 524 Mechanic Salary $. 5;057..$. 5,184 $ ';5;339 $ . 5 , 473 $ 5,610: $, 5,722 $ 5,836 Wchanicr'Beneflts i; 771 $' '794 '$ ' 830 $ 657..$ 902 $ 931. $ 960 Utility Worker Salai 2 $; 2,209 '$ 2;275 $ 2;332 -, $ 2,390 .$ 2;438 $ 2,487 Utlllt 'Worker ' Benefits :$ 368( $ 381!, $ 402 $ '418. $ 44 $ 466 $ 484 ADA;Eligibility Determination Costs Non - Vehicle Insurance;, Office.ExpenSeS. $ 4291 ,$ 434 s , 447, 460,; ;$ 475 $ 501 '$ 516 Uniform Expenses $ 123 $" 123 $ 127 $ 131 $ 136 $. 144 ,$ 149 Trainin "Ex enseS $' 915; „$; 917 "$' 943 '$ 971 $ .999 $ 1 $ 1,075 Incentives /Liquidated Damages Letter of Credit Other Expenses (specify):, , 1'. ,Licenses & Fees is 42, , $ 42 $ 43 $ 45, $ .., ._ 46 $:. 101 ' $ 104., 2. °BUSSPBSSBS $ 990 $ 990 $ 1,020 $ 1,05,1 '$1 1;083 $ 1 $ 2;015 3: Capital" . 202, $ 250 '1 268' $: 245: ;$ 178 $ 78 $. 78 4.. InterestExpense $ 485 $ 460 $ 450 "s 440 `$ 436 $ 417 $ 396, 5. !Start•Up 5.'Subcontract $ 7;805' $ e,o 6 s 7;812' $ - 8,098: $' 8,780 1 8;297 $ 8,571 Contract,Overhead; $ 4;208 $ 4,232 $ 4;328 '$ 4,437, $' 4;543 '$ '4;675, "$ 4,724 Profit . ..., _ ,$ 1,913'. $ 1 1 .2;361 $ 2;420' I 2,478 $ ' ;2,550. $' 2,577 Subtotal Per Month $ 3,891'' $' 38,7,15 1,$ 59,555 $ 40,636 1 41,463 $ . 43;299 $ 43;985 Assumed to 'Employer average comply with contribution of current CBA $498 /month per CoPpaby pays employee (FTE .8 Medical $325 /month and above) Employer average contribution_ of $47 /month per- No Company employee (:FTE :8 Dental contribution and a . bovel No Company Vision contribution N/A Erriployer'foil contribution for employees with Life $5,,000 FFE.5,and':above Holiday Pay- - 8' 12 Bereavement Leave 1 paid 2 unpaid - - 0' Paid Time'Dff - - 1 2.w.eeks' Z =5 weeks Paid S ick Leave - 6 12 Provides LTD -and EAR" for full time employees, at monthly cost of $6.50 & $7.14 per employee Other respectively Average FY 12' O erator Wages $17.34 $15.95 a L w � U 1? Its #4. t UV ✓d!�/✓ - (�� - - J . C HMENT . to M AT A y.2, 2011 Revised Report DATE - ' April 1.$,.201,1, TO:: Honorable Ma; or and.:Members.of t y he City: Council through �Cit - Manager FROM: Joseph Rye,' Transit Division Manager c SUBJECT; g a.Contractto MV Transportation Resolution Awar , dm for the Qperations a_ nd Maintenance of: Petatuma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit Services RECOMMENDATION W I.t'is recommended that`the City' Council adopt the attached - resolution awarding a contract to MV Transportationfor the operations and. maintenance, of Petaluma Transit and Petaluma Paratransit : services. �, BACKGROiJND The C ty has contracted_ for its transii bperat'i,ons since the ince tiQn of Petaluma Transrt/Paratransit mthe 197Os. The City establishes sche.dules,�service levels, marketing act�it ,and procures the buses, while�private.contractors provide the drivers and supervise�daily y operations;, Petaluma Transit 1%as operated with separate' f xed route and:paratransit.contiacts sine g y unusual, m the ,industry as'btddtng both paratranstt and fixed route together enables savin ;s from bids; structured fo'r economies: of scale. , , . g Trans ortation MV , fixed route o 'tations.and all',maintehng contracts with.IVIV Over the�last two years, all available opt�ons..to extend ex� p �` ( p enance,); and Petaluma „Peoples Services: Center PPS' ( C - -paratransit operations) were.,exerci'sed. Both contracts expire on June 30, 20`11. , „ In anticipation of°the, expiration of ihe''current contracts, an ad hoe Selection Committee was forinulated :.to work with staff on the RFP selection PT ocess, TAC` mein _ . hers. Gabe Kearney and' Y Sheldon Gen domed Cary staff and former TAC member and locat business owner Nathan'Nies, as well as transrt'industry professional from nearby Sonoma County Transit. and. Marin Transit, to provide balanced, unbiased; scoring of proposals and interviews: Staff prepared a.reques t,f6r proposals (RFP), issued on January 1,0` 20.11, with a.proposal due -date of Febi:uary 24 201,'1_: Six proposals were received on; February 24. City staff provtded'a preliminary rartkng for each proposal andldistra'buted the five,highest rated proposals to tfie;Setection;Committee for scoring on`March,3` Ori March 10` "the Selection` Committee met and compared scoring, and determined to interview the top :four proposers. The Selection Committee interviewed the fours ,m Agenda. Review: �., City Attorney Finance Director City Manager firms on March, l`7 arid:reach con f ` ed 'se'nsus on finial scoring and'the recommendation contained herein. The. Transit.AV"' so C'ommitte'e TAC me Y. ( ) . 'Qt' cons�der this'itern April 7` DISCUSSION RF? Scoring In accordance with scoring procedurescontainedin the PF,.P, theSelection.Committee scored the % proposals based ; on the kllow ng weighted enteric: ;pncirig (40 %'), experience °& qualifications of local asisigned'personnel %), history ,of contract or pe`rforrnmg similar.:contracts (25 %), and' i . ovative 1echno'logi .- , 5,1().. Proposals Ewere "submitted by six f (ips; neludingi 's +, ,P ., NIV Trans" ortation ® First Transit m Bauer's : I :T • Storer Transportation ® TecTrans Inc.- __ ® Petaluma' People Se'rvi'ces Centet.OP:SC). A11 proposers, except Petaluma.Peoples Service Center (PPSC);'submitted b ds:combining: both . mo' es under one; - man, gement;;& support, team. The Sel "ection. Committee scoring of the written proposals iwas aggregated as follows ; L �.omftli:ttoeSelectio n Soon'. g -= Written Proposal's 1 MV: 2 First Transit 3. PPSC ' 4. Bauer 5. Storer ubse uen ow q t to rey_i and evaluation,of written submittals, the Selection. Committee 'invited the S top four funs (NIV, First Transit, PPSC, and':Bauer's 1T) to interview and respond to specific uestions !dernved:from the written proposals:: P'ro ose" " "r Ca "rules. ° P P MV Transportation MV 'Transportation is a nationwide pubhc:transrt contracting firm possessingoi eI of the largest market shares m "the md'ustry'(over 210 active public transit contracts, including 100•in .� paratiansrt). MV has performed well ;in the „1,0 years it has'been t_he G s fixed route contractor: With MV s roots in aratransit and,tl e local`MV General'`Ma,.agei's previous experience „ p z� pro�idmg',paratransrt m Sonorna County (Santa Rosa),, MV s - ored.far better than any other proposer First Transit is part ofz :worldwide iranspoitatiori and mfr. corporation -that has been in tl e public transit "con tractir busi'hess`.' fdt decades under °various narnes� First also currently ,. .2 i firms oti - March 1.7 and,reached consensus.on. nal cn' sc onng and the recm omendation: contained herein. The Transit Adu2soryCommrttee'(TAC)lmet and considered'this item on April 7` DISCUSSION: RFP S'cor 'n.'g In` accordance with seonng.procedures c"ontained'in•the RFP, al eSelection Committee scored the proposals based on:the following weighted criteria pacing (4;0 9 /6), experience & qualifications y of locallassi.gned per (el� O 0%) histort ..of contractor:;, p erf6- ng;similar contracts (25 %0); and renovative to 'hnolo ies 5 /o . Proposals were_,submitted by"aix f rms, .including_:: ® MV Transportation ® First Trarisit m Bauer's:IT • Slorer Transportation` ® TecT ans, Iris: ®. Petaluma, People Services Center;(PPSC.). p p p ma Peoples Service Center (PPSC); Ailiniitted ;bids.cornbining both All ro "osers,, except modes under one management & "supporf team, The. Sel'ecti'on Comrnittee:scorim of the: written proposals was as follows;. Selection Cominrttee:Scorng• Written.Proposal's ,1,• . MV' 2 First Transit 3. PP SC' 4. Bauer .5': Storer Subsequent to,r' — W and evaluation of written ubrnrttals, the' Selection Committee invited the: top four�:firms (MV, First Transit,.P,PSC, and.Bauer'`s IT) to iriteruiew'and respond to specific questions derived from the wntten proposals'. Proposer C sules IVIV I.Taqspgrtdti6n spo y " ( p g p sessing•, onf the: largest': ' MV Tranrtation is'a na tionwide pubhc.transit:contractin -'fi'nn os e o :including 1 o.0 in aratrarisit MV has. erformed weld m the 10 ears it.lias been the C rnarket.sliares in the i'iidustr over 210 active ublic transit contracts p ) p y ity's fixed route contractor. tracf ` V1!ith IvIV's roots �n.paratransit, and the local MV "General Manager',previous experience providing paratransi't in Sonoma County (Santa Rosa), MV scored far better than'any other proposer: ' First, Transit, is' of a worldwide fray sportation�and`in`frastrueture corporation that has been in the public transit eontractifig; business ,for decades. under various names. First also currently 2 ca tore p s large portion of the North American::transrf marker share:,and has extensive experience providing both fixed-route and paratransit services. Bauer. IT Bauer IT is!a.l'ocal (San.Francisco)it'rar)sportation fi mthathasbui]t`its business providing high - end charter and employer Based; fr: "ansportation , Bauer. IT has: large ontracts with. G oogle, Yahoo, and Cisco, where it• provides,home= to= work „under- eontracFwith these large tech firms. Bauer , p p e vehicles ,but;has, to thisdate; no s ec�alizes in contracts where rt- rovides.'ah experience providing: gene"ralupublic all -day public transit services nor AD'A paratransit. PPSC :. PPSC is the incumbent paratransit' operations provider,and has ;been the only provider for the past 29 : years. PPSC provides many social services m'Petaluma and, _southern Sonoma County; however; Petaluma Paratransit is PPSC's only transportation endeavor, PPSCdoes a good value the City obtains by hav ng the'local .social service. agency provide paratransit contracti overall fob providing ahe Cit s aratransit service. The . advarita e of this,o tion is the. extra ng services: Upon - completion of the interviews, the :firms were re= ranked; as follows; 2. First Transit 4. , PPSC M e'tfie unanimous number one proposer.: Bes't.a V was,.de ermined to b "t'. nd final offers were requested frorn.'MV and PPSC (PPSC, due to th'eii uniqueness sas offering the only ” paratransip only" pro.posal). Attached please fired the introductory letters from both and PPSC, as well as theco'svproposals; for each firm. - Note fed the eritre,proposal from each firm, numbering 103+ and 4 -4+ pages'respectvely, is available for review in the City Clerk's Office, Summary MV was" s'`ranked the #li proposer the.discussi.:on,fo(used on whetherfihe City'should P (>. combine,o eration of both riiodes fixed ,route /main enance .an p d aratransit) or continue fo 0: r" ate.wrth separate contractors. As can be seen in T, able °1, below, 'the cost difference, is significant. icted h Table 3 .,over the. seven totahcofitract years (base 5, plus -2 option . yearn) the City "'would,save , -1 4M`by comb ining,both.triodes antler a smgle'contract The . Selection Committee discussed the impacts to" current- PPSC:e nployees; which could be also frxed,route .mla combpn d - ton mana mentsand dis a t ch ers these positions" P manag p Hers would be; . .. .g p , combined and. cross trained, -e1 ating some positions: If ' Council awards one contract for both services,,PPSC dnyerswould',be guaranteed an ,offer of employment, The, MV proposal pledges that no PP Anvers wrll..receive lower wages'"8: part of the transition; some may receive .;a,sli ht wa e 6 all will `be offered tfi'e same beneft package- currently offered g g „. to the fixed route '(union) employees. 3 Table Comparison Y.10.1 �at) Onl Y y quires proposers The RVP requires that all ppagosers co . mply wifli-the City's Living Wage. Ordinance (LWO). The. RF,-P", re ific lud ' in c ers existingjiQ�inrnanageriAl employees from worsening. .. i - g- i nwagesan,rodu tions & efl.. of employment conditions , ts, as,required. by federal. law �w for transit systems ported with federal funds.. iii.fon.n'kioii by.�p on the benefit p ,ackage.thatwouildbe provided On e iternto note .i§:, that Ithe , fi.xed route employees are � currently unionized (Arnat ama t e..a,Tyans rtationb&on 1575' L ATt w hile the PPSC paratratisit em ployee& a re, hoi. Should the workforce . :combined under a sirip-le contractor, it Is. possibldi,that the paratiah9it employees will joih� e union and bar ain wit the other ATU �g members. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Simi I lavto,transit.agpnciesI na ff . 0 nwide, Ppialurha,Ttaiigii h'a5�:g'66hi annual revenues decline dramaticallyin recen ye Ent i:FY 10:4 1 - ma - 'TiansIt.raised fares and reduced t ea Ent T, Peta' 00 0.06;s ng service 4b a�d4re' ss.a -$2 h6ftffll-,; Reserves were reduced to levels that basically provide the local'-match, needed: (bus teolaceffients). Prior to! the.,eA of P matiotis cap ital establish ,�, d c ital h4dgets, Petaluma Transit first pa the top" fun ding to r egion a l an � tt.an8i't � ,ai � en cies, S , ,on County Tjr4A and Golden Gate Transit, who a. I , l ibri- provide':. nter6ty public .,transit .ztoPdtAlii,.Ma,. as well a!s., City .&VOlie fees, In FY 10/4 1, Golden Gate Transit received'*$ 54--K944 ? Sonoma COurity- ft-., received , &.4 90, [9.2, and'City overhead fees came with oil L-(624-1 , %) of its original transit operations funding ndi ng -, to operate local transit services, The'operation§-:contrkts are ihelbi gesi to P'taIuma, a Transit' budget, t s annual bud , and will be , the "pp inant - ee - d t' e of 'its- ability ents,su6.asth 0 se teqdestedb ,rm tyto.rn b y PetalutT4 Transif�fiders the 20 surv on Table 2 identities several improvements: -re ues' ...... �, by� riders and 1supported; by" staff, , olpqg annual cost estimates for 'each item. Recent , years : have seen a of rapid-change to Petaluma. Transit. Fixed�rptjte.:o popg n ti � rapons ded. have been imp ,- ��.mar, eung.enhdnccd P I and ridershi , �hqs:res FY -11 fr 201.0-204 I fixe'd'.toui nd'e,rsh-t'p : through ' I February 20 was 128,988 , up over 2.0% Er .: 2009 20: Riders commun icated with .the City, Viaaa ihorough,hi!4'ingilal, on-board: ridership survey &onductddjri,, to. express their satisfaction: with' the service, but also their desire for impro'v t such as: rd N F Y ro, ec- ed PrOJUM t,_ R 75- A MV MV + PPSC 'Fixed R6 oute 2 Wffll M6 — 9, M $631 Paratransit jffV.N- Z5§1 $460A55 Both Woes* E$ It F,08CO -5 9�J8,1 55 $1,092 38 4' o 24 der-) current y N m ruri later iri °the ev.ehings (3',8:8 %0) m increase frequencyof buses.(31 ':3 %) • proyide:Suiiday service (14 %). • 'iin pro :ve `Saturday service (8 6 %): Staff :has- prepared cost estimates for proudmgrsolutions to the Petaluma Transit service defieier cies identified by the ridership. Table 2 depict& . o the cost savings associated with combined services under a:single,.contract coufd be spent to in .prove'service for Retaluma Transit .riders. j F' Table 2 'Aniiva'1 Cost Estimates_for Providing. Various ]) sired : Service Improvements Uses of Savin s from Combinin Services Sunday Service Fixed Route: $44,026 rSunday Service P.aratrarisit $1 1 One- Additional Weekday H - Fixed'. $3,5.;826 i iSecond Additional; Weekday Hour Fixed $35,826 Fuel. ;Cost Contingency $20,000 ADA ;Eligibility Functional Testing $2.1,600 Total Use of Saying $168,972. Total Annual Savn -s` $174,229 Table 3 Comparison of Confracfo'r Cos "ts - 7- Year Tofak -:5 INge Years plus 2..Optiion Years Recommendatoon Optori;l The Selection..Corrirriittee :interview process -led to , a.consens s that y of °the final,. four f rr - s that were interviewed.could adequately forlthe, City (three.combined bids, and PP,SC fore paratransrt only) Howeuer,;MU Transportation, .the incumbent contractor f Vfixed route, was the clear'top bidder The'S.election':Coinmttee also deterrnined;that the two separate modes' should be. winbined'uinder- pne operating_ contract; saving the CitV to $.lAM over the seven years oflhis contract The Selection, Committee and Transit Advisory Committee .(TAC) recornmend.that Council. award: a single contract to MV `T,ransp on for both fixed route and parafrarisit. 5 l� ^ ^ . . ` ` - if i� - ' .- " exhibits ' - ' . , ` ^ / - ~ of �^ - . ` ' ^ concerns; ` ^ ` �=~o- "°°^a^ .1 ppogfamis, The s*v`6 , ' ° ,5 / ,^,,^,,^, .~,_.,�^`�^`' . ' _ r ` , _ `` _- ^~_ ^ ncyi to pow ty age P with.:e some. training '^ ~ hi Y ryl ~~~^°&,`~~ `ell%~,~~~^~~~~^`�`"�:-,°~-=,'---`�rr=��-=�=,�,_ g � ATTACHMENTS ^ Resolution, ' 2� ' ` _- � ~ - 3. , 4` ' 7�6k: -_ ~ ^ � , . ' 1, ev 4P.& - rate/ A"TTpCWMIt T 1 RES ®L><JTION AWARDING A C; ®NT'RACT O >IVIV TRANSPORTA'ThON. FOR'THE` OPERATIONS. AND MAINTENANCE !OE PE`I'ALU-TA, TRANSIT AN'b..,PETALUMA PARA gt$ERV)<CES: WHEREAS, the of Petaluma contracts:: " operations'and „maintenance of its public transporta't'ion services :and periodically conducts ,a. corn "t five- Regtiest for Proposal (RFP) .process for ,these services; and WHEREAS, 'in ai icipation of`the expiration of thel current contracts ;for fixed -route and. f paratransit=:serv'ices onJUde '30,101.11 an.adhoc Selection`C0 imittee-w.as.formed to:assistCity staff m evaluating responses to thel RFP,.an , making a recommendation for contract, award; and WHEREAS, the`Selection Committee met twice to establish scoring ..f pr and .to interview the finalist proposers; and; WIIEREAS,. six proposals were received and evaluated;, and four proposers were interviewed, including the two incumbent. contractors, MV Transportation and' Petaluma .Peoples Services Center ,:and WHEREAS, tlie'Selection., ommrtt& unanimously recommends tha't':tl e; Gity Council combine fixed route; &.maintenance with paratranstt,operati`ons under a!sngle contractor to achieve economres:of.scale and ;to freeup tra nstt fuinding . be applied to: service shortfalls such as those identified In recent nd Or, 'outre'ach, and `WHEREAS, the .Selection Committee and staff urianirnously recommend the CityGouncil. award the!five;year coritr. .act „with two additional one y ear options to .MV Transportation, Inc, . based on Selection: C.oinrnittee and., staff'reuiew of theirxesponsive• proposal. NOW , I)FIEREF:ORE, MIT ;RESOILVED.by the C�ty.Councl -of the Cty'of`Petaluma;fhat; y awards a contract for,the operation: and' maintenance of'Petalurii Transit and the,0t C.o Petaluma:- Paratran`srt S.ervices.,fo MV Transportation, Inc. cbnsi'stent with the;re'sponsive proposal submitted ;,by MV'Transportaton, Inc; and`ariy agreed modifications tl'ereto (collectively, "Proposal ")and authorizes an d`,directs City Manager to execute the- City'sstandard. professional service agreement with,MV Transportapon, :Inc , corrditi ed on,1VIV Trarisportat Inc timely executing ;the eontract:and. submitting: all required documents, including but hot'l mited to, certificates of insurance and endorsements;. in accordance with the RFP;: 7 :. A .. .. //., ®®�gy�pp/w- �__M. {_�,�pp..��p.a 2: Sia (fiaesimiL) I I7 , 6 3 IVY l'rorith p -1-2nl :..--- ..,_.__�_ _ _:�EeUruarj:- •2:1 =,- 2p,11, = =� =- Joseph.Rye; Transu;Div�sioia Ibhiager: - . ................. ...... Ci ' Cler-Os! Office -: City`ofI?etaluma 1'1'Ei�glislr'Street Pet"d ma, ;CA., 94952"• Dear: Aln. Rye: 14fU Tra .sportlnon „Inc ani3 al] subsidiaries, ]oint v.tnturesi,plztnerslvps affiliates (or: "MV is'd "elighted to" subirut its proposa in response ;to; the City of ;Petalumns Request for Proposals for hd Petaluma T aiisit Operations `.and Apdhteriiince Contract. It is MV Transportation's trusston o be "Thc Slagdafid of Ftcelleuce'in the . provision of pu ransportanori�serv�cesi `Tliis"misston >s:3chieved eery d'ay "in mere than 1.50aocanons across North Aipenca, lus as tt> in.Petaluina, a be`fcir be ih' cry ces shoiild,the'b(v choose iVN. My has partnered , 1, "years ml the successful deli�yc- of il}e Petaluma Transit ser -6ces. The compare} s local m tnager Ms. Da-.vne T:yory, West President, MI .John Sicagusa and Regional Vice President;. ly1; Bell Lewis have worl.eii'ttvith .Cit} staff to meet changes in ser�acerrequirements, and to ensure that: p�ssenges continue.to' e�perteiice asearnless „safe and; +on aime.sernp`ce. The comp�ny,"has also demonstrated its, cornmifineiit to; he comniurutj :and to the City " "as "Euitlaer discussed ;throughout -its, propgszl, Th [he contract term, NIV,h- pro iided Pe'talum.i Transit p issengets.lvith asen7ce that is not only clean 11 and- presentiUle;:biit safe. t s accident frequency:tate Eor'the, fi�edroute set�nces is 0 52 acudedts:Per 100,000 mires wlveh eseeeds industry�'acceptabl "e averlges..And though YIV °avo>ked jvidi "City. staff : tozreduee services'by 16 Rpercent'in 2010; Ivor} and her team; recel' d:less than one � and comp] uric per month MV!ts excited to partner witli the City once +agnin rend loot s;fonvard. o providing hoih,Petaluml Transit znd Paratranstt seivices.. lYfV's proposal tndudes discussions on: neW technofog} and'staffirig approaches that vxrffl - prove service tl rough, 'i sffeamhaed "approach that•increases,;efficiency, and; reduce: costs I ltii your contact for this procurement and I 1m authonzed'tg make representations for-TvlV 'Transportation, Inc.,, to [�iiclude 'all its subsidiaries, lomt +ventures partnerslups and !affibntes (the bidding entity). If awarded the con ract,ahe C6ritrac6hgParty wiU,' :be.AfV Transportataon, Inc Please accept this,,letter as, acl:nowledgeaieni oE, receipt of.'.Addendu_rn 1 (IeUniary'2, 201`1)' and' Addendum .2 (]Februaiy`8' 201'1); Mnd,Addendum =3 (Febriiar} 17;:201]), This letter; also' " eti3ares. ; that ItiN srprogosdis valid:'for q•minimurri "oE 120 days foB__0i the close.date of the Cit} .s,RF.P Than> you, "for youf consid'eranori of NEV Transportsitian L encourage, yqu. to select, &fV Transportation as your . par_'pei Eor' the pro nsFOn of'the Petaluma ° Transit `1!U,e' look" forward to wort in with City tiff tliroughour taus prociireirierit;• Sineerelg P. ihl, Seiuor Vice President'. M, M PPSC F_kecut ve Summary AfPetaluma People "Services Center (PPSC) our goal is to "'reduce poverty, physical _and mental abuse, :chemical dependence, violence, zgnor:ance, mental illness, among children, adults, farailres and seniors. PPSC is-much more than a collection of.34 human services programs based oil best, practices research and measurable outcomes. We area community of careM,vers exzstrng within the larger coinrnurut. whose sole purpose is to Help m e eo e s ves better.' p . p es o a trus one.- cnua,- -one aciun a.na one seruor,at a ume: iv, , Last year we served,over T004people through our programs. "Tire hands-on, face-to-face support'`that individuals recervetfrozi PPSC'is wrde:rang , ,counseling -job placement, violenceprevention daily li , of.meals, rides to the doctor, case,management,- financial assistance for Homeless prevention, and.infor ti maonand referral. PPSC.has five siomficant`coreservice areas: ' y : e Managemer t „N:utrit on Site - Sexaxor, S.ervxaes -Meals On Wheels,.Adult Da Care, Cas Senior ,Cafe Hbuteless, and ]Fair Housing - Rental Assistance. and Tenant /Landlord Education and Mediation E nployznent & Training . ,Adult.and Youth Counseling - Individual, Couples & Family, Drug & Alcohol Prevention, Violence Prevention .. Petaluma Paratrarisit Dooi thru -Door for .eligible.seruors 'and Physically :-and `mentally elallenged individuals who cannot use'fixed route. The Boazd o€ Directors andSernor Management of PPSC are dedicated to its n-dssion of provrdu g coordin .aced paratransi - and' community servzces,that. meet the special needs of the people we�are entrusted to serve: Ul lsyeal, 01 ,maxks our:29 ' year of providing contnun ty based paratra s' it to the seniors and mobility challenged of Petaluma. When city Ieaders came to.PPSCto provide, the paratransit services we saw an opportunity to experience a new community one driven by an array of services to older adults not resb4ae'd.to uid vidual programs ai d,mandates but,raEher a continuum' of care, of which `rriobzhty rs a vital element: Historically the , and PPSC'.have worked in -Concert to 1. address ,the needs and requests of the citizens and we look. forward Io continuing our partnership m the future Our work is focused on social interaction to.ensure we.lo6k after, all our airier possible P pants 'need`s as effechveh y as ossible: We keep track of each person and our - tra,med d r ivot know' <they an help identify individual&needs and changes 'asthey occur: Twenty rune years ago PPSC, along with the` leaders of Petaluma, became increasingly aware that lack of transportationwas an obstacle to achieving a better quality of life: As previously stated in':the cover letter our customers; whether they know us'- ahe fiiendly voice who luma People 5ervites Cent er - of Care for Petaluma ct,� sc h edu le s t-h�irAD7A'transt)oftatiqi�,,:oi�,tho,&iVer!'W!i'lh--'-t--tai-ry,,fi-ve bags n 0 r six,grocery .9 onto th6lr l atcess`ibl , e transit bus; 'or ;the disehaxgoplanner at the hospital who knows that the Patienbwill- be escorted safely home of'the employer who knows that their disabled - arrive , 'On tune to work, . r th � tl-jey 4waysAepend on us to be tiin t ernployee. the carmg,,cour I teou8 safe, ,:Pro.,f,e.,ssi.o.n.a, promp't. or.oirunitinent', lies with otj 16vees. Alert and caring we. W* the, key to rn 6e0bg emp drivers;, who Act. as additional eyes.and,earslor our Senior Case Wngers, are an integral part of the matrix : Community ' - d--f ItJsA con m to Se�ryipes we provi . e or our " ar teamwork and,intOgri 'b y pq '�stciff that sopport s the ' inclusion 0 f P Atr ahs it as a ty ' r component 6f'PPSCSerLior'S.ei ,vi,.ces. ery - . employees are the magic that ,havema e our Darat:ransit:s services successful. Each PPSC . t6mak6adlff 'e ;.in lner b le-person' s life. Every king ayis.anotherpp er-,nc-e avil, wor , portu m- 'liv6s.6f: staff me fnbet is given .the .tools to positively affect the each client they serve. FioPhe "ftont line"drivers- tb-, the , .agency managers P-P-8C'sgPaI is to,,address conununity an j e ap and atransit needs: by �oordinating�our e brig'servi d d velo.ping greater c acity growing n of ' ur q uality customer service taihOet. the ! -pp&, The .,6 ons is,q� - .- , . .- .. --, , , ormance&!an .. isc cb inbir�6d with . (�xcejjdbhaf,syst rf df fis accountability. Our trari:§portatiofi service's:,arh2 W.611',ihfograted with the organi��atiqn�s �btoader mission. PPSCParatransit Vision S Peta'lunld Peop S ifei!s P n T 71 si ttedto�beiiiathemodelfoi el-VICes-Cen viom rdy P d, dedication, staff will ill ansp z nun! �se !6 wipi1 rmegi;i y an ortgobn,and cmi i j p. - vafi e impor 0 th ty-of-lifie9f our clients. continue - t6nifik butions to Idi clients " ding thein. with a means of fions to the � quality of :life of our ch' is a bout OVII avoiding isolation acid having access to the 'g even after: they have lost their. y TO dfive% . " Life K i i : f'rides 1 to PPSC programs, to �;% - j - h apqmg p -ardtrahs t - s ab ou t Fetaltiiha SeruOr, Center, :;orAO dliair appointment:. "Lif e 8-u g" Paiatr-ansit is medical . st appoiji alld'4 rtant1ood shopping-., ' PO , effects of their de quality ;Pare ft-Oin trips isjhe'kihd of specialized IM nte'r T2 Peialuma Pe6 leSer�vice C�e- �F�roi�tdln�ga and knowing Eerxng in for Petaluma v`� In summary ;. it t. isimpOtt"ant to evaluate the, value:ofthe Par thatPPSC provides and not simply the cost. -riene -pr-,ov-idins-P4-r-a.tT-ansit-,ger-v-it-(E�s e"I integr4tedservices for-many of, the> iidet-s i on para-tral M-it, . . . ............ . . . . I • the safetV-net for comin and, varatran-role - role as an entrance, to that net, • caring, courteous, safe, pidessionaVand -prompt services on of the . city* of Petaluma, • exceeding All..expbztdtioris:f6r, service delivery. placed,onjt by-management, • the fleAbility to adjust as service Aelivery demands change, • WHlinL7 h*avedh: the pqst th th fixed route provider, wpar, �,er Uith, e • our er6r.e . staff, , ffichidiog management, all live locall • a,501 C30on-profit.'thatis-held to very stringent and audit standards, having . proven�exp ifianaginglarggleder ,s,,ta te"and city contracts, • hav* eh I • dulturally competent tiain r to'. lU our staff, • continue to ewlve our . services and programs to addiessIhO changing needs of our passengers. TIie Cali . fornia State Legislature . .passed the Social Se "ice linprov.ement.Act fii 1979, for a framew,6ik alread Paratrw-is*% th Y d pt LIS I 'the creation of a Consolidated - ervice . s;� g on Tjranspbitatibn�S A ow- n allowed human y �(C.T in each county t, Th'e: le gislati on y service transportation tobo.Tcooi7d!nated.by:agt�i-icios like PPSQallowing for efficiency d mi" be tter services. � .. provid b . tt ices. . n umnw, n transportation ensures that -those :e. F residents Our modeLgiven the waywe have integratedparatransitinto the. continuum Or care, is:t.he best model for our Petguana community., unify., 01a enter - I tinuu1n for Petaluma i�TTAC — `H AEWT* 3 PRO ' POSAL FORM 1.1 BUDGET PROPOSAL OPERATIONS AND:MA'INTENANCE Both'Modes -Fixed Route.and Paratransit Instructions to. Proposers: This Form 1..1'is used to °submitth'e budgetproposed :forall Work described in this RFP. The proposed ;budget °rnust,consist'of fixed hourly costs by ,mode of 'service, and fixed monthly p osts —R oPoser�sheuld=- Gemplete_ one_ for4n-f.er= easl�ser -mises=pFOposed -4:i�f+xed- route --and mainteriance, paratransit operations, all services). �tz M Option ,ears Fiscal Ye. ar' (FY12 means FY 11- 12,.JulypOl1 thru June' 2012. I :. FY12 FYI FY 14. FYI-5 FY16 . FY1.7 FY18 ;Variable Cost "Per Hours Fixed Route 5 22:91 $; 22 :96" : $ .22:82 $ 2.3.62- $ 24.28_- $ 24:40 $ 24:50 Dial A Rld6 $ 20 :90 :( S. 2•.136 , 4_;.. ;22:25 ::$.. _,. -,22 534 .;$. -..._ ,23 ?'08' $, 23:60' $ 23'.93 Monthly ,Fined Fee 30 ,674: $_ : 30;670 $ 31 742 $ 32;528' $ 33;232 $ 35,002 $' 35,414 Monthly Liability Insurance (General &. $ 4;.123 $ 4,1:56 `$ 4,276 $ 4;357 $ 4,440 $ 4,526 S 4,6.13 Total Annual - Costs, �, 916,155: _$. 923,435 $ 944;319 $ 967,992. "$' '991,;285 $' 1;02o,016 $ '1,030,606 of M onth$ _ _. : _ i2; . 12 12 12 12 12 12 Of FIXed' „R0Ver1Ue H ourB 13 300'. 13 13;300 13,300 13:300, 13,300' 13,300 . , #, of'Para;IRevenWa HoUes 9 9;375 9 .:. 9,375_ 9 9,375 9,375 Elements of Casf%Hour O orator V1/a es' $.. 17:34 . $ 17.47 $ . - 176651 $ 18.08. $ 18.47 $ 1 S.64' . $ 18.75 O efat0.r Benefl1S $__ 4.Z3`: '$. 4:82 11. 4:93 $. -._ . 5.09 5:32. '$ 5.42 $ 5.52 Other Operating Costs (specify,): Subtotal $ .22.08 $:. 2229 $ 22:58_. $: -23.17 $ 23:28 S 24.07 $ 24.27 !Month!' .Costs. Elements. Mann er Sala; $ 31852' 3 $ 4 $' 4 S 4,272 5 4,358 $ 4,445 Project Manager Benefits $ 848: $ 864 1 912 $ 943 $ 968 $ 1,009 $ 1,043 Salary Benefits 'Sala” Benefits Dispatches %Reservatlonist Salary $ 3;877" $ 3,974 $, 4;093 $ 4 $ 4,30:1: $ 4;387 S 4,474 Dl s patch er % Benefits . _ _ $ 630" $ 654, '$ 690, $ " . _ 720 _ _':$.. , M, _ $ 806' $ 838 �tz M PROPOSAL FORM 1.1 'Base Y6bks, Optidn"Years Fiscal Yea�!(FYIZmeans FY 1 1-1.2, July: 201 l'thru June FY12 FYI 3 FYI 4* FYI5 ; FY1 6 FY1 7 FY1 8 Riaad Sala' .y 2 $ 2,848 2;666, i 2,756 $ 2,825. $ 2, 2689 Road Supery B6neft - - $ - '475 .512 .$ -532: S 524 Mechanic Salary t 5'.057 IS 5,471 5;610. S 5,722 5A36 A40chahlb,96fterits. $ 71 1 1 S 796 $ 868 904 S '931 960 ' Utility W6rk - r Sala ..p 1 2..155 2-,20.9, $ 2°,275 2,332 2,3 90 $ . 2,438, $ 2 Util . ity. Worker.Ben0i I ts - s 3.68: $ .382 A . 02. 41'9, 449 466 484 ADA !91 Ntertninatibn Costs NqnNehiclb:.:lnsurance Office-Expenses $ 420. 434. $ i "V. 46Q '475. $ $ 516 Uniform Ekpen eases 113 123 $ 12-7. .31, I ml $ _144- 1 149 Training Expenses 91,51, :$ 916 $ 943 .971.- $ 997 $ 1,050 1 1.075 Incentives/Li'quidated' Damages, Letter of Credit Other Exponses sl*cify):'.- 1. Licenses,& Fees 42 S A3 45 A6 $ 1.01 $ , 104 2. Bus R . ass es $ 990• S 990 S 1-j020 . 05111$ tom', $, 1, $ . 2.01 . 5 3. Capital $ 202,, 250. 5. .268 :5I 24,5. 78 $ 78 7B 4. Interest-'Expense $- 465 :$ 460. S 450. 440 435 $ 417 $ 395 5., Start,Uo.. $ - 590 Contract Merh $ . _4 07: $ 4,219 $ 4.330 $ 4, $ 4 $ 4.675 4.724 Profit $ :918' 2,362—t� 2,4j6 .'$ ..2-46 S 2,550 $ 2.577 Subtotal PerMonth $ 30674 30!610 1 Ij 2 5_ 4 $. 32,528. 33;232 S 35,002.1:$ 35,414 ii PROPOSAL FORK 1.2 i PROPOSER'S PROPOSED STAFFING LEVELS- OPERATIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE Both Modes - Fixed 'Route and'Paratransit !I: FY 11111 ` FY 'i;243 FY 1'3114 FY 14115 FY 15116 FY 1;6117.; FY.17-1 -18 # Wage; Scale # Wage Scale' # W. ' Scale # Wage Scale #' . Wage Scale # Wage Scale. # Vllage Scale. Project Manager- 1 $: 22.22 _1, $ 22.7 9 $ 23.46 1 $ 24;0$ 1 $ 24:fi5 1: $ 25 1 .. $ 25:64. Transp ortation man'ag er Road Supervisor 9 $' 16.03 ` 1 $ 16.4.3 . -. 1 $. .15:51 1 $ 15.90' .1' $ . 16:30 1' $ 16 1 $ 15'51 Fixed Route:,Di's atcher 1!5 $ 74.27 7:5 $ 14:63 1.5 $ 15.07 1'.5: -$ 95:44 1 $ 15.83 1 5' 16ii1.4 1 5 Paratransit Dis atcher /Reseruationist it l offce `er Mechanic •.. ,. _,. 1 $ 2T.92 1 $ 28.62 1 �.$ ._ 29.48 1 t $ _ 30.97 1: rs 3159 1 $ 32:22:. Bus Operators F.uelerllNasher Utility Worker 14Ea7 . 0:8 $:. 1 0.8 , $ 15.70 _0.8 . $ 16.09 0.8 _._. .. $ 16.49 , 0:8 ' $ 1fil82 0:8 ;$ 1;7.16; Full Time Vehicle Operators all modes). 9 $ 16A5 9 $. 16.27 91 $, 1:6:44 9 $ ._ 16;84. 9 $ .. 17.20 9 .. $` 1737 $ $ . 17:47 Part Time Vehicle Operators; all modes T ,$_ 1.6:1.5 7 $ 16:27 ,, ::7 $; 1644 , .7: :;$ -.16 84 .. '7 $• 17:2i) T $ 17;I37, 7 . Extra Board Qperators ,(all II: On Calk 0 _,erators Trairiin Wag es Probationa ", `; Wages, 1�• � Other Staff (specify. title ,and, function 2 � 3. �I Personnel Located Off= Site . �I Total Staffing 1243 ' 21:3. 21:3 ._ _121.11 X21.:3 21.3 11 121.3 PROPOSAL !FORMA 1.3 MV A Gt KRATOR.— � - DET AIL .,W : M jikltdr n �dvidjh I required pination arer.,idd lb toble) Aautdland'Piratransdt ' W e Scale., b y:. enl&& y_ Senitiri y.� FY-1 : FY13 FY-14.• FY 10 1 10--OU, " 1;0 00, 7119,0011$, 10 14;85 15.14. $ 1*61.45 !$ :15 1.6.07 4-14, 14 -.76: -�$�1:6 . Y 1,5.14,:$. 14,63'. $: ; 1'4. 92 ��$ T&521'$`- 15.76 1-$ 16. T ZY64i!s , 4 S;I- $: 1,5.41 1 �l 4 $ _f&29 $ A 5'60" 15:8 16'07 1,5 575 , l . 1 5�91 1 15 6. 4 Yd,Ars 1 6.20 " ' 4� 1616 16'. 16.07 '1 LJ5.75: 15,99, $ 6523' 1 5 Y r� 18 .$.5 15 '52" 1 �157, JEST �$., -39,'- 0. 16.07 $. 1.6131 �S 17,'00 45.8G14" V 07 ., -.'1,7.' 1-17AI , 16.72 1' 16.39 T s ' 1� ITIAf -1136� $ I � 3, -, .17 $ 17 05 8:Ye rs: T7,7 88 ATM 1 $ .1.7 i65, :$ • 1.7. :$ .17.93': $ 1.7.70, �9 Y66hs 18 32 7 $ 16. 24 1 18 $ 18A& 119.24' 1.8 :29' : 10 Yd*s $ 1& $ 1816 1 8:54 1 8`66' • Additlohal,w cle information:. Above' j ,.Routq wn o sbaje� _.VVjth ` thO ;size 6fthe: Pbra&6hsitwf� have , triade the following S*e Rlx� - assu of th, a Avera d river yj t 3 Ye ar 15.677 F4;. Year 5: Benefits Typ Medical, Dental VW6n.,. Lifefnsuranca a B e Vehi a , EOfleave Raid, TO; dZff Paid Si6k'Ldave 'Other tv PROPOSAL FORM 1.1 9�tv BUDGET,PROP.OSAL. OPERATIONS ARID MAINTENANCE FUddi Raut'6 Plu.$ Malntb0noe. Instructions to Proposers; This Form,1 1 is'.used fo submit the;b idgetproposed forall w&k,described in this RFP Thb;.proposed budget must consist of,fi_xed hourly costs, by, rnode_of service, and'fixed' monthly p p s proposed. (re= frd�iitit�atdlitnance;' - -_ --- eosts'P o users- should oitt bete oneform ach= service " " PROPOSAL FORM 1.1 KA'/ v Base<Years _. Qptioil Years Fiscal; Year FY12 means FY ( 11 -12, July 201,1 thru JUne 2012 FY12 FYI � FY14 FY15: FY16. FY17 FY18 Road Su" ervisor Sala .. $ 2,699 $` . 2,762 $ 2,612- $ .... 2,5.7 $ ' ^ 2,744.::$ _ 2,813 $ ...., 2;897 Road S:u e $ ., :. 426 5r 451 $ :: 442,.;$, 462 $ 490< •$ 511. 5.........534 IUI2ChanIC S21a;.'r $ 4,912 $. 5,035 $. 5,186 "S 5,3:16 `$ ,. 5,448 $: 5 S 5,752• Mecltahic QendtitS S 743. '$;_ 74 $ 803' '$, :830 ,$, 866 $ 896 $ 931 Utility V1/orkerSafary $ 2 093. '$ _ 2 $ '2,21 . O. i`$_.:::. 2 :265 $ 2;321 $ 2,380 $ 2,451 U.till • `V . _ $ 355 ;$ 374. S 390 %$. 407 $ 430 $ 4.48 $ 468 A DA Eligibility'' Determination! costs _ Non- Vehiclednsurance _ . - - • . Office Expense's'' 296 $ :. _ 305- $ 315 4 . $ 326 .$; 335 $, 345. $ 355 Unifor E X en! es $. 06 `. 89 $ 92 $ .95• $ 98' '$ 101 $ 104 Training Expenses $ 505, ,.$ 521 :$ _ .533:: $ 552' $ 569' !$ 644 $ 660 Incentives /Liquidated Damages Letter of Credit! Other Ex enses , s eci _ 1:. Licen§eS &`: $ 28; n. - -29: 'S' 31 _ $ 32 .$ 33,. ,$ 66 $ 6& 2_ Bus, PasSe,s: $ _ ... .990 :$ 01 1 n $ 1 „051 $ 1,083 $` _ 1,115: S 1. #48' $ 1,1.82 3. ca Ifal $ 130 ?$' 1.78; $` 196” ;$ 1,7,9° !$ 78 TS 78 $° 78 4., lntereSt EX i?hse $' 322 1. 320 $ 314 .$ 308: $ 305 $ 290 $ 276 5. Start Up- Contract Overhead $ 2 $ 2,953, '$. 2,969., .3,051_ .�': .. . 3,1342;$ 3,184 $ 3,236 Profit 1,619, ::$ 1;668.: $.. - 1 $ 1.1737..$... -_ ..1,,765. SUbtOtal. Per.�ViOntll ', $ 24',110 $:. 24 892 $ 25,283" $ 25j950. $ 26,55911; :$ 27;2.79..;$ 28,036 PROPOSAL FORM - 1.2, - • PROPOSER'S PROPOSED STAFFING LEVELS - OPERATIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE Fixed Route Plus Maintenance i FY 1174;2 - FY 12/9,3 „.. FY'13/14 FY`UMS' - •' FY 1'61.1'6: - FY 1-OM ' FY 1;7118: Wage Scale- # Wage ` Scale # Wage Scale # Wage Scale # Wage Scale: # 1Nage Scale # Wage Scale; ' Project Maria er 1 22.22 1 $ 22.78 1 $ 23.46 -1 $ 24.05 1 .. $ 24.-55 r Trans ortationMana er Road ;Su ervisor 1 $._ 15:57 1' $ 15:96 _1 $ 15 1. $ 15.45 1 $ 15.83'' Fixed: Route Ds` atcher 0:5 3 14:27 : 0:5 .$ 1.4 ;63 0.5 $ 15.07 0:5. $ 15.44. 0.5. $ .15:83: j Paratransit Dis "afcherlReservationist Office, Mana er _ Mechanic. 1 $ 27.92 1 $ 28;62 1 5 _ 29 48 1 $ 30.21 1 $ 30.9.7 II Bus . Operators i FuelerlWasher Willty Worker 0.8` $ 14.87 0.8 $ 15.24 0:8' 1 15.70..0.8 $ 16.09. 0.8 $' 16.49 I Full Time Vehicle Operators: all modes 5 1.$ 17.06 5 $ 17.12 5 . $ 16.97 5 $ 17.53 5 $'_ 17.95 j I. Part Time Vehicle Operators all modes 4 $ 17.06;. 4 $ 17.12 4 $ 16.97 4 $ 17.53 4 $ 17.95. j ' I Extra ,Board Operators (all' modes - On= Call':O - Trainin :1Na es, Probationa Wages Other Staff`( - ecify and function Please see proposal 2 3. ;! Personnel Located Off -Site Totai Staffing 1113fl 113.31 115A 113.31 113.Zl 10.0 1 0.0 PROPOSAL FORM 1.3 mv OPERATOR -WAGE and :BENEFIT DETAIL - . (Alternate Forma . f6f'o ... i t . n' h Anfrornatiow are:accep ts rovid- qxequirbd Fined _Route PIus:Wlalntenance. I -Ser . i1ofity. I FY12 Medical FY13 ' Dental F-Y-14. I VYIS Lifejhsurance FYIP. FY17 FY18 Tra'inifi g 1 1 Io;QQ 1000 -$ 710 $ 10.00 a Ltart - s 14. 27 � I 143� $ '14..0 $. 15.14 $ 15:45' 6rfttdbths 6 month S - 14—.27� �:'�. Ye y e a I y 15,14', 1 4v�6� ..$: 1,*92 -$ 15. $ 1:5:52 e r' 2 Ye , 2 Yd6m 15.4t 15A4. $, 14-99 ''$ .15.29, :$ 5 1 �Q Q , 3 Yea�t '3 y ea 'i; 75 :$ 15.37- $.. T5.67 4 j Ye 4 Years I $ 1�5:20' 1,615'. $. 1,6.0 1 '5 Year� '1.6.5.7 $ 16.Z51 $ 1 y ,6'Yeies $ 1,7.0.0. 1 1: 6.Bo '$ 16-.85 $ 17.07 1 171-01 Y. ,7 Yedliis 4 M53 ,$ $: 17.14, 17.36, 17-58 8 8 y e ydae�� 1,739 117;8 $ $ 9 y ,9 Yeat S" $! T8 32': ,$' . . 1&24 $ 1 182-2 2 $ 8 'MYears _1-$ 10-59 -. $ i .69 18 1 1 - 1�5.51 $ T8.79 1 18.76 1 Additional wage inf6rmation'. Please see proposal AphPfitsi i e of Benefit: Descri ption: of:Cpntdbution or Cb, rade Medical P1e6:se ' Dental Vision Lifejhsurance ,Holida y Pay .Bereavement Leave Paid Time Off Paid SickLoave Other Additional wage inf6abatipm P;PSC PROPOSAL FORM 1.1 BUDGET PROPOSAL. OP'ERATfONS AND MA'I'NTENANCE- Instructlons:lo Proposers: This °Form 1.1 !is °to be used °io submit the „bud et proposed for all work described intllis RFP. The proposed budget must;consis( of;fixed hourly costs, by mode of service; and fixed monthly costs. Proposers complete one torm for`each service proposed (i.e. fixed route and maintenance, paraf'ransit operations; alt )services)., Base Years Option. Years i =fiscal Year (FY 12 means °F.Y ' 11 -12, July 2011 thru June 2012) . FY 12., FY 1 FY 14 FY 1:5 FY • 16 FY 17 FY 18 Variable Qmfi er Hour Fixed Route Dial A Ride ; $22 44 $23.18 623:87 $24:431 X25,07 $25.68 $26.33 1VlOnthl 'Fixed: Fee 1.4;631 $19163 $19,732 - : $20,234 $20,747 $21,;327 Monthly Liability'lnsurance= General $189' : $1J4 $200• $206 $$21.3 $2:f9 $225 Monthly'liability Insurance- Auto $2,575. S2;652 $2,732 $2;814 $2;89.8 $2 $3,075 Total Annual Cost = 'per 9 , Hours $460 455 $475,109 5488 92t $502 $55;17 1 $528 $542;368 'Elements of Cost,%Hour Operator Wag 5;15,95 516:33 $16_,'.64 - $1.6.9.1 $:1723 $17.51 $17.81' OperatorB.eneflts......._ 6.19; 6=:85 7,23 7.52 _ 7.84 8.:17 8.52 Other. Operating Costs: (specify); . Subtotal 822 9:4 $23:.18 $23:87 $24,93 $25:07 $25.68 $26.33 Monthly Cost' -Elements -, Manager Sala; _ '53;761 $3 ;836 33,912 ; 53;991: �;4p71' , $4, 152 $123 5 Manager Benefits L;043 1,,115 „ _. 1,,195 1.;258 1;325 1 397. 1,473 Salary: ___ __. _ . -- - - -.. .._.: -• - - - - - -- -- Benefits Dispatcher. SdIary 1,733 1:,768 1,803' 1,872 1 1 2,011 Dis atcher Benefits _ 466' 520 557 590 . 62 : ' 654 693 Scheduler'5ala; 1,;885 1 1,983 2,048 2,080 2 2;145 Scheduler Benefits 236 24.7 254 264 271, 278 286 i PETALUMATRANSIT Issued Januaryl0, 201 1 revised March 25, 2011 Page 179 of 183 i i I p PSC Base Years Option Years Fiscal. Year (FY 12 rheans:FY 11 -12, July 2011 thru June 2012) FY 12 FY 13: FY `74 FY 1'5. FY 16 FYI 7 FY 18 Road- uloervisor -Sala - 1 36 —` M. 87 , T,4M � _ $ ;4 $11A - 51;475 51.498 Road Su ervtsor.8en e-Li ._ 545 —_ __ . _ 5Z2 . —602 626 65.1 6781-- Mechanic Salary. Mechanic Benefiis Utility Worker;;Sala y, Wility Worker Beneflts AJpA Eligibillty._ . Determtnatlorr;Costs. 108 111 113 11.5 117 120 122 Non - Vehicle :;Ihsurance 42 43 •44' 96 471 48 5 Office:Expenses 884 911. 938 966 .995 1•,025 1;056 Uniform' penses .8.6 88 91 94 97 100 102 Training Expensesi 2.1;4 220 2241 229 234 238 .,.., 244 IncentiveAlquidafed Damages '50 52 53 65, 56 58 60 Letter of 'Credif Other Expenses (specify): 1. Professioilal.:Seniices 266 274 282 291` 299 308 31.8 Contract. OVethead. 5;372 51543 5 704 5 .6;p10 6 .6;328 Profit Subtotal (Per Month) $18;076' $18;637 519'163 $19,732,. $20;234 520;747 $21,327 PETALUMKTRANSIT Issued January 10, 2011, revised March 25, 201'1. Page 1'80'of 183 r cc Lp :C4: .i0 M Ol iA n :j -i E CID in LL W : v. m vy � c a.... o o N m. a o L' .1./ � N �'ID Cl :IA 1�, W ' Q. V � VI V: �-• O C ' a> M ?� U ) Sri' O v CL .r• v 6 C - I n 'n m m � o v :n. o .n w M 12 N. t2 t0 �D O .Q fl - C a a . _ N m 17� O cc Lp :C4: .i0 Ol iA n :j -i E LL o vy � c r7 .1./ � N �'ID Cl :IA 1�, W ' .O � VI V: �-• a> M ?� U ) v CL .r• v 6 � o N. t0 �D O C a a _ LO CL U i r .ri : c� cn L �t a,• m' O ro a E m ' rm N Q N r U d. L ' M13 CL a to m ..CR 'n O . m p In O r r m '� w >` C EL C I' �� 2. m m ro �Uj 0O G m m a E a ,�.. r E =. L° U c - ";. °, '� m' E rn°1 � 2 k ¢ ._ 'ie- '. 'a :. m: .m. ... a - ' �m a, LL..;LLS a.'° w , z 1 PROPOSAL FORM 1.3 OPERA FOR WA GE, And BENEFIT bETAiL - PRSC '(Alternate Forma rs for. Providingahe required inforMalion are acceptable) Wkie Scale °bv'Sen 'ority Seniority FY 12 •,FY',13 FY 19; FY 15 FY 16 FY i7 :FY 18 ., . Contract Year Year. -1 :. Year2' ; Year 3: 'Year;4, . .. Year;5 _. 'Year 6 _. Year 7 Training ._ 810:00 5.10.20• Empioyerfull conlribullon`tor ern to ees >iuith FTE,0.5,8hd.ab6ye Other ".' .Employee.Assistance,;Prograrri Employer full contribution foremployees'witti FTE'0.5 arid,above Start $12r46 $.12:50 X12,75. $110Q, 513:50 ; S13;75' 514:00 6.Monihs S12.56 $02:78' S13.00 S0150 1513.75, 51'4:00 S,14.50; .1 Year 513:7.5 6f4:00_ $14.50', $15:00.. 2 Y©ai , - $13:00 S1350` 513:75. $14':00" 514.50. Si'S:00 $15 :25, $.13:50 5;13.75„ S14:00 S1450 5;00 $1525 $15:75 4 Ye : ar 573:75: $14'00 , ,514:50- $15:00; 51525 $15:75' '$mob 5 Year 54:00, $1`,4:50 515:0.0 $15:25' ' PSi5.Z5' , ; . 516;00. $16:25 0 S1.:450. $;15:Qt]" S15:25 $;15:75 516.00` 516;25, 516 :SD 7 Year Si 5:00, :$1525' S15; 75 $.16!60 1516:25 $16:50, 516:76 s'Year $15:25, $:15.75 ,.,$16'00. - $16:25 , $16.50 ; 516:76 ...- :;$17•.02 0Year $1:5.75 :5;1600, S16 25 S16`50 $16'76 51,7:02 $1729, 70 Year 5' 6.00 .516:25 , . 516 50' ._ S16:76 517.02 617`29 $17:56 11'Yiaar 516:25., 518 50 ,., : 516 76:. $,M'02 517,:29, $17:56' _- $17:83. 12 Year Si6 816.76 517.02. $17':29 51'7:56 ';. $1.7.63 13'Y r ......_ S, ?6.7,6 517:02 517.29 _ $17-.56 517.83 ., 518.•1.1_ $18639 14 Year , : $17,:02, $J:7 29 $17:56 °: 51 . ; ... <Si8.12 $18,4D 518.68 15 Year $17629 $1T56. " $17.83 ' s1 © 518.40: 518,68 $18t97 1;6Yeary ..... 5.17.03; $18.14 $48'39 $1Q.68 S16;QZ - I Y $17,:83:. .$1'8.11 ;51.8139 516168 516:97 819:27 $19:56 1'l3Year ' $181'•1;' 87,8:40 518:68' 51 $19:27,, $19;5] $19:88!_ Beroellts T' of:Benefits .' Descri fionAOft ,Gorifribution_orCoverage ;,:.. Medical:''. FJnployer'full,contritiiiUon for ";em to ees with FTE =0;8 andiabove _ Denta! " Employer'tull.contrit ution for employees` with .FTE O_S. and above,. vsion Life Insurance Em to er +full corilribution forern to ees`with FTEA5 and;ab6ve ' t1'olida fa` 12,Molida's$ erYear Bereadement,Lea-ve .. Char ed to accruedrsick or.va.'cation time oWp days,. . Paid Time'OIf'_ „ Ftorn 2.weeks•16 5 weeks based orr lhe.length 0 emplo merit Paid Skkk,Loave; 12!days'pe y ear foriull time eiiti to ees _ Other .;;Lon Terr *bfsabilii` Empioyerfull conlribullon`tor ern to ees >iuith FTE,0.5,8hd.ab6ye Other ".' .Employee.Assistance,;Prograrri Employer full contribution foremployees'witti FTE'0.5 arid,above Page 182 of 183 PETALUMA TRANSIT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT 4. Benefit Proposals ;a, first. ? 01 P -.PSC Assumed'to . comply with Company , pays Employer ful9. current CBA $400 /month -of contribution for Cormpany pays Company - pays Company pays medical, dental employees with; Medical - , $325 /month, $325 /month - $325 /month' & visi;on FTE ,8 and above Employer full, contribution for No Company No Company Company pays empa:oyees with: Dental contribution contribution „ $50 /'month _ Arneritas FTE: A - rand: above No Company No Company Included with Vision contribution con dental' - Blue Shield N/A Employer full contribution , for employees with Life Insurance $5 000 $5 .$1.0 $5;000 „ FTE .5 and above Holid. a Pa, 8 . 8 = g 8 12 Bereavement Leave 1 paid 2..unpa:id ... 1 paid - 3: 1 aid 2' unpaid _ Q` 'Paid Time Off' 1- zweeks' 1 -2 weeks 2 -5 weeks 1 -2 weeks 2, 5 wee -ks. Paid Sick Leave '6' 6w - 6 712 6 - 1:2 Provides LT,D and' - EAP fo,r' full time Other _ ernplo ees