CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND ADDENDUM #1

Transcription

1 Office of the County Executive Tari Moore County Executive Department of Finance Purchasing Division David E. Pyle Purchasing Office Alfred C. Wein, Jr /5396 Director of Administration County Information Office: Fax: CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND Department of Finance Purchasing Division 200 Chesapeake Boulevard, Suite 1400, Elkton, MD ADDENDUM #1 RFP 18-12: Transit Buses September 12, This addendum is hereby made part of the RFP/Contract Documents for the referenced proposal. Please note the following changes, corrections, and/or information and include the requirements stated herein as part of this RFP/Contract. 2. Any questions please contact the Purchasing Office at or to Ensure the addendum is annotated within the bid package forms as required. Thank You David E. Pyle, CPPB Purchasing Agent Cecil County, Maryland Attachments: A thru D graphics E Questions and Responses New Attachment #3; Proposal Cost Sheet Pre-Proposal Attendance Sheet PURCHASINGOFFICE@CCGOV.ORG

2 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT "A" CECIL COUNTY TRANSIT n CecllTran.slt.corn f s.oo oo j._40.oo CecllTran.slt. corn n

3 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT "B" WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT

4 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT "C" HARFORD COUNTY LINK

5 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT "D" HARFORD COUNTY LINK

6 ATTACHMENT E ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses: QUESTION 1: Purpose - Cecil County Code, Chapter 92 references that vendors shall be registered with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation. Do we need to provide a copy of our registration showing that we are in good standings with the State? RESPONSE: It is not necessary to provide a copy of the registration with the State Department of Assessment and Taxation showing good standing status as the purchasing agent will verify good standing status upon review of the submitted proposal. QUESTION 2: Page 3, Objective, In-plant Inspection: Does Cecil County consider an in-plant inspector to be the same as a Resident inspector? If so, do you have a quantity of inspectors that will be In-Plant? Will Cecil County or other agencies listed be responsible for the cost associated with In-Plant/Resident inspectors? RESPONSE: In Plant and Resident Inspector are used interchangeably. The quantity of inspectors that will be in-plant is at the discretion of the Maryland Transit Administration. All costs associated with the in-plant / resident inspections should be included in the overall price per unit. QUESTION 3: Page 4/5 Plant-Pilot Model Inspections: We request to perform a lead bus inspection in lieu of a pilot-model inspection. A pilot model inspection is a 1 st unit built, inspected and the rest of the order is started after the pilot model is accepted. A lead bus inspection is an inspection of the 1 st bus manufactured and any necessary changes are integrated in to the remaining buses during production. Lead bus inspections will provide a better delivery schedule. We did not see a single line item listed on the pricing proposal page for plant inspections. Is it acceptable to list this price as per person? Can Cecil County please further clarify the per diem cost based on the GSA standard pricing? RESPONSE: Cecil County will accept a lead bus inspection in lieu of a pilot-model inspection with the understanding that a lead bus inspection will provide a better delivery schedule. Each jurisdiction shall have the option to be represented at the lead bus inspection; therefore, it is acceptable to include the cost associated with the lead bus inspection per person. The per diem rate should be based on the General Services Administration s (GSA) per diem rate for the geographical location where the lead bus inspection will occur.

7 ATTACHMENT E ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses (con t): QUESTION 4: Page 5, 1.1.1, Scope and Purpose: buses for use by Cecil County Transit and other parties as allowed. It is our understanding that participants of a cooperative RFP need to be listed specifically by agency name. Should Washington and Harford County be listed by legal agency name under Scope and Purpose, in lieu of other parties as allowed? RESPONSE: Add Washington County Transit and Harford County Link to the Scope of Purpose. QUESTION 5: Page 5, 1.1.2, Description. Can Cecil County clarify that the aisle width is not intended to be 102 RESPONSE: The 102 width is intended to be the overall width of the vehicle, not the aisle. QUESTION 6: Page 5, 1.1.3, Overall Height: We would like to clarify that this requirement does not include any additional equipment/options on the roof of the bus. RESPONSE: The overall height of the vehicle should be no more than 118 refers to the body of the vehicle and does not include additional equipment/options that may be included on the roof of the bus. However, overall height including additional equipment and options must not exceed those allowed by State or Federal law. QUESTION 7: Page 6, 1.1.6, Service Life: Can Cecil County define how it interprets passed the testing in regards to the Altoona test? Many manufacturers provide Altoona/FTA testing that has not been completed under the new FTA guideline of pass/fail. Based on FTA circular 49 CFR Part testing requirements (d), the Altoona test that we will submit has been grandfathered in under this FTA circular guideline and does not require the passed test procedure. RESPONSE: All testing requirements specified in FTA Circular 49 CFR Part 665 must be met. If an exemption to the testing requirements has been issued, documentation of the exemption must be submitted with the proposal. QUESTION 8: Page 8 Numbering and Signage Can Cecil County clarify where in the RFP the attached example for Title VI Interior Signage and exterior graphics are? We recommend that a separate line item be listed on the pricing page for graphics that include all agencies listed under this contract. Can we get samples of the graphics for Washington and Harford County as well?

8 ATTACHMENT E ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses (con t): RESPONSE: Attachment A, B, C & D provide example graphics for each partnering agency. A separate line item has been added to the Proposal Cost Sheet for pricing of graphics for each jurisdiction. Title VI interior signage should indicate priority seating areas and conform to CFR Priority seating signs. QUESTION 9: Page 8/9 Crashworthiness Can Cecil County please clarify that test reports shall be for the same vehicle as being bid for both FMVSS 214D and 220? RESPONSE: All crashworthiness test reports shall be of the same low-floor bus body design as is being bid. QUESTION 10: Page 10, Training: We recommend that a separate optional line item be added to Attachment #3 Proposal Cost Sheet for training. This will give Cecil, Washington and Harford County the opportunity to have training if needed and give us an idea of how many training classes per year/order we will need to provide. Please consider that there may be multiple orders associated with this RFP over 3 years. RESPONSE: On-site training shall be provided for each jurisdiction upon delivery of vehicles ordered in the first year of the contract. The cost of this training shall be included in the overall price per unit. It is acceptable to include training costs associated with year two and three orders as an option and should include training in respect to any equipment that has substantially changed. Vendor shall include training costs per hour and/or session. QUESTION 11: Page 10, Body Frame Structure: Can Cecil County clarify that a finite analysis report is required to be submitted. A finite analysis coincides with the FMVSS testing required on page 8, Crashworthiness? A finite analysis report validates the structural integrity engineered to meet the FMVSS testing requirements. RESPONSE: vendor shall submit the Executive Summary of test data showing compliance with FMVSS 214D. QUESTION 12: Page 18, & Page 20, , Camera Systems/Cabinet &Voice Annunciator System: Will these systems be used by Washington and Harford County as well? If not, we recommend that these specifications be listed as a separate line item option on the pricing proposal page. RESPONSE: Yes; therefore, please include in the overall pricing of each unit rather than as a separate line item.

9 ATTACHMENT E ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses (con t): QUESTION 13: Page20, 1.3.4, Front Suspension: The specification requires a spring front suspension. However, this contradicts which requests front suspension to kneel. Please clarify that a front spring suspension is required with the understanding that the design of a spring suspension does not accommodate kneeling? RESPONSE: The front suspension should accommodate kneeling. QUESTION 14: Page 22, , Batteries: Can Cecil County please clarify that either side of the bus is an acceptable location for battery mounting/installation. RESPONSE: The battery mounting may be on either side of the bus. QUESTION 15: Page 24, Permits: Can Cecil County clarify/define which permits this section refers to? We could not find a listing of permits required for the RFP. RESPONSE: If permits are required, it is the responsibility of the vendor to obtain and pay for the permits. QUESTION 16: Page 24, Vendor Responsibility: Please clarify that the post Buy America and FMVSS will not need to be supplied until after the buses are delivered. RESPONSE: Pre Buy America must be submitted with the proposal. Post Buy American and FMVSS is required to be supplied after delivery. QUESTION 17: Page 26, Licenses and Certificates (forms attached): Can you please direct us to the attached form that relates to this clause? RESPONSE: The attached form is located on page 57 Attachment 2. QUESTION 18: Page 28, Assignment of Contractual Rights: It is our understanding that if other LOTS agencies are assigned options off of this contract they must be listed out specifically by agency name. Can Cecil County please provide a listing of eligible LOTS systems that may utilize the additional 32 bus options available? RESPONSE: Prior approval from the MTA must be obtained by the LOTS prior to purchasing any remaining options under this RFP; therefore, it is not possible to provide a listing of eligible LOTS at this time.

10 ATTACHMENT E ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses (con t): QUESTION 19: Page 28, Public Agency Participation: Does this paragraph apply to this RFP? RESPONSE: Replace SRTA with Cecil County. Replace other Massachusetts Regional Transit Authorities with Locally Operated Transit Systems. QUESTION 20: Page 29, Bonding Requirements: Can Cecil County clarify if these requirements are for a Bid Bond, or a performance bond? RESPONSE: This is for the Proposal Bond (Bid Bond); there are no performance or payment bonds. QUESTION 21: Page 32, Request for Clarification: Can Cecil County establish a date for submission of clarifications? The Schedule of Events shall be as follows: Submission of approved equals and requests for clarification by close of business on September 26, Cecil County will respond to all requests for clarification and approved equals by October 5, Proposal submittals must be submitted no later than 1:30 PM on October 19, QUESTION 22: Page 37, Schedule of Events: #3, 4 and 5 refers to an Approved Equals process. Can Cecil County please provide a date and time when approved equals are due? RESPONSE: Equals requests shall be submitted on September 26, Cecil County will provide approved equals by October 5, QUESTON 23: Page 38, Term of Contract: Our initial review of the RFP did not provided provisions for price increase over the three years of the contract, can this be added to the pricing page? We request utilizing The Producers Price Index (PPI) for Truck Bodies for orders received after year one of the contract. This is the most common method used for pricing increases throughout the industry. RESPONSE: Page 38 Term of Contract specifies that the vendor shall include in their pricing proposal any annual price increases over the 3-year contract.

11 ATTACHMENT E Clarifications: ADDENDUM #1: Questions/Responses (con t): 1 Page 3 II. Objective: remove the word cutaway Scope and Purpose: add Washington County and Harford County Transit 3 Replace Attachment 3-Proposal Cost Sheet with new attachment provided in Addendum #1. 4 RFP Review Committee members as follows: David Trolio, Cecil Transit Suzanne Kalmbacher, Cecil Transit Robert Andrews, Harford Transit Link Shawn Harbaugh, Washington County Transit

12 PROJECT: Transit Buses DATE: ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT #3 PROPOSAL COST SHEET RFP VENDOR: BY: (To be same as in the Proposal Agreement) BUSINESS ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: This is to certify that has received Addendum No. through No. and this project reflects changes created by the addenda. PROPOSAL FORM Cecil County, Maryland; For all design, labor, tools, materials, testing, training, delivery and possible removal of old and any other incidentals necessary to complete this proposal as specified herein. A separate price is required for each line item. BID PRICE FOR: (to be provided in second part of the proposal package) 1. Total Price Per Vehicle: A: 30 Vehicle: $ B: 35 Vehicle: $ 2. Optional: Total cost for extended warranty for engine/drive train: A: 30 Vehicle: $ B: 35 Vehicle: $ 3. Optional: Total price for wrap installed per agency: A. Cecil County Transit: 1: 30 Vehicle: $ (See attach. A ) 2: 35 Vehicle: $ B. Washington County Transit: 1: 30 Vehicle: $ (See attach. B ) 2: 35 Vehicle: $ C. Harford Transit Link: 1: 30 Vehicle: $ (See attach. C & D ) 2: 35 Vehicle: $ Addendum #1

13 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT #3 Con t: 4. Optional: Cost per year for year #2 and #3 training: $ 5. Optional: Cost for Lead Bus Inspection per year: $ 6. Number of days for delivery of bus: A: 30 Vehicle: B: 35 Vehicle: Signature Printed Name Tele: Fax #: Cell Phone # The undersigned swears (or affirms) under the penalty of perjury that the Bidders, its agents, servants and/or employees, to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, have not in any way colluded with anyone for and on behalf of the Bidder, or themselves, to obtain information that would give the Bidder any unfair advantage over others, nor have to gain any favoritism in the award of any contract resulting from this bid. By signing this bid form, I acknowledge that I have read the entire bid package. Bid Submitted by: Witness Telephone Number Fax Number Name of Firm or Dealer Authorized Name & Signature Address (Street) Address (City, State, Zip Code) Addendum #1

14 ADDENDUM #1 ATTACHMENT #3 Con t: The attached proposal is accepted and hereby ratified and confirmed by Cecil County, Maryland for its purchase this day of, 201_. Alan J. McCarthy County Executive Cecil County Maryland Addendum #1

15