Response to Questions Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP

999 views
888 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
999
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Response to Questions Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP

  1. 1. Response to Questions Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP ADDENDUM #2 January 10, 2008
  2. 2. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Submission Deadline: Extension ................................................................................1 B. Access to Priority Locations Map...............................................................................1 C. Status/Availability of Addendum No. 1......................................................................1 D. Litter/Recycling Collection.........................................................................................2 E. Design of Shelters .......................................................................................................2 F. Utilities Cost Estimate ................................................................................................3 G. Status of Electrification ..............................................................................................3 H. Locations of Public Toilets .........................................................................................3 I. Definition of Furniture Clusters and Permissible Advertising ...................................3 J. Panel Sizes ..................................................................................................................6 K. Right to Advertise in the Right of Way ......................................................................7 L. Authority for Incumbent Vendors to Advertise after Contract End ...........................7 M. Transition Between Vendors.......................................................................................7 N. Roll-Out Process .........................................................................................................8 O. Financial Proposal.....................................................................................................10 P. Ranking of Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................10 Q. SUBP Program: Clarifications..................................................................................11 R. Contract Start Date....................................................................................................12 S. Existing Bus Shelter Contract, Total Ad Revenues; Annual Income .......................12 T. Existing “Courtesy Bench” Contract, Total Ad Revenues; Annual Income ............12 U. Clarification of General Conditions (Section 13 of the RFP)...................................12 V. Contract Provisions...................................................................................................13 1/11/2008
  3. 3. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 A. Submission Deadline: Extension Questions: It is respectfully requested that the City grant a 60-day extension of the response due date. This will allow proposers to spend the appropriate amount of time necessary to review the City’s responses to questions and subsequently create proposals and street furniture designs that result in the best possible program for Minneapolis. In that regard, it is respectfully submitted that if the City were to seek information from municipalities around the US and in Canada that have similar RFPs in size and scope, it could confirm that a 90-120 day submission period is generally the norm. Due to the complexity and size of this RFP we are requesting an extension of 60 days beyond the due date. Considering the enormous amount of information requested by the City and significant amount of planning that must go into the preparation of a response to such a complicated and important RFP, would the City agree to extend the due date for proposals by 2 months to April 4th, 2008? Response: The deadline for submissions will be extended. All responses must be received at the City of Minneapolis’ Procurement Division by Thursday April 3rd , 2008 at 4:00 pm. B. Access to Priority Locations Map Question Will the city please provide a larger more detailed version of Figure B.1 Priority Locations Map, or an equivalent? Response: There is an electronic copy of the map available on the project website at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/street-furniture/docs/PlanningFrameworkMap.pdf Bus shelter GIS Data, including a database (.dbf file) of all bus shelter locations is available for download at the following website address: http://www.datafinder.org/metadata/bus_shelters_p.htm C. Status/ Availability of Addendum #1 Questions The RFP provides that an “Appendix F” will be released as an addendum to confirm the City’s requirements for litter/recycling collection. Please advise when this addendum will be released. This information is critical for our financial analysis of this opportunity. The information on litter collection to be included in Appendix F is critical in developing a financial proforma. When will the City make Appendix F available to prospective proposers? 1/11/2008 Page 1
  4. 4. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 Response: Addendum #1, was posted on the City’s website (Procurement Division page) on December 21, 2007. On January 8, Appendix F (Litter Collection) was added to the Addendum #1 document. A link between the street furniture project website and the procurement division website was added to facilitate retrieval of this information. The website addresses for the City’s website are as follows: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/street-furniture/ http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/procurement/professional-services.asp. D. Litter/ Recycling Collection Questions: Further to the question of the City’s requirements for litter/recycling collection, the RFP (Sec. 2.c.(i); p. 5) states that proposers should submit “financial compensation” to the City for the City to perform these services. Please clarify what is meant by “financial compensation.” For example, does the City expect proposers to make a separate offer of financial compensation that is solely applicable to litter/recycling collection services that the City performs? What does the City see as their costs in these areas? Further to the question of the City’s requirements for litter/recycling collection as related to the RFP option (Sec 2.c(ii), p. 5) would the actual disposal of the trash (e.g., the emptying of on-street litter bins, the hauling of the waste to a facility and the final dumping of the waste) be required of the successful street furniture program vendor? Appendix C-1 states that there are currently 1,800 trash receptacles on City streets and that the contractor will be asked to provide approximately 900 trash receptacles and maintain them. However, Table 1 on page 3 of the RFP states that there are 900 trash receptacles currently. Please clarify if the is contractor required to maintain 900, 1,800 or 2,700 receptacles. Please confirm how many of these receptacles are currently installed in close proximity (e.g., +/- 10’) to bus shelters? Response: Trash/recycling collection is not required. It is an optional task which Proposers can include or exclude from their respective proposals. The total number of desired receptacles associated with the Coordinated Street Furniture Program is 900. All receptacles associated with the Coordinated Street Furniture Program should be located within approximately 10 feet of a bus shelter or bus bench. E. Design of Shelters Question Per the RFP, section 3.a (p. 6, paragraph 6), proposers are required to provide “extra- large shelters for heavily used bus stops”. Please advise proposers of the specific size(s) of these “extra large shelters.” Please also provide approximate quantity of such bus shelters that may be required by the City. This is an important component of our financial analysis. 1/11/2008 Page 2
  5. 5. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 Response: See Section 3.a.of the RFP document, titled “Flexibility and Context.” In general, shelter design should be flexible enough to extend the size to at least twice the size of a standard shelter. However, it should be cautioned that due to extremely constrained space conditions in high traffic areas such as Downtown, a typical shelter design may be physically impossible to accommodate. Additional data on the number of sites that would require larger shelters will be made available in a future Addendum. F. Utilities Cost Estimate Question Please advise us what the current monthly utility charges of the powered bus shelters are. Response: Based on data received from Metro Transit, the monthly utility charges for shelters using electricity for illumination only is $15.00 per light. The majority of shelters have one light. Heated standard-size shelters register a utility cost $145.00 per month. G. Status of Electrification Question: Please provide the number and locations of bus shelters that are currently energized. Response: Approximately 335 shelters (including Metro Transit and the incumbent vendor’s) are connected to electricity. Locations of shelters are published in a dataset available on the project website, at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/ street-furniture H. Locations of Public Toilets Question Considering the infrastructure and significant space requirements, has the City identified appropriate locations for the placement of public toilets? Response: Public toilets would be located in high activity areas, based on direction provided by City staff and analysis of utility capacity/ constraints by City staff. Specific sites will be identified on a case by case basis, and a maximum of 10 sites are indicated as the upper range of likely installations. Proposers are asked to define complete costs for installation, maintenance and monthly utility fees. I. Definition of Furniture Clusters and Permissable Advertising Questions: Per the RFP (Sec 2.a; p. 3, paragraph 3), the definition of a “cluster” is “the minimum groupings of furniture”. In addition, within Table 1, the Cluster types A, B and C all seem 1/11/2008 Page 3
  6. 6. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 to require the provision of “Optional Elements”, e.g., Public Toilets and Bike Racks, as the letter “Y” appears in the applicable rows. Are proposers required to submit proposals for any “Optional Elements” within any of the Cluster types? Section 2.a of the RFP (p. 3, paragraph 5) states that the “City will not accept…provision of street furniture at locations where benches, shelters or litter receptacles are currently found.” Is this a correct statement? Response: A bus shelter (high passenger traffic) or bench (low passenger traffic) and a trash receptacle are the baseline elements required at all transit stops. Benches associated with the Coordinated Street Furniture Program will only be permitted at transit stops. Section 2a of the RFP (Section 2a, page 3, paragraph 3) states that the “City shall not accept any interruption of service or provision of street furniture at locations where benches, shelters or litter receptacles are currently found.” (emphasis added) Clusters limit the number of advertising panels, not street furniture elements. A furniture element (such as a litter receptacle) may be provided without an advertising panel, according to current legal restrictions that define objects permitted to hold advertising panels. Questions With regard to the transit shelter inventory, will the City require any non-advertising bus shelters be provided for the new Street Furniture program? Will the City require the successful proposer to install or maintain any non-advertising benches? Response: A limited number of benches and shelters in sensitive locations such as historic districts and adjacent to parks may be required to be advertising free. These will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Non-advertising benches can be included as part of the proposal. Question: How many non-advertising bus shelters, if any, does the incumbent bus shelter program vendor maintain? Response: Records indicate that the incumbent bus shelter vendor does not maintain any non-advertising bus shelters. Question: How many non-advertising benches, if any, does the incumbent vendor maintain? Response: Records indicate that the incumbent bench program vendor does not maintain any non-advertising benches. 1/11/2008 Page 4
  7. 7. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 Question Please elaborate on the definition of a Cluster as described in the RFP document. a) On page 3, Table 1 of the RFP, it says that all Baseline Elements and all Optional elements could be included in Cluster Type A; however if a transit shelter is included then a courtesy bench is not warranted. Are there any required elements for each cluster type? Response Listed elements described in Section 2a, Table 1, page 3 are permitted to appear in each cluster type (indicated with a Y). The only required (“baseline”) elements are as follows: bus shelter, litter receptacle, publication enclosure (Type A and Type B Clusters) bench, litter receptacle, publication enclosure (Type C Cluster) Question b) On page 4, it says, “for example, if a location currently has a courtesy bench at a bus stop, but no litter receptacle, the vendor is expected to replace the existing bench with a complete Cluster C set of furniture. A complete Cluster C would include a bench, a litter receptacle, a publication enclosure and an optional bike Rack. If there are only 30 publication enclosures required, how could each Cluster C contain one? Response: The number of new publication enclosures that would be included in the Coordinated Street Furniture Program is negotiable. This is a relatively new furniture element that appears to offer potential to reduce clutter and improve clear passage of pedestrian traffic in the right of way. Currently in the city there are about 30 existing publication enclosures. Over the life of the Street Furniture Program we anticipate adding a significant number of enclosures to the street furniture program. Question c) Does Table 1 on page 3 mean that those are the elements that are required to go into each Cluster Type or are allowed to go into each Cluster Type? Response: Required furniture is listed as ‘Baseline Elements’. Allowed elements are listed as ‘Optional Elements’. Of the “Optional Elements” listed, proposers are expected to include some but not necessarily all of the elements listed in their proposal. However, optional elements must be included in the proposal to be considered as part of the selection and negotiation processes. Question Further to the question of “Optional Elements”, at whose “option” would it be to provide these types of structures”, e.g., Public Toilets, Bike Racks, Freestanding Wayfinding Panels, Neighborhood Kiosks? Are these structures provided at the City’s option or at the successful proposer’s option? Response: Optional elements are not required in the clusters. Table 1 of the RFP indicates acceptable elements in each type of cluster by the notation Y (yes). 1/11/2008 Page 5
  8. 8. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 J. Panel Sizes Question: In the current RFP you have listed the maximum size for advertising panels for benches at 2’ x 5’. The industry standard for benches and the ones that are in Minneapolis are all 2’ x 6’. Is this a type or do you intend that they be 2’ x 5’? Response: The industry standard of 2 x 6’ is acceptable. The smaller size of 2’ x 5’ was the outcome of the City’s study of constrained sidewalk conditions. The RFP referenced the non- standard size to indicate its desire to see designs and ad panels that best accommodate compact furniture in constrained space conditions. Question: On page 4 of the RFP, the City acknowledges the potential benefit of additional advertising panel on some elements of its street furniture but quotes various possible display sizes. The value of this program lies in a consistent production size making it attractive to advertisers. Will the City reconsider these size restrictions and allow the proposer to include standard bus shelter size ad panels on or in place of some of the various street furniture components? Response: Proposers may include the closest industry standard panel size in lieu of sizes indicated in the RFP: however given the space limitations in many city locations, furniture sized to accommodate standard panel sizes may be physically incompatible with transit stops. The city is determined to maintain current levels of street furniture amenities for transit riders and pedestrians. Proposals that effectively reduce the amount of street furniture due to basic design features will be considered inferior. Question: Does the City anticipate that all 700 existing benches will be replaced? When would these courtesy bench locations and the litter containers be expected to be replaced? Response: It is expected that all benches will be replaced over the life of the Program. Details of this replacement program should be included in the Rollout component of each proposal. Question: Per the RFP on p. 4, Freestanding Wayfinding Panels and Neighborhood Kiosks may contain 2’ by 4’ advertising panels. However, we would respectfully submit to the City that this size is not an industry standard advertising format (particularly for these types of structures). Standardization of advertising formats is a critical element to the success of our national and regional sales efforts. Accordingly, will the City allow advertising on these structures to be the size of the standard street furniture industry format of 4’ by 6’ (which is the same format as the bus shelters)? Response: Neighborhood Kiosks panel sizes must be smaller than the traditional 4 x 6 shelter size. 1/11/2008 Page 6
  9. 9. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 K. Right to Advertise in the Right of Way Question: Please clarify if the rights to be granted under the contract are exclusive or nonexclusive to the contractor. Response A response to these questions will be made available in a future Addendum. L. Authority for Incumbent Vendors to Advertise after Contract End A response to these questions will be made available in a future Addendum. M. Transition Between Vendors Questions: Will Metro Transit continue to maintain the shelters after the awarding of the contract until the new shelters are placed by the winning Proposer? Will Metro Transit be responsible for the costs associated with the removal of their existing shelters as they are phased out? Response: Metro Transit will maintain and remove shelters they currently own according to an agreed-upon phase out plan (to be completed prior to contract authorization). Metro Transit will bear all costs of removal, and will operate under a 30 day notice from the vendor, according to a published rollout schedule. The incumbent vendors have responsibilities for disposition of their shelters as defined in each ordinance (City Code Appendix G, Section 26 (Bus Shelter Ordinance) and City Code Chapter 283 (Bench Ordinance), included in the RFP’s Appendix A. Question: Per the RFP (Sec 2.a; p. 3, paragraph 5), the final disposition of all existing bus shelters (550 units) and bus benches (700 units) is not certain. Under these conditions, how does the City suggest prospers account for the removal and disposal of these structures in their financial analysis of this RFP? For example, in identifying overall expenses, what party should we plan in our responses as the one bearing the cost of removing and disposing of the existing structures? If proposers are to bear these costs, it will need to be accounted for in our analysis. 1/11/2008 Page 7
  10. 10. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 We note the seemingly conflicting provisions of appendices A and C of the RFP. For example, the latter (on p. C -1) provides that “the Successful Proposer” will be responsible, at its sole cost, for the installation, removal and disposal of existing street furniture elements (in accordance with City Ordinances Appendix G, Section 26 and Chapter 283 of the City Code of Ordinances). However, the former seems to provide that (under certain conditions) the incumbent vendor will remove the existing bus shelters at its sole expense (as required by the existing bus shelter Ordinance - Appendix G, Section 26 and Chapter 283 of the City Code of Ordinances.) Similarly, Section 283.230 of the existing Ordinance for bus benches seems to require the incumbent vendor to remove the existing bus benches at its expense. Response: See Appendix G, Section 26 for guidance on how the city anticipates that vendors will manage disposition of existing furniture in the roll-out period. N. Roll-Out Process Questions: With regard to the transit shelter inventory, Appendix C, Section 2 states that there are about 300 shelters that are owned and maintained by Metro Transit. Will these bus shelters become part of the City’s new Street Furniture program? With regard to the Metro Transit inventory, how many of their bus shelters, if any, contain advertising? If any of these shelters contain advertising, who is the incumbent advertising sales company and/or agent for the Metro Transit advertising program? Response: Metro Transit’s Minneapolis shelters will be included in the program and will be allowed to carry advertising. At the present time, only two of Metro Transit’s existing shelters have advertising. Advertising sales for these two shelters is assumed by the incumbent bus shelter vendor (CBS Outdoor). As replacement of old furniture occurs, new bus shelters and bus benches must be replaced (e.g. within a 24 hour timeframe) as they are removed as to not interrupt the service to transit riders. Questions: Which other provisions of the existing ordinances relating to bus shelters and bus bench will carry over to the new Street Furniture contract? For example, Section 17 of the existing bus shelter Ordinance provides for a fairly elaborate notification process for bus shelter installations. Will this provision carry over to the new Street Furniture program? Appendix B of the RFP (p. B-1) makes reference to the City’s “permit issuance process.” Please provide the details of the City’s permit process for the new Street Furniture program. Please also advise us of the particular permits that will be required and the costs thereof? All of the existing locations are permitted; will the existing permit cover the replacement shelters at the current locations? How will any new shelter locations be handled vis a vis permitting? 1/11/2008 Page 8
  11. 11. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 Response: All new locations as well as installation of new furniture at existing locations will require review from the City. The specific procedure for permitting will be determined in consultation with the selected proposer and be finalized prior to contract authorization. A master permitting process is being considered by the City at this time. Fees for these permits will be negotiated prior to contract authorizations. Some reduction of this fee may be possible given the scope of the Street Furniture Program. The degree to which consent from the adjacent property owners must be obtained for every installation will be addressed in the master permitting process. Proposers are expected to submit a rollout schedule as part of the proposal. In any case installation of all new furniture is to be complete within the first 10 years of the program. (see Section 2.e; Section 9.A., Part iv) Note that benches may only be located in the immediate vicinity (up to 20 feet) of a transit stop. Question: The RFP (Sec 3.b; p. 8 paragraph 1), states that all sidewalks “must maintain a 6’ pedestrian throughway and a 2’ clear zone from the curb.” Do all existing bus shelters and/or bus benches currently meet this requirement? If not, does the City anticipate having to eliminate some existing locations? If so, how many existing bus shelter and/or bus bench locations might be eliminated in the new Street Furniture program? Response: Not all existing shelters and benches meet the published placement requirements (as defined in the Program Guidelines report). The City’s expectation for the Coordinated Street Furniture Program states, “safer, better organized pedestrian throughways on the public right-of-way.” (Section 1). It is not expected that existing shelters will be eliminated, but some may be relocated in the immediate area to provide the required throughway. We encourage vendors to consider the size, scale and dimension of furniture so that the design is highly functional in constrained space conditions. Bus shelter locations have historically been determined by Metro Transit based on 25 average daily passenger boardings. Question: Will the City consider requests or suggestions by proposers in their responses to modify the Coordinated Street Furniture Program Guidelines document referred to in the RFP? For example, would it be acceptable to the City if such requests or suggestions take the form per the City’s direction relative to Section 12 of the RFP (RFP General Conditions)? Response: The City will consider suggestions to modify design or placement criteria defined in the Coordinated Street Furniture Program Guidelines document based on reasonableness and ability to further advance the program’s stated objectives. 1/11/2008 Page 9
  12. 12. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 O. Financial Proposal Questions: The RFP (Sec 2.d, p. 5) states that proposers are expected to provide the City with “financial support” to deliver “administrative and enforcement functions” directly related to the installation and maintenance of street furniture. Please clarify the particular “administrative and enforcement functions” contemplated by this provision. In addition, please clarify what type of financial support the City has in mind. For example, does the City expect proposers to make a separate offer of financial compensation that is solely applicable to the City’s Street Furniture program administrative and enforcement functions? What does the City see as their costs in these areas? Should proposers incorporate into their financial proposals, all of the potential revenues and costs associated with Optional Elements. If so, how will these be evaluated by the City and to what extent will these ‘Optional Elements be included in the subsequent contract? On page 5 d) Compensation Package, the RFP states, “As a component of the financial package, proposers are expected to provide the City with financial support to deliver administrative and enforcement functions directly related to the installation and maintenance of street furniture in the public right of way. How does the City expect to see this? Should proposers segregate and identify a specific dollar amount for this purpose in its submission or will the City absorb the cost for these functions from the minimum annual guarantee? Responses: Vendors are instructed to include revenues and costs associated with the optional elements in the financial proposals. Vendors are further requested to distinguish within their financial summary the value provided by optional elements in addition to the value generated by the baseline elements. These proposals should indicate which of the optional elements would bear advertising panels and note the approximate size and type of panel. The financial costs and benefits provided by Optional Elements will be a consideration in evaluation and would form the basis of further negotiation between the City and the successful proposer. The city expects that the minimum annual guarantee should at least cover the costs of administration of the program. Vendors are not required to identify a specific dollar amount within the proposal, however the minimum annual guarantee will need to adequately cover these costs and others. Proposers are not required to report separate compensation for trash/recycling collection, but the ability to recoup the cost of trash/recycling collection will be a consideration in the evaluation process as the City reviews proposals. P. Ranking of Evaluation Criteria Questions Although the Evaluation Criteria is outlined in section 10 of the RFP document, it is unclear as to which elements the City believes are more important. Will there be a weighted point system used to complete the evaluation? If so, will the City please provide us with the details of that system? 1/11/2008 Page 10
  13. 13. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 Section 10 of the RFP discusses eight (8) evaluation criteria elements (paragraph letters A through H), which will be used in awarding the new Street Furniture contract, however relative weights for each are not provided. Please the percentage weight (or points) for each of the eight (8) evaluation criteria elements. Response The evaluation criteria have been weighted as follows: Percent Share A. Submission Quality and Compliance 5 with Requirements B. Qualifications and experience of 20 Proposer C. Scope of Services 20 Design and Manufacturing Qualifications Maintenance and Operations Contract Administration D. Organization and management approach 15 E. Small and Underutilized Business 5 participation F. Financial responsibility and capacity 20 Economic value of entire proposal Additional compensation Cash Flow Analysis G. Insurance Coverage 5 H. Enhancements 10 Q. SUBP Program: Clarifications Question Many agreements with municipalities that include goals for the participation of Small and Underutilized Businesses base the participation goals on controllable expenses. Will the 4% participation goals for Minority Owned Business and for Women Owned Business be based on controllable expenses? Response: The SUBP Program is based on all program costs. Proposers are instructed to complete the form included in the RFP (page 24 and 25) and submit it with their proposal. 1/11/2008 Page 11
  14. 14. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 R. Contract Start Date Question At the pre-proposal conference, it was stated that all current street furniture would be available for replacement beginning January 1, 2009. Since the current bus shelter franchise with the City of Minneapolis runs to November 8, 2009, those locations would not be available for replacement until then. Is the City suggesting that the Metro transit shelter locations would be available for replacement on January 1, 2009. Response: Metro Transit shelter locations would be available for rollout to the successful proposer on January 1, 2009. Based on the information above, when does the City anticipate the contract term to commence? The comprehensive Coordinated Street Furniture Program will contractually begin on January 1, 2009. S. Existing Bus Shelter Contract, Total Ad Revenues; Annual Income A response to these questions will be made available in a future Addendum. T. Existing ‘Courtesy Bench’ Contract, Total Ad Revenues; Annual Income A response to these questions will be made available in a future Addendum. U. Clarification of General Conditions (Section 13 of the RFP) Question Section 22 of the General Conditions (p. 21) states that all finished or unfinished “materials” resulting from the Contract shall become the property of the City. Will the Street Furniture be owned by the City or the contractor? Who owns the Street Furniture during the contract term? Who owns the Street Furniture at the expiration or termination of the contract? Section 23 of the General Conditions (pp. 21-22) states that the City owns all “work” created or produced in connection with the contract and that contractor may not make duplicates or reproductions of designs. a. Does this mean that the City owns the designs of the Street Furniture? b. Does this mean that the contractor could never use the same design for Street Furniture in another market? Response: A response to these questions will be made available in a future Addendum. 1/11/2008 Page 12
  15. 15. Coordinated Street Furniture Program RFP Response to Questions Addendum #2 V. Contract Provisions Questions: With respect to the portion of Appendix A of the RFP that addresses the current bus shelter program, Section (d) of the existing Ordinance confirms that the City provides the incumbent vendor with “a credit against the franchise fee equal to ten (10) percent” should a “maintenance ceiling amount” be exceeded. Will this provision carry over to the new street furniture contract? Appendix G (Section 27; 1979 Ordinance) of the RFP states that abutting property owners have the first right and privilege to construct, operate and maintain bus shelters at locations abutting their property – but if they exercise the right, the adjacent property owner’s bus shelters may NOT have advertising. Will abutting property owners have the same rights in respect of the new Street Furniture contract? May the new contractor assume that no consent of the abutting property owner is required if it is merely replacing an existing shelter with a new shelter? The RFP, Section 12 (p. 16) discusses termination of the new contract by the City for any reason with or without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice. It further provides if such termination is without cause, “the City shall pay Contractor all compensation earned to the date of termination.” Will the City also consider adding provisions to this section that would reimburse the Contractor for the unamortized value of all Street Furniture installed to the date of the without cause termination? If not, program vendors will be taking an enormous risk over the contract term given the capital intensiveness of the new Street Furniture program. Considering the large capital investment to be made, will the City consider a base 20 year term in lieu of the stated initial term of 15 years with one five year option period? Response Terms and conditions of the new contract will be arrived at by negotiation between the City and the Successful Proposer. Previous contract terms associated with incumbent contractors are not necessarily transferable. The City requests that all vendors provide an financial package and program for the initial 15 year with one five year extension option. As a program enhancement, vendors may provide a second program structure offer for consideration by the City such as the one indicated above. 1/11/2008 Page 13

×