Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats

Running head: AUCTION
1
AUCTION 8
AUCTIONS
Marquita Phillips
Dr. Phyllis Isley
ECO 550: Managerial Accounting
19-08-2019
Similarities and Differences
English Auction versus Dutch Auction
The Open Ascending Price Auction is the most popular
type of auction. We know it better as The English Auction.
The way that an English auction works is what you probably
already have in mind. From what you have seen on television
or have witnessed in real life. It is basicallay a bidding war,
with the price of the sale going higher and higher until only one
person has the highest bid and they of course become the winner

of the item they were bidding on. Placing a bid in an English
Auction is done by electronic means or vocally, just yelling out.
There is always a starting price. The starting price is basically
the lowest amount that they seller is willing to let the item go
for. Of course no seller wants the low ball numbers and often
hope that by having a low starting price for the bid, it will
attract more sellers and with more sellers, comes the chance for
a higher price. An auction is over when the bid reaches its
maximum value, and no participant is willing to offer a higher
amount. A negative aspect of the English Auction is that buyer
may offer a price that is higher than the real value of the
product. Additionally, the requirement of constant and proper
communication sometimes can be a little difficult and expensive
(Coppinger, Smith & Titus, 2010).
Descending Price Auction, which is also better known as,
the Dutch Auction is a type of auction where the bidder starts
bidding at a higher price than the original value of the items
being bidded on. The owner or auctioneer of the product starts
at a higher price and gradually lowers the price of the items.
However, the price cannot go beyond the holding price. This
auction type is intended for bulk items, and here the seller
specifies the number of identical items to sell at a minimum
price. In Dutch auctions, both the highest bidder and the earliest
bidder are winners for the available quantity of products. It is
also important to note that in a Dutch auction, mainly perishable
items, such as crops, fish, and other food items are sold
(Coppinger, Smith & Titus, 2010).
One major difference between English Auctions and Dutch
Auctions is the way that the pricing for the bidding is done.
English Auctions uses an ascending price auction, meaning the
bid is always started at the lowest price acceptable and end at
the highest price that someone is willing to pay. Dutch Auction
uses a descending price auction. As you can imagine
descending means they start at the highest price acceptable and
work backwards to gradually lower the price. In English
Auctions most of the products are non-perishable items and sold

in single numbers, while the Dutch Auctions products are
mainly perishable items that are sold in bulk. (Coppinger, Smith
& Titus, 2010).
Vickery Auction and Sealed Auction
The Sealed Bid First-Price Auction, also known as Blind
Auction, is where the bidder gets only one chance to bid.
Alternately, all bidders concurrently submit sealed bids, so that
no one knows each other’s' bid amount. The highest bidder pays
the price of the bidding amount.
Vickery Auction is also known as Second Price Sealed Bid,
in which bidders submit bids without the knowledge of the other
bidders. The winning bidder pays the second-highest bid, rather
than his bid. It is quite similar to the first-price sealed bid
auction. Although they are almost similar, the distinction
between the two types of the auction is that in Vickery auction,
the winner pays the second-highest bid, rather than the bid he
has won.
English Auction Flaws
The way that the English auction works is that the bidders
are actively trying to outbid each other, with each bid being
higher than the previous bid. Bidders are free to call out their
bids vocally or electronically. As a result, bidders are aware of
other bidder’s prices. One of the significant weaknesses
associated with this type of auction is bidder’s curse. One
bidder may place a bid of a price higher than the value of the
product to create a false impression of the value of the product.
For instance, Concierge Auctions has been accused of severally
for manipulating bids to juice up the businesses. Notably, the
company drummed up high bids of about $14 million for Joanne
Brown’s apartments, whose real value was $3 million (Clarke,
2019).
Ascending auction (English auction) provides bidders with
information throughout the bidding process. The information is
a two-edged sword. The information may arouse competition by
creating a reliable process of price discovery, by reducing the
winner’s curse, and by allowing efficient aggregations of items.

Alternately, the bidders may use the information to establish
and enforce collusive outcomes (Clarke, 2019).
Although English auctions may harvest many sales for the
company through high prices establish during an auction, the
value of the real estate may not be established, especially when
the bidders are inexperienced buyers. Through their overbid,
they may be exposed to the winner’s curse, thus buying the
property at a premium. Another downside of an auction is that
some of the attractiveness variables may be omitted attributing
false impression to the property. Some of the strategies to create
a false impression of the property may be accomplished through
media attention and other sales mechanisms (Clarke, 2019).
Regardless of the flaws involved English auctions
demonstrates, it remains the most efficient auction method.
Agreeably, each auction type has downsides and upsides, which
when compared to those of English auction, are found to be
more adverse. Escalation of bids establishes the agreeable value
of the property. The bidders do not have a fixed value for an
item. Instead, they learn from each other’s bidding and adjust
the value to the most agreeable value. The process is efficient
when conducted under certain conditions and when others do
not have sufficient information to make auction decision. The
method is efficient and maximizes revenue and the fact that the
method reveals that the winners are willing to par at least the
amount bid (Cramton, 2018).
Instead of Concierge Auctions switching to another form
of auction, the company needs to strengthen its moral standards.
According to the journal, the underlying problem is not the
method of auctioning but the people carrying out the process.
The company does not have moral standards and ethical
behavior. It is, therefore, recommended for the company to
review its moral and ethical standards in an auction. Even
though other better auction strategies may be established, the
company may still face legal suits for unethical behavior. Let
the company and its management adhere to integrity,
straightforwardness, and openness in auction processes.

Uses of Auction
Auction is the process of selling and buying products by
offering them for bidding. It allows buyers to bid and acquire
the product at the highest prices achieved. The bidders compete
against each other by placing bids with each subsequent bid
being higher than the previous one (for the case of English
Auction, which is most common). Once an item is placed for
sale, the auctioneer begins with a low price figure and gradually
increases to the highest price attained by a buyer. Alternately,
the auctioneer places a very high price on the item and
gradually reduces the prices to the level the first buyer is
willing to pay (Coppinger, Smith & Titus, 2010).
Auction theory is essential in determining the social price and
value of the item under sale. Besides, auction prevents
overpricing and underpricing of products due to market forces.
Auction regulates pricing of items in the product and service
markets. Application of the auction theory can be seen as the
commn link between the auction theory and information that is
based on the corporate finance theory. Auctions are used to help
individuals understand the practices used in financial
institutions and markets such as underpricing and overpricing of
products. Auctions can also help with services in the IPO
markets and non-cash bids in takeover markets as well as the
discrimination against certain bidders.
E-businesses also have auctions applied in their transactions.
The buyers are considered the bidders and the auctioneers are
considered the sellers. As the name suggests E-business is done
all online and all transactions are done electronically. E-
commerce application of auction may involve long-distance
auctioneering through various electronic devices between B2B,
B2C, and C2C. It also applies to online stock exchanges in
which bidders quote their stock prices, and the auctioneers
decide on the winning bids. Search engines also use a form of
auction to help improve the allocation of sponsored ad slots.
Higher bids win more slots for sponsored ads on various search
engines.

Auctions means of revenue generation in Not-for-profit
organizations
Advantages
· Auctions raise income at a higher rate than expected as many
would invest much of their profit share back into CSR activities
· Auctions help in generating interest income making prices
better
· There is a probability of getting much value because fair value
is taken as base value hence higher value obtained
Disadvantages
· Potential bidders may fail to follow formalities which are
tiresome and cumbersome
· Additional overhead costs arising from legal and solicitors
costs reduce the level of income for the organization.
Using auction to uncover value and increase revenue
· English auction raises more revenue than first-price auctions
only when the bidders do not encounter the winner’s curse. The
company should employ this type of auction to increase revenue
· Allowing bidders to reserve and upset prices and inform other
bidders on such changes to indicate the fair value of the
property or product under sale
· The auctioneers should be allowed to use puffers, who are
employed to raise the price by fictitious bids.

References
Clarke, K. (2019, February 7). Luxury Real-Estate Firm
Concierge Auctions Fights Allegations of Fraudulent Bids.
Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/luxury-real-estate-
firm-concierge-auctions-fights-allegations-of-fraudulent-bids-
11549568689
Coppinger, V. M., Smith, V. L., & Titus, J. A. (2010).
Incentives and behavior in English, Dutch, and sealed‐bid
auctions. Economic Inquiry, 18(1), 1-22.
Cramton, P. (2018). Ascending Auctions. European Economic
Review 42 (5), 745-756.
!
!
!
!
!
DEPARTMENT!OF!PUBLIC!WORKS!
!
REQUEST!FOR!PROPOSALS!
FOR!PROFESSIONAL!DESIGN!SERVICES!
FOR!THE!DESIGN!OF!

!
LAMBERT(PARK(PHASE(2(
(CIP(NO.(819)(
!
SEPTEMBER!2016!
!
IMPORTANT!DATES!
RFP!ISSUED! SEPTEMBER!1,!2016!
REQUEST!FOR!INFORMATION!DEADLINE:!5:00!PM!
SEPTEMBER!27,!2016!
RELEASE!OF!INFORMATION!REQUESTED!
OCTOBER!3,!2016!
PROPOSAL!DUE!DATE/SUBMISSION!DEADLINE:!5:00!PM!
OCTOBER!10,!2016!
AWARD!DATE! NOVEMBER!2016!
APPROXIMATE!START!DATE! NOVEMBER/DECEMBER!
2016!
1!
!
!

REQUEST!FOR!PROPOSALS!
FOR!PROFESSIONAL!DESIGN!SERVICES!
FOR!THE!DESIGN!OF!
LAMBERT(PARK(PHASE(II((CIP(NO.(819)(
Table!of!Contents!
!
1.0!OVERVIEW......................................................................
............................................................2!
2.0!SCOPE!OF!SERVICES......................................................
..............................................................3!
3.0!PROPOSAL!FORMAT
...............................................................................................
....................7!
4.0!EVALUATION!CRITERIA.................................................
..............................................................10!
5.0!SELECTION!PROCESS.....................................................
..............................................................11!
6.0!PROPOSAL!REQUIREMENTS
...............................................................................................
........12!
!
ATTACHMENT!A!–!LAMBERT!PARK!MASTR!PLAN!
EXHIBIT!1!–
!PROFESSIONAL!SERVICES!AGREEMENT!SAMPLE!

!
!
!
!
!
2!
!
!
1.0(Overview((
!
The!City!of!El!Monte!(the!City)!has!made!numerous!improvem
ents!over!the!past!several!years!
to!Lambert!Park.!These!improvements!have!been!made!possibl
e!through!funds!awarded!to!the!
City!from!Air!Quality!Management!District!(AQMD)!and!the!
Conservation!Corp.!Improvements!
completed! through! 2016! include:! 1)! Installation! of!
Watershed! Gardens;! 2)! Installation! of! a!
Permeable! Pavers! Plaza;! and! 3)! Installation! of! Picnic!
Shelters;! 4)! Installation! of! passive!
improvements! and! park! amenities! within! the! Watershed!
Gardens;! and! 5)! Environmental!
Testing! for! purposes! of! abating! and! demolishing! two!
existing! buildings,! (maintenance!
room/restrooms!and!youth!hut).!!!
!

The!City!recently!commissioned!the!preparation!of!a!New!Con
ceptual!Plan!for!Lambert!Park!
and!this!plan!was!approved!by!City!Council!in!a!meeting!on!A
ugust!2,!2016.!This!Conceptual!
Plan!(See!Attachment!A!–
!Lambert!Park!Master)!will!be!the!basis!for!future!improvemen
ts!to!
Lambert!Park.!
!
The!City!of!El!Monte!(the!City)!is!soliciting!proposals!from!q
ualified!and!experienced!proposers!
to! secure! architectural! and! engineering! design! services!
for! the! preparation! of! plans,!
specifications,!and!cost!estimates!(PS&E)!and!related!construct
ion!documents,!and!to!provide!
construction! administration! services! during! the!
construction! phase! for! the! LAMBERT! PARK!
IMPROVEMENTS!PHASEc2!(CIP!NO.!819).!The!plans!and!co
st!estimates!will!be!comprehensive!
for! all! improvements! proposed! on! the! approved! Lambert!
Park! Conceptual! Plan! (Refer! to!
Attachment!“A”).!It!is!the!intent!to!have!a!complete!set!of!pla
ns!and!phase!construction!using!
remaining!funds!from!the!AQMD!Grant!and!construct!improve
ments!when!funding!is!available.!
The!Design!Project!is!to!be!funded!using!funds!awarded!to!the
!City!of!El!Monte.!This!project!is!
subject!to!state!and!federal!regulations!and!procurement!requir
ements.!!
!
At! the! of! release! of! this! RFP! The! City! has!
approximately! $900,000! remaining! on! the! AQMD!
grant!and!is!seeking!future!funding!from!Los!Angeles!County!

for!construction!of!improvements!
and! new! fields.! At! this! time! the! City! desires! to!
develop! a! comprehensive! plan! for! future!
improvements!to!Lambert!Park.!Construction!of!these!improve
ments!may!be!phased!based!on!
future!funding!availability.!
!
3!
!
!
2.0(Scope(of(Services(
!
The!City!is!seeking!a!qualified!proposer!to!provide!technical!p
rofessional!services!related!to!the!
design! of! parks! and! recreation! improvement! projects.! !
The! proposer! applying! should! have!
significant! experience! in! preparing! plans,! specifications,!
cost! estimates! and! obtaining! any!
required!permits!for!these!types!of!projects.!!The!objective!of!
the!Project!is!to!complete!the!
design! and! secure! approval! of! all! plans,! specifications,!
estimates,! and! permits! from! all!
applicable!agencies!in!order!to!immediately!thereafter!advertis
e,!bid,!and!award!a!construction!
contract.!!
!
The! City! had! commissioned! and! approved! a! Conceptual!
Master! Plan! (see! Attachment! “A”! c!
Lambert!Park!Master!Plan)!and!this!plan!will!be!the!basis!for!
design!services!in!this!RFP.!!
!

The!following!tasks!are!identified!for!the!scope!of!services:!
(
Task(1(–
!Have!an!initial!scoping!meeting!with!the!City!to!finalize!the!
specifics!of!the!Project!in!
accordance!with!Attachment!“A”!–
!Lambert!Park!Master!Plan.!Perform!Utility!Research/Other!
Research! and! Coordination.! Conduct! required!
surveys/design! surveys! and! prepare! detailed!
base!map!for!use!in!developing!design!plans.!In!summary!this!
task!shall!include!the!following!
services:!
!
1) Meetings!(number!of!meetings):!
a. Scoping/Kickcoff!(2)!
b. Utility!Company!(2)!
c. Stakeholders!!c!Final!Design!(2)!
d. City!Council!(2)!
e. City!Staff!(5)!
!
2)
Develop!and!maintain!Project!Schedule!for!Approval!based!on!
City!approval!process!and!
grant!restrictions!
!
3) Research,!Survey,!and!Base!Map!preparation!
!
Task(2(–
!Develop!all!design!plans!based!on!Task!1!and!Attachment!“A
”!–!Lambert!Park!Master!
Plan.!Project!Plans:!Prepare!design!plans!for!the!construction!
of:!

!
1)
Upon!completion!of!Base!Map,!conduct!second!scoping!meetin
g!with!City!to!discuss!any!
deviation!from!initial!scoping!meeting!/!approved!Conceptual!
Plan!that!may!be!required!
based!on!information!obtained!during!Task!1.!!
!
2) New! Restroom/Concession/Staff! Building.! Concession!
portion! designed! for! Level! 3!
Concession.!
!
4!
!
3) New!Plaza!
!
4) Renovate!Existing!Building!
!
5)
New!Playground!Areas;!Tot!Lot!(Age!2c5)!&!Children!(Age!5c
12)!!
!
6) New!Multicuse!Sport!Fields!
!
7) New!Field!Lighting!
!

8) New!Outdoor!Fitness!Stations!
!
9) New!Hardscape!Improvements!and!Amenities!
!
10) New!Landscape!Improvements!
!
11)
New!Utilities/Utility!Improvements!to!Support!the!proposed!im
provements!
!
12)
Funding!to!construct!all!improvements!has!not!yet!been!secure
d.!Should!full!funding!not!
be! available! at! the! time! the! design! plans! and!
specifications! are! approved,! it! may! be!
necessary! to! construct! the! improvements! in! phases! based!
on! available! funding.!
Proposers! shall! provide! services! to! separate! the! plans!
into! multiple! phases! for!
construction!(Assume!3!phases).!!Phasing!shall!take!into!accou
nt!the!time!gap!between!
phases!and!a!maximum!of!3!phases.!Fee(to(this(subtask(shall(b
e(identified(as(a(separate(
line(item(under(Task(2.!
!
Design!Services!shall!follow!and!include!Schedule!and!Schedu
le!Control!covered!under!Section!
3,! Item! 8.! Additionally,! the! scope! of! professional!
services! shall! include! coordination! with! all!
applicable! regulatory! agencies! and! outside! utility!

companies! if! required! for! the! design,!
execution!and!completion!of!this!project.!Allow!3!weeks!for!e
ach!City!review.!!
!
Plans!shall!be!submitted!at!the!following!stages!of!completion!
for!City!review!and!comment:!
30%,!65%,!95%,!100%!(Final).!!
!
Task(3(–
!Project!Specifications!at!30%,!65%,!95%,!and!100%!submittal
:!Prepare!specifications!in!
conformance! with! the! current! Standard! Specifications! for!
Public! Works! Construction!
(Greenbook)! and! other! applicable! agency! standard! plans,!
specifications,! and! guidance!
documents! in! order! to! obtain! plan! approval.! ! Provide!
the! required! permits,! standards,! and!
reference!materials!to!be!included!in!the!City’s!standard!contr
act!documents.!!Every!item!of!
work!must!be!fully!covered!including!a!measurement!clause!an
d!a!payment!clause.!
!
Task(4(–
!Construction!Estimate:!Prepare!an!engineer’s!construction!esti
mate!for!the!designed!
Project!at!the!65%!submittal!and!100%!submittal.!!Cost!estima
tes!shall!have!quantities!and!unit!
5!
!
prices!with!backcup!calculations!for!all!quantities.!!The!consul
tant!shall!verify!current!unit!prices!
at!time!of!final!plan!approval.!

!
Task(5(–
!Permitting!and!Regulations:!Develop!and!manage!the!approval
!process!for!all!required!
permits! and! environmental! documents.! ! The! consultant!
shall! observe! all! laws,! rules,! and!
regulations!concerning!environmental!permitting!and!the!scope
!of!professional!services!shall!
include!all!steps!necessary!in!the!project!development!and!per
mitting!process!to!fully!entitle!
the!project!to!move!into!the!construction!phase.!!
!
1) Document,! design,! and! incorporate! environmental!
requirements! (i.e.,! CEQA!
documentation,!etc.),!mitigation!measures,!NPDES!requirement
s!(including!adherence!
to!MS4!LID!requirements),!BMPs,!air/water!quality,!and!erosi
on/sediment!control!into!
the!Project!construction!documents!as!required.!
!
2)
Provide!a!signed!checkcoff!list!certifying!that!all!environment
al!clearances/permits!have!
been! completed! and! all! mitigation! measures! have! been!
incorporated! into! the! PS&E!
prior!to!the!advertisement!of!the!project!for!construction.!
!
3) Proposers! shall! incorporate! the! City! of! El! Monte’s!
Tree! Protection! and! Preservation!
Ordinance,!Chapter!14.03!of!the!El!Monte!Municipal!Code!(E
MMC)!as!applicable.!!The!
deliverables! provided! to! the! City! shall! conform! to! those!
regulations! to! ensure! a!

complete!and!conforming!project.!!The!consultant!and!its!subc
onsultants!shall!comply!
with! Public! Works! Greenbook! and! EMMC! in! the!
preparation! of! full,! complete,! and!
accurate!PS&E.!Note:!The!City!shall!supply!the!successful!pro
poser!with!a!recent!tree!
survey!report!for!Lambert!Park.!
!
4) Proposers! shall! incorporate! all! federal,! state,! and! local!
laws,! rules,! and! regulations!
concerning! public! works! as! applicable.! ! The! deliverables!
provided! to! the! City! shall!
conform! to! those! regulations! to! ensure! a! complete! and!
conforming! project.! ! The!
consultant!and!its!subconsultants!shall!comply!with!Public!Con
tract!Code!Section!10120!
in!the!preparation!of!full,!complete,!and!accurate!PS&E.!
!
Task(6(–
!Construction!Support!Services:!Provide!engineering!services!p
rior!to,!during,!and!
following!construction!including:!
(
1)
Attend!a!precconstruction!meeting!and!provide!clarification!of!
contract!documents!as!
needed.!
!
2) Assist!the!City!with!Request!for!Information!responses.!
!
3) Provide! review! of! the! Contractor’s! submittals! for!

conformance! with! the! contract!
documents.!
!
4)
Subsequent!to!completion!of!construction,!the!consultant!shall!
provide!Mylar!plots!of!
6!
!
revised!drawings!incorporating!all!ascbuilt!revisions!clouded!a
nd!noted!in!the!revision!
block!using!the!Contractor’s!record!red!lines.!!The!Project!dra
wings!should!be!stamped!
“Project! Record! Drawings”.! ! Transmit! original! Mylar!
Record! Drawings! and! two! CDs!
containing!all!project!drawings!including!AutoCAD!files!as!we
ll!as!PDF!versions.!!
!
All!data,!documents,!and!other!products!used!or!developed!dur
ing!the!project!will!become!the!
property!of!the!City.!
!
7!
!
!

3.0(Proposal(Format(
All!proposals!shall!include!the!following!information!and!com
ply!with!the!associated!page!limit!
restrictions.!!Note!that!1!page!includes!the!front!side!of!an!8.5
x11!sheet!of!paper!and!the!cover!
does!not!constitute!a!page.!
!
1)
Cover!Letter.!!Maximum!1!page!cover!letter!signed!by!an!offic
er!of!the!firm,!binding!the!
proposer! to! all! of! the! commitments! made! in! the!
submittal.! ! The! letter! shall! include!
name,!address!and!phone!number!of!the!person!authorized!to!r
epresent!the!proposer!
and!shall!include!the!following!Statement:!
a.
I!HAVE!READ!UNDERSTOOD,!AND!AGREED!TO!ALL!STA
TEMENTS!IN!THIS!REQUEST!
FOR! PROPOSAL! AND! ACKNOWLEDGE! RECEIPT! OF!
ALL!
ADDENDUMS/AMENDMENTS! AS! WELL! AS! TO! THE!
TERMS,! CONDITIONS,! AND!
ATTACHMENTS!REFERENCED.!
!
2)
Proposer’s!Background.!!!Maximum!2!page!background!on!the
!proposer!and!its!area(s)!
of!professional!expertise!relevant!to!this!RFP.!!An!additional!
1!cpage!may!be!included!to!
highlight!the!background!of!each!proposed!subconsultant!to!be
!used!by!the!proposer!
and!the!specific!task(s)!or!functions!the!subconsultant!will!per

form.!!!
!
3)
Qualifications!and!Experience!of!Proposer’s!Personnel.!!Maxi
mum!3!page!summary!of!
the!relevant!experience,!work!history,!training,!education!and!
special!certifications!of!
the! proposer’s! personnel! who! will! be! performing! the!
professional! services!
contemplated!under!this!RFP!on!the!proposer’s!behalf.!!Briefly
!discuss!the!Consultant!
team's!qualifications!and!experience!with!projects!of!a!similar!
magnitude!and!nature.!!
Proposers!shall!provide!identical!information!for!all!subconsul
tants’!performing!any!of!
the! tasks! or! services! contemplated! under! this! RFP! on!
the! proposer’s! behalf.! ! The!
summary!shall!also!include!the!office!location!of!key!personne
l!proposed!to!work!on!this!
contract.! ! Relevant! experience! can! include! your!
company’s! overall! experience,!
experience! with! similar! projects! and! the! experience! of!
individuals! on! your! proposed!
team.!!Show!how!your!experience!relates!to!the!demands!of!th
is!project.!
!
4)
Project!Approach.!!Maximum!3!page!summary!of!the!proposed
!approach!to!designing!
this! park! improvement! project.! ! The! proposer! shall!
explain! the! way! in! which! the!
proposer!will!timely!complete!all!of!the!tasks!called!for!under
!the!RFP!along!with!an!

estimate!of!the!time!it!will!take!to!complete!each!task.!!Includ
e!a!brief!overview!of!the!
Consultant's! understanding! of! the! project.! ! The! content!
will! reflect! the! particular!
viewpoint!of!the!Consultant.!!!
!
5) Proposed! Personnel.! ! Maximum! 2! page! resume! for! the!
project! manager! and! 1! page!
resume! for! each! of! the! other! key! personnel,! including!
subconsultants,! which! will! be!
performing!the!majority!of!the!work!on!this!project/contract.!!
Resumes!for!corporate!
leadership!should!not!be!included!unless!said!individuals!will!
be!performing!substantial!
8!
!
work!on!this!project.!!The!designated!Project!Manager!shall!be
!the!primary!contact!with!
the!City!during!the!contract!period!and!shall!function!in!that!c
apacity!while!employed!by!
the!firm.!!In!addition,!the!City!must!approve!changes!of!perso
nnel.!!
6) Quality! Assurance/Quality! Control! Procedures.! !
Maximum! 1! page! brief! description! of!
the! consultant’s! approach! to! implement! a! Projectcspecific!
Quality! Control! Plan.!!
Describe! the! major! elements! and! steps! of! the! quality!
assurance! /! quality! control!
(QA/QC)! program! and! procedures! that! will! be! followed!

for! each! deliverable! (i.e.!
engineering! discipline! review,! coordination! review,!
constructability! review,! QA/QC!
control!review,!etc.).!!
!
7)
References.!!Each!proposal!must!include!at!least!3!public!agen
cy!references!going!back!
at!not!more!than!five!(5)!years!from!the!issuance!of!this!RFP!i
n!which!the!proposer!was!
engaged!to!perform!tasks!similar!to!those!requested!under!this!
RFP.!!References!should!
place!an!emphasis!on!past!projects!in!which!the!personnel!to!b
e!used!by!proposer!for!
this!project!were!deployed.!The!references!should!include!the!
name,!title!and!contact!
information! of! the! public! agency! officer! or! employee!
responsible! for! overseeing! the!
proposer’s!work.!!
!
8)
Schedule!and!Schedule!Control.!!Maximum!2!page!schedule!de
tailing!when!the!specific!
Tasks! will! be! completed.! ! Proposers! should! factor! in!
additional! time! that! may! be!
required!due!to!reasonably!foreseeable!types!of!delays.!The!pr
oposal!shall!identify!all!
critical!task!sequencing!and!critical!paths!required!to!ensure!th
at!the!work!is!timely!and!
completely!completed.!The!Consultant!shall!submit!a!detailed!
project!schedule!outlining!
the!tasks,!activities,!deliverables,!milestone!and!duration!requi
red!for!the!completion!

and! submission! of! each! of! the! deliverables! identified! in!
the! Scope! of! Services.! The!
schedule! shall! also! factor! in! reasonable! review! and!
feedback! periods! for! draft!
deliverables!by!City!staff!as!well!as!any!and!all!legally!manda
ted!review!and!comment!
period,!including!those!that!may!be!required!by!third!party!reg
ulatory!agencies.!!
!
9) Fee!Schedule/Cost!Proposal.!
!Maximum!3!page!detailed!cost!estimate!for!performing!
specific!Tasks!identified!in!the!RFP!and!a!schedule!of!rates!fo
r!each!proposed!personnel!
that!may!be!tasked!to!complete!the!Project.!The!Taskcspecific!
cost!estimate!shall!include!
an! estimate! of! the! number! of! hours! per! staff! member!
by! proposed! task! and! clearly!
identify!an!hourly!rate!schedule!for!the!proposed!staff.!The!pr
oposal!shall!indicate!the!
compensation!structure!for!performing!specific!services!identif
ied!in!Tasks!1!through!6!
(e.g.! flat! lump! sum! or! hourly! rate! structure)! for! each!
Task.! ! The! proposal! shall! also!
include! costs! and! expenses! related! to! photocopying,!
postage,! travel,! etc.! (i.e.!
Reimbursement! expenses).! ! To! the! extent! that! a! proposal!
contemplates! the! use! of!
subconsultants! to! perform! any! one! or! more! of! the! above!
described! tasks! on! the!
proposer’s! behalf,! the! proposal! shall! include! a! List! of!
Subconsultants! identifying! all!
subconsultants!and!state!the!fee!for!each!subconsultant!in!the!
Fee!Schedule!under!the!
appropriate!Task!under!which!the!service!will!be!provided.!!In

!so!far!as!the!proposer’s!
proposal! contemplates! an! increase! in! compensation! rates!
or! charges! prior! to! the!
completion!of!Tasks!1!through!6,!and!during!the!term!of!the!p
ortion!of!the!PSA!or!any!
9!
!
extension!term,!the!proposal!shall!clearly!indicate!when!such!i
ncreases!will!take!effect!
and!by!how!much.!
!
a.
The!Fee!Schedule/Cost!Proposal!shall!be!delivered!in!a!separat
e!sealed!envelope!
which!is!plainly!marked!on!the!outside!“Lambert!Park!Phase!II
!(CIP!NO.!819)”!and!
addressed! to! the! abovecmentioned! location.! ! The!
envelope! shall! contain! the!
name!and!address!of!the!consultant!clearly!marked!on!the!outs
ide.!
!
The!City!reserves!the!right!to!delete!specific!task(s).!!
10!
!
!

4.0(Evaluation(Criteria(
Each! proposal! shall! be! evaluated! on! the! basis! of! the!
proposer’s! expertise,! experience! and!
training!and!the!expertise!of!its!key!personnel!along!with!prior
!contracting!history,!approach!to!
the!project,!cost,!proposed!schedule!and!compliance!with!the!
RFP!requirements!including!the!
terms!of!the!attached!PSA.!Each!such!factor!shall!be!weighted
!by!the!City!as!follows:!!
1) Expertise,! Experience! &! Training! Plus! Prior!
Contracting! History! (25%)! –! The!
expertise,! experience! and! training! of! the! proposer! and!
its! key! personnel! and!
previous!experience!with!similar!work!in!similar!fields!and!qu
alifications!and!depth!
of! the! staff! that! will! perform! the! work! on! this! project.!
! This! factor! includes!
evaluation!of!the!proposer’s!prior!contracting!history,!
including!the!review!of!the!
proposer’s!certifications!relating!to!false!claims,!debarment!an
d!civil!litigation.!
!
2) Project! Approach! (40%)! –! The! proposer’s!
responsiveness! in! developing! a!
comprehensive!plan!while!meeting!regulatory!requirements!and
!the!City’s!specific!
needs.!
!
3) Cost! (15%)! –! The! proposed! compensation! structure!
(inclusive! of! hourly! rates! of!
compensation,!pass!through!costs!and!subconsultant!costs)!for!

the!performance!of!
Tasks! 1! through! 8,! inclusive! of! its! proposed! notcto!
cexceed! sum.! ! The! proposers!
proposed! strategy! for! containing! costs! incurred! by! City!
while! still! meeting! the!
objectives!and!standards!set!forth!under!the!RFP.!
!
4) Schedule!(10%)!–
!Proposal!for!completing!the!project!in!a!timely!manner,!inclu
sive!
of! the! proposer’s! ability! to! identify! critical! paths! for!
the! timely! and! competent!
completion!of!all!work!contemplated!under!the!RFP.!!
!
5) Compliance! with! RFP! (10%)! –! The! ability! of! the!
proposer! to! comply! with! all!
instructions!set!forth!under!this!RFP!as!well!as!the!proposer’s!
ability!to!agree!to!all!of!
the!terms!and!conditions!of!the!attached!PSA!without!modifica
tion,!particularly!as!
relates!to!indemnification,!insurance!requirements!and!standard
s!of!care.!!
!
!
11!
!
!

5.0(Selection(Process(
A! selection! committee,! comprised! of! City! staff! will!
review! the! proposals.! ! Proposals! will! be!
ranked!on!qualifications!and!the!selection!committee!may!choo
se!to!interview!several!of!the!
top!ranked!proposers.!However,!at!
its!sole!discretion!the!selection!committee!may!dispense!
with!interviews!and!select!a!proposer!to!perform!the!work.!
12!
!
!
6.0(Proposal(Requirements(
Proposals!must!be!submitted!using!the!following!methods:!!!
Three!(3)!printed!copies!of!the!proposal!must!be!received!prio
r!to!the!Submission!Deadline.!!
Proposals!shall!be!submitted!to!the!following!address:!
!
City!of!El!Monte!!
Department!of!Public!Works!–!Engineering!Division!
City!Hall!West!
11333!Valley!Boulevard!
El!Monte,!CA!91731c3293!
!
ATTN:!Elaine!Jeng,!P.E.!
Public!Works!&!Utilities!Director/City!Engineer!
!

Subject:!RFP!–!Lambert!Park!Phase!II!–!CIP!NO.!819!
!
Proposals!may!be!submitted!via!personal!delivery,!overnight!c
ourier!(e.g.,!FedEx!or!UPS)!or!U.S.!
Mail.!Proposals!must!be!received!by!or!before!the!Submission!
Deadline.! !Proposals!that!are!
deposited! with! an! overnight! courier! or! post! marked! prior!
to! the! Submission! Deadline! but!
received!after!the!Submission!Deadline!will!not!be!considered!
by!the!City.!!!
Submitted! proposals! shall! be! maintained! as! confidential!
records! of! the! City! up! to! the!
Submission!Deadline.!!Proposers!may!withdraw,!modify!and/or
!resubmit!a!proposal!prior!to!the!
Submission!Deadline!but!not!after.!
!Proposers!shall!be!bound!to!the!terms!of!their!proposal!
following! the! Submission! Deadline,! however,! the! City,! in!
its! sole! and! absolute! discretion,!
reserves! the! right! to! accept! post! deadline! modifications!
if! it! is! determined! that! such!
modifications!are!in!the!best! interests!of!the!City.!
!The!City!also!reserves!the!right!to!waive!
minor!noncsubstantive!informalities!or!allow!the!proposer!to!c
orrect!them.!
!
1)
Proposers!shall!be!solely!and!exclusively!responsible!for!all!c
osts!incurred!in!connection!
with! the! preparation! and! submission! of! the! proposals;!
demonstrations;! interviews;!
preparation! of! responses! to! questions! and! requests! for!
additional! information;! for!
contract!discussions;!or!for!anything!in!any!way!related!to!this
!RFP.! !The!City! is!not!

liable!for!any!costs!incurred!by!a!proposer!in!response!to!this!
RFP.!!Whether!or!not!a!
proposer!is!awarded!a!contract!pursuant!to!this!RFP,!no!propo
ser!shall!be!entitled!to!
reimbursement!for!any!costs!or!expenses!associated!with!the!p
roposer’s!participation!
in!this!RFP!process.!!
!
2) Late!proposals!will!not!be!considered.!
!
3)
The!City!reserves!the!right!to!reject!any!and!all!proposals!rece
ived!as!a!result!of!this!
RFP.!!The!City’s!potential!award!of!a!contract!will!not!be!bas
ed!on!any!single!factor!nor!
will! it! be! based! solely! or! exclusively! on! the! lowest!
cost! proposal.! ! If! a! contract! is!
13!
!
awarded,! it! will! be! awarded! to! the! proposer! who! in! the!
judgment! of! the! City! has!
presented!an!optimal!balance!of!relevant!experience,!technical!
expertise,!price,!quality!
of!service,!work!history!and!other!factors!which!the!City!may!
consider!relevant!and!
important!in!determining!which!proposal!is!best!for!the!City.!!
!
4)
The!City!reserves!the!right!to!cancel!or!modify!this!RFP.!!The

re!is!no!guarantee!that!the!
City!will!award!contract.!
!
5) The! City! reserves! the! right! to! investigate! the!
qualifications! of! any! proposer! under!
consideration!including!proposed!subcontractors!and!parties!ot
herwise!related!to!the!
proposer!and!require!confirmation!of!information!furnished!by!
a!proposer,!or!require!
additional! evidence! of! experience! and! qualifications! to!
provide! the! services! or!
otherwise!discharge!the!obligations!required!by!this!RFP.!
!
6)
Following!the!Submission!Deadline,!the!City,!pursuant!to!the!
California!Public!Records!
Act!(Govt.!Code!Section!6250!et!seq.)!reserves!the!right!to!ma
ke!copies!of!all!submitted!
proposals!available!for!inspection!and!copying!by!any!intereste
d!member!of!the!public,!
except!to!the!limited!extent!the!City!determines!that!any!infor
mation!contained!in!a!
proposal!is!legally!privileged!under!the!California!Public!Reco
rds!Act.!!By!submission!of!
a!proposal,!proposers!acknowledge!and!agree!that!their!propos
al!and!any!information!
contained!therein!may!be!disclosed!by!the!City!to!interested!m
embers!of!the!public,!
including!other!proposers.!!
!
7)

The!City!reserves!the!right!to!approve!or!disapprove!of!particu
lar!subcontractors,!joint!
venture!partners,!or!other!proposed!team!members.!
!
8)
The!City!reserves!the!right!to!evaluate!responses!in!terms!of!t
he!best!interests!of!the!
City,!applying!criteria!provided!in!this!RFP!and!any!other!crit
eria!the!City,! in! its!sole!
discretion,!deems!pertinent.!
!
9)
By!the!submission!of!a!proposal,!each!proposer!accepts!and!ag
rees!to!execute!a!written!
Professional!Services!Agreement!(PSA)!
in!the!form!attached!hereto!as!Exhibit!1.! !By!
submission!of!a!proposal,!each!proposer!agrees!to!execute!a!P
SA!with!the!City!in!the!
form!attached!hereto!as!Exhibit!1,!inclusive!of!all!stated!terms
!and!conditions!relating!
to! indemnification,! required! insurance! and! standard! of!
care! requirements.! ! If! a!
proposer!is!unable!to!agree!to!any!of!the!terms!or!conditions!o
f!the!PSA!in!the!form!
attached!hereto,!the!proposer!must!identify!the!provision(s)!in!
question!and!provide!an!
explanation!as!to!why!the!proposer!cannot!comply!with!such!p
rovisions.!!If!a!proposers!
objection! to! a! certain! provision! of! the! PSA! is! merely! a!
question! of! added! cost,! the!
proposer!shall!indicate!in!the!proposal!the!difference!in!cost!a
ssociated!with!complying!

with!the!provision(s)!versus!the!cost!associated!with!the!City’s
!waiver!or!modification!
of!the!provision(s).!!The!City!shall!be!under!no!obligation!to!
make!modifications!to!the!
PSA! after! a! contract! has! been! awarded! and! proposers!
shall! be! deemed! to! have!
incorporated!all!costs!associated!with!compliance!with!the!PS
A!into!their!proposal.!!A!
14!
!
proposer’s!inability!to!comply!with!one!or!more!provisions!of!
the!PSA!shall!be!a!factor!
that!will!be!considered!by!the!City!in!determining!which!prop
osal!will!serve!the!best!
interest!of!the!City!when!all!other!factors!are!taken!into!accou
nt.!!
!
10)
All!proposals!must!remain!valid!for!a!minimum!period!of!nine
ty!(90)!calendar!days!after!
the! Submission! Deadline.! ! Responses! may! not! be!
modified! or! withdrawn! by! the!
proposer!during!this!period!of!time!except!in!accordance!with!
this!RFP!and!with!written!
permission!granted!by!the!City.!
!
11)
All!questions!or!requests!for!clarification!shall!be!submitted!vi
a!email!to!Alan!Palermo!
at! [email protected]! by! the! REQUEST! FOR!

INFORMATION! DEADLINE.! ! All!
questions!received!by!this!deadline!will!be!addressed!and!post
ed!on!the!City’s!website!
(www.ci.elcmonte.ca.us)!by!the!RELEASE!OF!INFORMATION
!REQUESTED!DATE.!
!
12)
If!it!becomes!necessary!to!revise!any!part!of!this!RFP,!an!add
endum!will!be!posted!on!
the!City’s!website.!!It!shall!be!the!sole!responsibility!of!the!pr
oposer!to!check!for!any!
addendums!to!the!RFP!that!may!be!issued!by!the!City.!
!
13)
It!is!presumed!that!each!proposer!has!read!and!is!thoroughly!f
amiliar!with!the!scope!of!
services!to!be!performed!under!this!RFP.!
!
14) The!proposer!agrees!that,! if!a!contract!
is!awarded!to!a!proposer,!the!proposer!shall!
make!no!claim!against!the!City!or!any!of!the!funding!agencies
!because!of!any!estimate!
or!statement!made!by!any!employees,!agents,!or!consultants!of
!the!City!which!may!
prove!to!be!erroneous!in!any!respect.!
!
15)
Proposers!may!withdraw!their!proposal!prior!to!the!Submission
!Deadline.!

!
A
ttachm
ent “A
”
City of Glendale
___________________ RFP: Glendale –Burbank Regional
Streetcar Feasibility Study
Page 1 of 34
CITY OF GLENDALE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
“GLENDALE-BURBANK REGIONAL STREETCAR
FEASIBILITY STUDY”
To: All Qualified Firms
Date: July 31, 2017
Subject: Request for Proposals for City of Glendale: Glendale –

Burbank Regional
DUE DATE: Ten (10) hard copies and five (5) electronic copies
on CDs responding to the Re-
quest for Proposals are to be submitted to:
Fred Zohrehvand
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206
By 5:00 pm on August 22, 2017.
Proposals received after this date and time will not be
considered.
City of Glendale
Page 2 of 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Schedule of Events
...............................................................................................
................. 6
II. Explanation of the Project
...............................................................................................
..... 6
III. Project Background
...............................................................................................
.............. 6
IV. City of Glendale Background
..............................................................................................
7
V. Project Scope of
Work......................................................................................
.................... 8
VI. Instructions to Proposer
...............................................................................................
.... 15
VII. DBE Requirements
...............................................................................................
............ 18
VIII. Evaluation & Selection
...............................................................................................
..... 18
IX. Response to RFP – Formatting & Contents
..................................................................... 19
X. Appendix
...............................................................................................
.............................. 22
Submittal Forms
..................................................................................... ..........
....................... 23
Attachments
...............................................................................................

............................. 34
City of Glendale
Page 3 of 34
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
NOTICE is hereby given that the City of Glendale (“City”) will
receive Proposals until the dead-
line established below for the following project:
Glendale – Burbank Regional Streetcar Feasibility Study
Proposal Submittal Deadline: Submit before 5:00 p.m. on
August 22, 2017
Proposal Submittal Location: 633 E. Broadway, Room 300,
Glendale, CA 91206

NO LATE PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.
City of Glendale Contact Person for RFP Process:
Ms. Arezoo Kamali
Planning Assistant
Phone: (818) 937-8333
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:
For the past several years there have been discussions on the
concept of developing a street-
car system in Downtown Glendale. Earlier streetcar concepts
were discussed or evaluated by
the Greater Downtown Strategic Plan (1996) and the Downtown
Mobility Study (2007).
A streetcar in Glendale has the potential to connect the various
shopping, dining, entertain-
ment and parking components of the Downtown area, and
perhaps neighboring cities and
other mass transit services. Streetcar systems also attract
tourism, and visitors to Glendale
will be able to utilize the streetcar to patronize business
throughout the Downtown business
district. Finally, we have the ability to establish connectivity
among our various transportation
modes by linking the streetcar to the Beeline and the Larry
Zarian Transportation Center to
develop a more effective and comprehensive transit system. The
City of Glendale hopes to
continue to provide the infrastructure and resources necessary
for residents to incorporate
transit oriented lifestyles into their daily lives, and become part
of healthier communities.

The feasibility study required to move forward with any
streetcar concept would include:
• Evaluate different route alignments and technologies for the
streetcar;
• Analyze Downtown Glendale infrastructure to determine its
ability to accommodate a
streetcar system; and if necessary,
• Determine the infrastructure improvements needed to
construct the system;
• Determine what types of vehicles are obtainable and
appropriate;
• Establish how a streetcar system can be implemented;
• Project potential streetcar ridership and revenues;
• Predict traffic impacts;
• Forecast impacts on Downtown Glendale businesses; and
• Determine the overall cost of the project, including:
• The various equipment options
• Infrastructure improvements (tracks, street improvements)
• Maintenance and Operating Costs
City of Glendale
Page 4 of 34
Other Proposal Information:

1. Request for Proposal Documents may be obtained in the City
of Glendale
Community Development Department, Urban Design and
Mobility Division, lo-
cated at 633 East Broadway, Room 300, Glendale, CA, 91206,
or via email or
mail at the request of consultants without any cost.
2. Acceptance or Rejection of Proposals. The City reserves the
right to reject
any and all Proposals, and to waive any informalities,
irregularities or technical
defects in such proposals and determine the lowest responsible
proposer,
whichever may be in the best interests of the City. No late
proposals will be ac-
cepted, nor will any oral, facsimile or electronic proposals be
accepted by the
City.
3. Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference. August 9, 2017 2:30pm-
4:00pm at 633
E. Broadway, Room 105, Glendale, CA 91206.
4. Race Conscious (RC)/DBE Participation. [NOTE: The
following mandatory
requirement applies ONLY to the Glendale – Burbank Regional
Streetcar
Feasibility Study contract.
The U.S. Dept. of Transportation Regulations found
that 49 CFR Part 26 shall
apply to this contract. A disadvantaged business enterprise
(“DBE”) contract

goal of 10% goal has been established for this project. This
goal must be met or
good faith efforts to meet this goal must be demonstrated in
order for a proposal
to be considered responsive. The Consultant or subcontractor
shall not discrimi-
nate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the
performance of this
contract. The consultant shall carry out applicable requirements
of 49 CFR, Part
26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts.
Failure by the
consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach
of this contract,
which may result in the termination of this contract or such
other remedy, as re-
cipient deems appropriate. To assist consultants in
ascertaining RC/DBE
availability for specific items of work, the City has determined
that RC/DBE
could reasonably be expected to compete for subcontracting
opportunities
on this project, and their likely availability for work on this
project is 10%
Race Conscious RC/DBE.
It is the proposer’s responsibility to verify that the RC/DBE’s
fall into one of
the following groups in order to count towards the RC/DBE
contract goal:
1) Black American; 2) Asian-Pacific American; 3) Native
American; 4) Wom-
en; 5) Hispanic American; 6) Subcontinent Asian Pacific
American and any

other groups whose members are certified as socially and
economically
disadvantaged. Proposers are required to submit the Local
Agency Pro-
posal RC/DBE Commitment, “Exhibit 15-G” and the Good Faith
Efforts,
“Exhibit 15-H” forms form along with the proposal submittal.
If the RC/DBE
Commitment forms are not submitted with the proposal, the
apparent low
proposer, the 2nd low proposer, and the 3rd low proposer must
complete
and submit the RC/DBE Commitment forms (Exhibits 15-G and
15-H) to the
City. Submittal of only the “Local Agency Proposer RC/DBE
Commitment” form
City of Glendale
Page 5 of 34
may not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that
adequate good
faith efforts were made.
For a list of RC/DBE’s certified by the California Unified
Certification Pro-
gram, go to: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm
Dated this ______ day of _____________, 2017, City of

Glendale, California.
Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale.
City of Glendale
Page 6 of 34
Definition of Terms
The following terms used in the RFP documents shall be
construed as follows:
“City” shall mean the City of Glendale.
“Agreement” shall be considered synonymous with the term
“Contract.”
“Proposer” shall mean the individual, partnership, corporation
or other entity who responds to
the RFP.
“Consultant” shall mean the individual, partnership, corporation
or other entity to which an
agreement is awarded.
“Days” shall mean the business days recognized by City of
Glendale.
I. Schedule of Events

Event Date
Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued July 31, 2017
Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting August 9, 2017
Deadline for Written Questions and Requests August 15, 2017
Responses and Addenda Issued August 15, 2017
Technical and Price Proposals Due August 22, 1017; 5:00pm
Interview Firms (TBD based on City review of written proposal)
Early September 2017
Proposed Approval of Selected Consultant(s) by City Council
Early-Mid September 2017
Notice to Proceed / Service Contract Begins / Kick-Off Meeting
Late October 2017
Project Completion Date (8-12) mos. after start of contract)
Summer 2018
City of Glendale reserves the right to alter any of the dates
shown above by written notice.
Submit any inquiries via email to Ms. Arezoo Kamali, Planning
Assistant at
[email protected] No phone calls please.
II. Explanation of the Project
The purpose of this RFP is to:
1) Obtain the services of a well-qualified project team led by a
single consultant/firm, or a
consultant team with experienced sub-consultants who are
experts in their respective
fields, to develop a Streetcar Feasibility Study concentrating in
the City of Glendale with
optional tasks D1 & D2.
III. Project Background

Streetcars have been an integral part of the history of the City
of Glendale. Streetcar
systems such as the Pacific Electric and Glendale & Montrose
Railway Company operated
within the boundaries of modern-day Glendale from 1904
to1956.
Recently, many cities have installed streetcar systems as part of
larger successful
redevelopment projects. These cities have observed formerly
blighted areas turn
City of Glendale
Page 7 of 34
prosperous; property values increase and cultural resources
enhance in the vicinity of newly
installed streetcar systems. This benefit is in addition to the
gains in transit services provided
by the streetcar system for these cities.
It is the City’s goal to develop a streetcar system that can create
connectivity linking the
various shopping, dining, entertainment, and parking resources
of downtown Glendale with
the region via the Larry Zarian Transportation Center and the
Hollywood Burbank Airport. A
successful streetcar system can also attract tourism and visitors
to the city increasing

commerce for Downtown Glendale businesses.
IV. City of Glendale Background
The City of Glendale is located at the eastern end
of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles Coun-
ty, at the southern base of the Verdugo Moun-
tains.
Glendale is bordered to the northwest by the
Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, to the
northeast by La Canada Flintridge and the unin-
corporated area of La Crescenta, to the west by
Burbank, to the east by Pasadena and to the
south and southeast by the City of Los Angeles.
Glendale is also defined by the 210, 2, 134, and
5 freeways.
Glendale is a diverse, multilingual city of 191,719
residents (US Census Bureau 2010). Its business
community, from manufacturing to financial ser-
vices, employs nearly 100,000 people at more
than 6,800 firms (US Census Bureau 2007).
The area’s mobility network is well-connected by
public transportation, including Metrolink and Amtrak service
at the Glendale Transportation
Center in South Glendale, by Metro Rapid and Local buses, and
by the Glendale Beeline bus
service.
For purposes of long-range planning, Glendale is divided into
four community planning areas,
as described below:
North Glendale Community Plan

The community of North Glendale lies within the Crescenta
Valley, which is clearly defined by
the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains. The Crescenta Valley
has a variety of neighbor-
hood‐oriented village centers and commercial districts,
including the Sparr Heights Business
District, Verdugo City and the suburban corridor of Foothill
Boulevard. The most intense of
these is the “town center” surrounding the vibrant, popular, and
highly walkable Montrose Shop-
ping Park. The North Glendale Community Plan was adopted by
City Council in November
2011; the document is provided in the Appendix.
City of Glendale
Page 8 of 34
South Glendale Community Plan
South Glendale includes Downtown Glendale, which
is served by three public parking structures and ten
parking lots, and has experienced significant growth in
high-density mixed-use commercial and residential
buildings since the adoption of the Downtown Specific
Plan (2006) and the Downtown Mobility Study (2007).
Just south of downtown is the Brand Boulevard of
Cars, which contains a regional concentration of auto
dealerships, and the Tropico town site, the city’s his-
toric industrial base and a burgeoning mixed-use and
residential neighborhood around the Larry Zarian

Transportation Center. The South Glendale Communi-
ty Plan is currently in development and its adoption is
anticipated in early 2018.
East & West Glendale Community Plan
East Glendale includes hillside residential neighbor-
hoods and neighborhood-serving commercial areas,
and features Glendale Community College; this com-
munity abuts the City of Pasadena. West Glendale
includes hillside residential neighborhoods, commercial, and
industrial districts; it features the
Kenneth Village shopping area, the Walt Disney Company’s
Grand Central Creative Campus,
DreamWorks Animation studios, the Glendale Narrows
Riverwalk along the Los Angeles River,
and abuts the City of Burbank. Development of community
plans for East and West Glendale
will begin following the adoption of the South Glendale
Community Plan.
V. Project Scope of Work
Scope of Work – Glendale-Burbank Regional Streetcar
Feasibility Study
In developing the Glendale-Burbank Regional Streetcar
Feasibility Study, the Consultant shall
comply with all applicable local, State of California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), and
federal facility design guidelines and requirements.
The Scope of Work consists of the following tasks:
Task A - PROJECT SETTING

1. Statement of Project Purpose and Function
This task will focus on developing a statement of purpose and
function for reintroducing
streetcar service to the city of Glendale. Specific elements
include:
development of the
statement of project purpose
redevelopment sites
potentially served by a streetcar through South and West
Glendale and into the
neighboring city of Burbank
function for review and
adoption (see Task A-4)
City of Glendale
Page 9 of 34
2. Technology Option Review
type of streetcar
technology available to the City
examples and in

light of the project’s statement of purpose
3. Existing Conditions Review
This task will provide the narrative context for the study
geography, de-
mographics, and economics
and their status
policies, and goals
4. Selection of Preferred Technology and Alignment
Alternatives - Workshop and
Report
This task will include organization and conducting a workshop
with selected staff and the
City Council to develop consensus on the option or options to
be carried forward for fur-
ther study.
consensus regarding the
draft Statement of Project Purpose and Function; and on
determining alignment
alternatives and identifying minimum operating segments for
each alternative,
and confirming technology option(s) for further study

5. Concept Evaluation Report, Including Geodata
In light of the project purpose, and for the preferred technology
and alignment alterna-
tives, an evaluation will be conducted of how a streetcar would
be introduced into the
transportation environment and streetscape. Specific elements
include:
n and
lane configurations,
impacts on adjacent properties, access constraints and parking
impacts
deration of pedestrian and bicycle access to stations
-O-W inventory and analysis
aerial photography us-
ing existing public & commercial sources wherever possible
6. Vehicles Review
Identify and describe the range of vehicle types that are
available for use in Glendale.
Specific elements include:
disadvantages, of the range of
vehicle types available
ious vehicle types to meet
applicable government re-

quirements
opera-
tions/maintenance requirements
streetcar
City of Glendale
Page 10 of 34
7. Preliminary Cost Estimates
For the alignment alternatives identified in Task A-11, the
order-of-magnitude capital and
operating cost estimates will be refined. Specific elements
include:
frequency, run times,
annual hours and fleet requirements
g and maintenance (O&M) cost
minimum operating
segment in each alternative
operating segment in each

alternative
from recent projects to develop a
preliminary capital cost esti-
mate for each alternative
8. Ridership Analysis
Develop an estimate of ridership for each alternative utilizing
an “off-line” modeling tech-
nique. Specific elements include:
sh agreed upon “off-line” modeling process
travel demand within
project area
alignment
ply an “off-line” spreadsheet model to produce patronage
estimates for each
alternative
9. Preliminary Traffic Analysis
traffic conditions need to
be evaluated along the corridor with respect to streetcar
alternatives
to traffic conditions,
and the effects of traffic on streetcar operations

analysis, and recom-
mendations for further engineering design and traffic study
10. Funding Sources Report
Refine the listing of funding sources to support the capital and
operating cost require-
ments of each alternative’s minimum operating segment.
be available to ap-
ply to streetcar project
sources
ntify potential private sector sources of funding
identified source of fund-
ing and the level of revenues each source could provide.
11. Illustrated Route Concepts and Design Report
Refine system and alignment alternatives, including
identification of a minimum operat-
ing segment for each potential alignment. Specific elements
include:
Apply evaluation criteria to candidate system alignments and
recommend a pre-
ferred alternative for further evaluation.

City of Glendale
Page 11 of 34
for the preferred al-
ternative
drawings, cross-
sections and sketches
12. MEETINGS, PRESENTATIONS and MANAGEMENT
The Consultant will attend a start-up meeting in tandem with
the notice to proceed, at
which the City and the Consultant will finalize the scope of
work and project schedule.
Deliverables:
As requested, the consultant team will attend project related
meetings and presenta-
tions. Specific elements include:
Transportation & Parking
Commission (TPC), City Council and community meetings

coordination with the City
and with sub consultants.
City of Glendale
Page 12 of 34
TASK B – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
1. Impact Assessment
Impacts not addressed during conceptual design development
will be identified and dealt
with. Specific elements include:
from the ridership
projections for the preferred alternative
cost implications of outstanding design
issues
2. Traffic Analysis
-of-service (LOS) calculations for each
intersection along

the preferred alternative
with delays/queuing issues that might
affect operations
proposed road-
way/signal changes for the preferred alternative. This is a
planning level LOS
analysis and will not estimate traffic diversion or incorporate
detailed signal oper-
ations analysis in this task.
impacts (e.g. through
changing intersection configuration, signal operations,
implementing transit signal
priority, etc.)
3. Transit Interface Report
Identify the positive and negative impacts a streetcar service
would have on existing and
planned transit services in Glendale. Specific elements include:
entify connections to local and regional transit services
transit service within
the project area.
4. Active Transportation & First/Last Mile Interface
Identify opportunities to improve first last/mile connection in

light of existing and planned
bicycle and pedestrian facilities to streetcar service in Glendale.
Specific elements in-
clude:
ion
locations consistent with the
Metro First Last Mile Strategic Plan methodology, and note
potential areas of
conflict between a streetcar and non-motorized travel modes
connectivity and access
around proposed station locations
5. Operations Plan
A final Operations Plan for the preferred alternative will be
developed. Specific elements
include:
service frequency
ations of annual vehicle revenue hours, annual
revenue vehicle
miles and number of vehicles required
City of Glendale
Page 13 of 34

6. Capital Costs Estimate
A final capital cost estimate reflecting the preferred alternative
will be developed. Specif-
ic elements include:
ct design elements that have changed since the
Task A-7 estimates
were produced
elements
7. Operating & Maintenance Costs Estimate
Prepare a final operating and maintenance cost estimate
reflecting the final Operations
Plan including:
estimates developed
in Task A-7
erations
Plan (Task B-5)
Task C – IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
1. Phasing Plan
Identify the steps and milestones required to advance from the
current feasibility study to

project implementation. Specific elements include:
Federal (FTA)
funded project and a non-federalized project
e project report
2. Programming Strategies Report
Identify the required local, regional, state and Federal approvals
and clearances required
for project implementation. Specific elements include:
tions
applicable to a streetcar op-
eration and the steps necessary to address each
required
or adopted plans
ramming Strategies portion of the project
report
3. Public Outreach Plan
Develop an outline for a public outreach plan for the various
phases to project opening.
required for a suc-
cessful public outreach program

4. Land Use & Zoning Analysis
ting land use and zoning policies, as well as
design guidelines,
within the project area in light of Metro guidance and best
practices relative to
transit corridors and Transit-Oriented Development
City of Glendale
Page 14 of 34
design guideline
policies to focus new growth within the project area, support
streetcar ridership,
and help achieve regional GHG/VMT reduction goals
5. Funding Plan
Prepare a Funding Plan for the Glendale streetcar system.
dollars
the capital and O&M
costs

funding sources
Task D: Add Alternatives
The City requests that proposers provide the following tasks as
optional “add alternatives” to the
project scope that the City may pursue if desired:
1. City of Burbank Streetcar Alignment
A detailed study of the proposed streetcar system within the
City of Burbank, including,
but not limited to:
• Alternative alignments connecting from the City of Glendale
serving the Down-
town Area of the City of Burbank, Media District, Hollywood
Burbank Airport, and
other points of interest within the City of Burbank.
• This optional task to determine alternative alignments to serve
the City of Bur-
bank shall be the same Scope of Work that was identified for
the City of Glendale
portion of the Study: Task A – Project Setting; Task B –
Preferred Option As-
sessment; and Task C – Implementation Strategy.
2. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
An evaluation of Personal Rapid Transit as a technology both
alternative and in

addition to a streetcar system in Glendale.
PRT technology, including
extant or
demonstration systems
operating
PRT in Downtown Glendale
City of Glendale
Page 15 of 34
VI. Instructions to Proposer
Compliance with Applicable Guidelines and Regulations
Consultants are required to comply with all applicable State of
California guidelines and regula-
tions regarding the Streetcar Feasibility Study.
Late Proposals
All proposals, as well as any modifications, received at this
office after the hour and date speci-
fied will not be considered unless they are sent by certified
mail, for which an official, dated post
office stamp has been obtained, and it is determined by the
City’s Project Manager that the late
receipt was due solely to delay in the mail.
Disclaimers

The City reserves the right to extend the time allotted for the
RFP submittal, to interview the
Proposer in person, and to request a best and final offer, should
the City deem that it is in its
best interest to do so. This RFP does not commit the City to
award a contract, or to pay any
costs incurred in its preparation. The City reserves the right to
accept or reject any or all RFPs
received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any
qualified firm, or to cancel this RFP in
part or in its entirety. The City may require the selected firm to
participate in negotiations and to
submit such technical, price, or other revisions of their
proposals as may result from negotia-
tions. Any costs incurred by the Proposer in responding to this
Request for Proposals shall be
the Proposer’s sole expense and will not be reimbursed by the
City.
Proprietary Information; Public Records Act
The City seeks to conduct its business openly. Upon
recommendation for award of Contract to
the City Council, all Proposal Documents shall become a matter
of public record and shall be
regarded as public, with the exception of those elements of each
Proposal that are identified by
the Consultant and plainly marked as “trade secret,”
“confidential,” or “proprietary”. Each ele-
ment of a Proposal which a Consultant desires not to be
considered a public record must be
clearly marked as set forth above, and any blanket statement
(i.e. regarding entire pages, doc-
uments, or other, non-specific designations) shall not be
sufficient and shall not bind the City in
any way whatsoever. If City receives a request from a third
party to make a Proposal available

for inspection and copying, the City will notify the Consultant
of the request. If a Consultant in-
structs the City that the information is not to be released, City
will withhold the information, pro-
vided, the Consultant expeditiously seeks a protective order to
prevent such release. If disclo-
sure is required under the California Public Records Act or
otherwise by law (despite the Con-
sultant’s request for confidentiality), the City shall not in any
way be liable or responsible for the
disclosure of any such records or part thereof.
Consultant shall indemnify, defend (including Consultant
providing and paying for legal counsel
for the City), and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents,
employees and representatives
from and against any liability, claims, suits, demands, damages,
fines, penalties, costs, or ex-
penses arising out of or alleging the City’s refusal to publicly
disclose one or more records that
Consultant identifies as protectable, or asserts is protectable.
Agreement
Once selected, the successful Proposer must enter into a written
Agreement with the CITY with-
in fourteen (14) calendar days following Proposer’s receiving
the CITY’s Notice of Intent to
Award Contract.
Before any services can commence, the selected Proposer will
be required to execute the
Standard Form of Agreement, a sample of which is attached
here and alternately referred to as

City of Glendale
Page 16 of 34
“Professional Services Agreement.” To facilitate the project’s
smooth and timely implementation,
Proposers responding to this RFP shall review all the terms and
conditions of the Standard
Form of Agreement including, but not limited to, provisions
relating to insurance, indemnity, and
termination.
The CITY’s policy is that the Standard Form of Agreement be
accepted as is. By submitting a
Proposal to the CITY in response to this RFP, each Proposer is
deemed to have provided its
approval to the Standard Form of Agreement, accepting it
without qualification. If a Proposer
seeks limited modification of the Standard Form of Agreement,
then in the Proposal a Proposer
must identify the proposed changes.
However, changes or qualifications to the Standard Form of
Agreement may be weighed in the
evaluation of the Proposal and may cause rejection of the
proposal as non-responsive, in
CITY’s determination.
Insurance Requirements
Based on the Scope of Work, insurance is required for the
following coverages:
• Professional Liability Insurance

• Workers’ Compensation Insurance
• Commercial General Liability or Business owners Liability
Insurance
• Business Automobile Liability Insurance
The City’s specific insurance requirements are included in the
Appendix to this RFP, as are
sample Professional Services Agreements (PSAs) for 1)
consultants who are not Architects,
Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, or Professional
Land Surveyors and 2) consult-
ants who ARE licensed professionals in the aforementioned
fields.
Requests for Clarification
A Proposer with questions may submit to the City a written
Request for Clarification by email to
Ms. Arezoo Kamali, Planning Assistant at [email protected] for
an interpretation or
clarification of, or addenda to, this RFP. Any such request must
be received by the City no later
than the date and time specified in Section I. Schedule of
Events in this RFP. The City will re-
view and prepare a written response to each request made
pursuant to this section. The City's
determination will be furnished to all Proposers by the date
specified in Section I. Schedule of
Events in this RFP.
The City reserves the right to modify or issue addenda to this
RFP. If the City determines it ap-
propriate to revise any portion of this RFP, either at the request
of a Proposer or upon the City’s
own initiative, the City will issue, and make available to all
prospective Proposers, a written ad-

dendum setting forth this revision. Proposer shall acknowledge
receipt of addenda by written
notice thereof returned to the City. Where addenda require
changes in the work to be performed
under the Agreement, the date for receipt of proposals may be
postponed by such number of
days as the City deems appropriate to enable Proposers to revise
proposals. The City is not
bound by any oral interpretations, clarifications, or changes
made to this RFP by any City staff
member. Any clarification or change to the RFP must be
provided in writing pursuant to this sec-
tion.
Acceptance of Proposals
City of Glendale
Page 17 of 34
Each proposal shall be submitted with the understanding that it
is subject to the evaluation pro-
cedure set forth in this RFP, and to negotiation at the option of
the City. Upon acceptance in
writing by the City of the final offer to furnish any and all of
the services described herein, the
parties shall promptly execute the final contract documents. The
written Agreement shall bind
the Proposer to furnish, deliver, maintain, operate or
compensate in accordance with conditions
of said accepted proposal and this Request for Proposals, as

negotiated. The City reserves the
right to make the award under this RFP based upon the initial
proposals submitted. The City has
the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any
informality in any proposal.
City Rights
The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to:
confirmation of information fur-
nished by a Consultant, and require additional evidence of
qualifications to perform the
Work described in this RFP
Proposal, without further obligation
or reimbursement to the Respondents.
fy this RFP
the assistance of outside
technical experts in Proposal evaluation
ease a Consultant’s qualification
determination based on subse-
quently learned information
time after receipt of the Pro-
posal.

irregularities in Proposals as the
interests of the City may require.
in its best interests.
xecution of the Contract.
In submitting a Proposal to this RFP, the Consultant is
specifically acknowledging these City-
held rights. This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a
contract, including if the City
elects to reject, in its sole discretion, all of the Proposals. The
City is not liable for any costs in-
curred by a Consultant in preparation and submission of a
Proposal or in anticipation of award
of a contract. By submitting a Proposal, the Consultant
disclaims any right to be paid for such
costs.
Restrictions on Lobbying and Contacts
During the period beginning on the date of the issuance of the
RFP and ending on the date of
selection of the Proposer, no person (or entity) submitting a
proposal in response to this RFP,
nor any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant
representing such a person (or
entity) shall contact through any means or engage in any
discussion concerning the award of
the Contract with any member of the City Council of the City of
Glendale or his/her staff. Any
such contact shall be grounds for the disqualification of the
proposal. During the period begin-
ning on the date of the issuance of this RFP and ending on the
date of selection of the Propos-

er, each person or entity described in the previous paragraph
shall limit his or her communica-
tion with City staff to the written clarification and amendment
process described in this RFP, and
interviews or discussions pursuant to evaluation and selection
process described in this RFP. At
no time may any Proposer have any communication with a
member of the City’s evaluation
City of Glendale
Page 18 of 34
Committee, other than communication initiated by such member
during interviews or discus-
sions.
VII. DBE Requirements
Race Conscious (RC)/DBE Participation. NOTE: The following
mandatory requirement
applies to the Glendale – Burbank Regional Streetcar Feasibility
Study. The U.S. Dept. of
Transportation Regulations found that 49 CFR Part 26 shall
apply to this contract. A disadvan-
taged business enterprise (“DBE”) contract goal of 10% goal
has been established for this pro-
ject. This goal must be met or good faith efforts to meet this
goal must be demonstrated in or-
der for a proposal to be considered responsive. The Consultant
or subcontractor shall not dis-
criminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in

the performance of this contract.
The consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49
CFR, Part 26 in the award and ad-
ministration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the
consultant to carry out these require-
ments is a material breach of this contract, which may result in
the termination of this contract or
such other remedy, as recipient deems appropriate. To assist
consultants in ascertaining
RC/DBE availability for specific items of work, the City has
determined that RC/DBE
could reasonably be expected to compete for subcontracting
opportunities on this pro-
ject, and their likely availability for work on this project is 10%
Race Conscious RC/DBE.
Consultants are required to complete “Exhibit 10.I NOTICE TO
PROPOSERS DBE IN-
FORMATION,” “Exhibit 10-01 CONSULTANT PROPOSAL
DBE COMMITMENT,” and “Ex-
hibit 10-02 CONSULTANT CONTRACT DBE
INFORMATION” for this project.
It is the proposer’s responsibility to verify that the RC/DBEs
fall into one of the following
groups in order to count towards the RC/DBE contract goal: 1)
Black American; 2) Asian-
Pacific American; 3) Native American; 4) Women; 5) Hispanic
American; 6) Subcontinent
Asian Pacific American and any other groups whose members
are certified as socially
and economically disadvantaged. Proposers are required to
submit the Local Agency
Proposal RC/DBE Commitment, “Exhibit 15-G” and the Good
Faith Effort, “Exhibit 15-H”
forms along with the proposal submittal. If the RC/DBE
Commitment forms are not sub-

mitted with the proposal, the apparent low proposer, the 2nd
low proposer, and the 3rd low
proposer must complete and submit the RC/DBE Commitment
forms (Exhibits 15-G and
15-H) to the City. Submittal of only the “Local Agency
Proposer RC/DBE Commitment”
form may not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate
that adequate good faith
efforts were made. For a list of RC/DBE’s certified by the
California Unified Certification
Program, go to:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm.
VIII. Evaluation & Selection
Evaluation/Selection Criteria
a. Written Proposal (14 points each, 140 points total)
1) Project Understanding
2) Clarity of Proposal/Organization and Schedule
3) Thoroughness in Addressing Requirements
4) Creativity in Approach
5) Experience of Personnel
6) Technical Ability to Perform
7) Overall Cost of Product
8) Community Outreach/Facilitation
9) Experience with Similar Projects/Communities
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/find_certified.htm
City of Glendale

of 34
10) Technical Expertise/Experience of Subconsultants
b. Oral Presentation (10 points each, 60 points total)
1) Presentation
2) Organization
3) Clarity
4) Communication Skills
5) Technical Understanding
6) Responses to Questions
The top five (5) highest-scoring Proposers from the Written
Proposal section will be selected for
the Oral Presentation.
The City reserves the right to reject the proposal of any
Proposer who has previously failed to
perform properly, or complete on time, contracts of a similar
nature, or to reject the proposal of a
Proposer who is not in a position to perform such a contract
satisfactorily. The City expressly
reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who is
in default of the payment of tax-
es, Agreements or other monies due to the City of Glendale.
IX. Response to RFP – Formatting & Contents
Response Formatting and Contents
The City expects the Proposer to prepare a comprehensive
proposal with recommendations,
actions, and procedures to accomplish the scope of work set
forth in this RFP.

The City shall provide all relevant data in its possession that
pertains to this project in support of
the Proposer’s services. The City assumes no responsibility
whatsoever with respect to the suf-
ficiency or accuracy of any information supplied. The Proposer
shall be responsible for evalua-
tion of all information supplied by the City.
The City of Glendale must receive five (5) CDs and ten (10)
hard copies of the proposal, as well
as Form H, Price and Staffing Proposal, completed in MS Excel.
All documents must be submit-
ted together by the date and time noted on the RFP title sheet.
Proposals should be concise and must be correctly formatted in
accordance with this RFP.
Each proposal must be divided into Parts I, II, and III as
specified below, and must include all of
the required contents of each Part, in the sequence specified.
Each proposal shall include a ta-
ble of contents clearly referencing each Part in the proposal.
Part I – BACKGROUND, AFFIRMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS
AND STABILITY
1. Submittal Cover – Form A
The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind
the Proposer and shall state
that the proposal is a firm offer for a 120-day period.
authorized officer(s) in accordance
with its corporate bylaws.
e the Proposal by all of its partners.
After each signature, each

partner must list a residential address or the Firm’s address,
either of which must include
the state, zip code, and telephone number.
City of Glendale
Page 20 of 34
of any of the above entities,
each entity in the joint venture must sign the Proposal.
others must attach to the
Proposal evidence of that person’s legal authority to sign on
behalf of another or others.
2. Proposer Contact Information – Form B
Provide the indicated contact information for the primary
contact person who will be authorized
to make representations for the Proposer’s firm. Provide
information for the Proposer’s second-
ary contact. List all sub-contractors proposed for this project
including type of work to be per-
formed. Use additional sheets as needed.
3. Statements and Agreements – Forms C-F; Disclosure -
Campaign Finance Ordinance
This section should include the following certifications, each of

which shall be fully executed:
i. Form C – Restrictions on Lobbying and Contacts
ii. Form D – Statement of Qualifications
iii. Form E – Proposer's Affidavit of Noncollusion
iv. Form F – Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Statement
v. Form G – Hold Harmless Agreement
vi. Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance
vii. DBE Requirement Documents
a. Caltrans Exhibit 10-O1 Consultant Proposal DBE
Commitment
b. Caltrans Exhibit 10-O2 Consultant Contract DBE Information
c. Caltrans Exhibit 15-G Local Agency Bidder DBE
Commitment
d. Caltrans Exhibit 15-H DBE Information – Good Faith Efforts
viii. Debarment and Suspension Certification
4. Information Regarding Debarments, Defaults, Claims, and
Related Events
Each Proposer, including its Joint Venture members, general
partners, and subconsultants
(“team members”), shall submit the information set forth below
regarding past performance, ac-
tivities, and projects. The information shall cover the 5 year
period prior to the due date of the
proposal.
i. Any instance where the Proposer or a team member defaulted
on a public services
contract.

ii. Information concerning the bankruptcy or receivership of the
Proposer or a team
member.
iii. Information concerning all adverse claims, disputes,
settlements, or lawsuits be-
tween a public agency and the Proposer or a team member
(including professional
liability/errors and omissions claims) in which the claim,
settlement, or judgment ex-
ceeds two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
Part II – QUALIFICATIONS & TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Each Proposer shall submit Part II that includes each of the
materials set forth below, explaining
the qualifications of the Proposer to perform the scope of work
and setting forth the Proposer’s
management and organizational structure, capability,
experience, and proposed programs and
plans to ensure successful performance of the scope of work.
a. Project Team
City of Glendale
Page 21 of 34
i. Proposer must submit an organizational chart identifying the
titles of pro-
ject team members (and subcontractors if applicable) and

reporting rela-
tionships within the team. The submittal shall also include a
brief descrip-
tion for each position identifying which functions they will be
responsible
to perform in relation to the Agreement including coordination
of subcon-
tractors. The chart shall indicate a “Project Manager” who will
be the
City’s central contact person for day-to-day matters. The
successful Pro-
poser agrees not to change the assigned project staff without
prior written
consent of the City.
ii. If applicable, the Proposer will submit a description of the
proposed sub-
contractors and identify which functions they will be
responsible to per-
form in relation to the scope of work.
b. Experience, Reference, and Performance Record
i. Provide contact information for five (5) current agencies for
which the
Proposer has provided similar work product. Two of these
contracts
should be located in Southern California. Provide contact name,
title,
agency name, address, phone, email, services provided, and
annual rev-
enue hours. Provide a brief scope of services provided for each
contrac-
tual relationship. Briefly highlight any unusual findings
discovered in the
course of implementing the project and achievements gained as

a result
of the work product.
c. Technical Proposal
i. Provide detailed Scope of Work based on tasks specified in
this RFP. For
each task, please include the following: assigned staff,
estimated time or
proportion of staffer’s total project time, assigned staffer’s rate
and title,
and total proposed cost.
Part III -- PRICE PROPOSAL AND STAFFING PLAN
Price Proposal and Staffing Plan - Form H
Each Proposer shall submit a price proposal and staffing plan
using Form H. A review copy of
this form is included within this document, while a submittal
copy in MS Excel format is provided
electronically as a separate file distributed with this RFP. All
figures on Form H must be submit-
ted as a completed spreadsheet in MS Excel format on CD and
within the printed matter as well.
Proposer must submit a staffing plan that includes a
comprehensive list of all key staff by name
and position proposed for this Agreement. Include contract
labor by count, position, and rate
only, as applicable.
City of Glendale

Page 22 of 34
X. Appendix
List of Resources
For a list of resources, see the Attachments section of this
Appendix. The following resources
shall be used to inform the development of the project and, as
appropriate, summarized or in-
corporated into the project. All are available on the City’s FTP
site at https://goo.gl/59arFG or are
linked to in the Attachments section of this Appendix, unless
otherwise noted.
Local Plan Regional Plan Report/Study Other
• Glendale Bicycle
Transportation
Plan (2012)
• Greener Glendale
Plan (2012)
• Circulation Ele-
ment of the Gen-
eral Plan (1998)
• Downtown Specif-
ic Plan (2006)
• SCAG Regional
Transportation

Plan/Sustainable
Communities
Strategy (2016)
• Metro First Last
Mile Strategic
Plan (2014)
• Metro Active
Transportation
Strategic Plan
(2014)
• Glendale Down-
town Mobility
Study (2007)
• Caltrans Local
Assistance Pro-
cedures Manual
DBE forms
• Sample Profes-
sional Services
Agreements
• City of Glendale
Insurance Re-
quirements
• Forms B, D, H
• Disclosure Form -
Campaign Fi-

nance Ordinance
• Campaign Fi-
nance Summary –
Contracts
• Debarment and
Suspension Certi-
fication (Page 29
of this RFP)
https://goo.gl/59arFG
City of Glendale
Page 23 of 34
Submittal Forms
MS Word versions of Form B, Form D, the Campaign Finance
Disclosure form,
and an MS Excel version of Form H are provided electronically
on the City’s FTP site:
All other forms should be printed from this RFP and executed
manually.

City of Glendale
Page 24 of 34
FORM A
SUBMITTAL COVER PAGE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
CITY OF GLENDALE
GLENDALE-BURBANK REGIONAL STREETCAR
FEASIBILTY STUDY
Proposer:
Firm Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
I certify that this Proposer is sufficiently informed as to all
matters affecting the performance of
the work, and the furnishing of labor, supplies, material or
equipment called for in this proposal;
that the proposal has been checked for errors and omissions,

that the facts stated in the pro-
posal are current and as intended and are a complete and correct
statement of the facts stated
therein for performing the work or furnishing the labor,
supplies, materials or equipment required
by the RFP. This Proposer waives any claim for the return of
its proposal on account of errors
or omissions claimed to have been made in its proposal or for
any other reason.
I certify that this response fully complies with the requirements
as defined in the RFP, and that I
am an authorized representative of the company to bind the firm
to this response to the RFP for
a 120 day period.
__________________________________
___________________________________
Printed Name of Authorized Representative Signature of
Authorized Representative
City of Glendale
Page 25 of 34
FORM B
PROPOSER CONTACT INFORMATION
Proposer

Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip
Authorized Signer Name:
Authorized Signer Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Project Manager Name:
Project Manager Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Subcontractors to Proposer
Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip
Authorized Representative Name:
Authorized Representative Title:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Email Address:
Work to be Performed:
Firm Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Authorized Representative Name:
Authorized Representative Title:
Telephone Number:

Fax Number:
Email Address:
Work to be Performed:
Attach additional pages as necessary.
City of Glendale
Page 26 of 34
FORM C
RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING AND CONTACTS
The Proposer agrees that during the period beginning on the
date of the issuance of the RFP
and ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, no person
(or entity) submitting a proposal
in response to this RFP, nor any officer, employee,
representative, agent, or consultant repre-
senting such a person (or entity) has not and shall not contact
through any means or engage in
any discussion concerning the award of the Contract with any
member of the City Council of the
City of Glendale or his or her personal staff. Any such contact
shall be grounds for the disquali-
fication of the proposal.
The Proposer agrees that during the period beginning on the
date of the issuance of this RFP
and ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, each person
or entity described in the pre-

vious paragraph has and shall limit his or her communication
with City staff to the written clarifi-
cation and amendment process described in Section IV, and
interviews or discussions pursuant
to evaluation and selection process described in Section V. At
no time has or shall this Propos-
er have any communication with a member of the City’s
Evaluation Committee, other than
communication initiated by such member during interviews or
discussions.
________________________________ _______________
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
____________________________________________
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative
City of Glendale
Page 27 of 34
FORM D
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
A. If your organization is a corporation or a limited liability
company, answer the following:

1. Date of incorporation/organization:
2. State of incorporation/organization:
3. Corporate ID number:
4. Agent for Service of Process:
5. Attach names, addresses and phone numbers of all
Corporate Officers.
B. If your organization is a partnership, answer the following:
1. Date of organization/formation:
2. Type of partnership (if applicable):
3. Attach name(s), address and telephone number of general
partner(s):
C. If your organization is individually owned, answer the
following:
1. Date of organization:
2. Owner Name:
Address:
Telephone number:
D. Claims and Suits (Check the box if answer is “no”. If the
answer to any of the ques-
tions below is “yes”, please attach an explanation.)
from bidding by any
state, county or local government agencies? If yes, please
explain.
y judgments, claims, arbitration proceedings
or suits pending or
outstanding against your organization or its officers?
arbitration within the last
five (5) years?
er is a corporation, any principal of
the corporation ever

been convicted of a felony? If your answer is “Yes”, please
explain the details of that
conviction and, if so, whether you or said officer have served
his or her sentence.
r company ever been charged by any
governmental agency
for failure to follow safety procedures? If so, please explain.
We/I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Dated this day of , 20____
Name of Company:
By:
Title:
City of Glendale
Page 28 of 34
FORM E
PROPOSER'S AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOLLUSION
I, ____________________________________ under penalty of
perjury, state as follows:
1. That I am the ________________________ (Title of office if
a corporation: "sole owner,"
"Partner," or other proper title) of
__________________________________, (hereinafter called

"Proposer") who has submitted to the City of Glendale a
Proposal for the GLENDALE-
BURBANK REGIONAL STREETCAR FEASIBILTY STUDY;
2. That said Proposal is genuine; that the same is not sham; that
all statements of fact
therein are true;
3. That said Proposal is not made in the interest or behalf of any
person, partnership, com-
pany, association, organization, or corporation not named or
disclosed;
4. That Proposer did not, directly or indirectly induce, solicit,
agree, collude, conspire or
contrive with anyone else to submit a false or sham proposal, to
refrain from proposing, or with-
draw his/her proposal, to raise or fix the proposal price of
Proposer or of anyone else, or to raise
or fix any overhead profit, or any cost element of Proposer’s
price or the price of anyone else;
and did not attempt to induce action prejudicial to the interests
of the City of Glendale, or of any
other Proposer, or anyone else interested in the proposed
Agreement;
5. That the Proposer has not in any manner sought by collusion
to secure for him-
self/herself/itself an advantage over any other Proposer or
induce action prejudicial to the inter-
ests of the City of Glendale or of any other Proposer, or anyone
else interested in the proposed
Agreement;
6. That the Proposer did not, directly or indirectly, submit its
proposal price or any break-
down thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulge information or
data relative thereto, to any cor-
poration, partnership, company, association, organization, bid
depository, or to any member or
agent thereof, or to any individual or group of individuals,

except to the City of Glendale, or to
any person or persons who have partnership or other financial
interest with said Proposer in
his/her business.
We/I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.
Dated this day of , 20____
Name of Company:
By:
Title:
City of Glendale
Page 29 of 34
FORM F
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
STATEMENT
The Proposer hereafter described will not discriminate against
any employee or applicant for
employment because of race/color, national origin, sex, sexual
preference, religion, age, or
handicapped status in employment or the provisions of services.

________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________
City of Glendale
Page 30 of 34
FORM G
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
Proposer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of
Glendale against and from any and
all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or
persons, including employees or
agents of the City, and shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its officers, agents,
and employees, from any and all claims, demands, suits,
actions, or proceedings of any kind or
nature, of or by anyone whomsoever, in any way resulting from
or arising out of the negligent or
intentional acts, errors, or omissions of the Proposer or any of
its officers, agents, or employees.

________________________________ _______________
____________________________________________
City of Glendale

of 34
TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29
DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
1) All persons or firms, including subconsultants, must
complete this certification and certify, under
penalty of perjury, that, except as noted below, he/she or any
person associated therewith in the
capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, or manager:
a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal
department or agency;
b) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this
certification, been convicted of
or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission
of fraud or a criminal
offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or
performing a public
(federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public
transaction, violation of
Federal or state antitrust statutes, or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving
stolen property;

c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a
governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission
of any of the offenses
listed in subparagraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d) Have not, within the three (3) year period preceding this
certification, had one or more
public transactions (Federal, state, and local) terminated for
cause or default.
2) If such persons or firms later become aware of any
information contradicting the statements of
paragraph (1), they will promptly provide that information to
THE City of Glendale.
If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the
exceptions in the following space.
Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but
will be considered in determining
proposer/bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above,
indicate below to whom it applies, initiating
agency, and dates of actions.
_________________________________
Name of Firm

Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats

Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats

Similar to Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats (20)

More from healdkathaleen

More from healdkathaleen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Comparing English and Dutch Auction Formats