skip to main content

Butte County Association of Governments

Butte County Association of Governments

RFP's

All Request for Proposals (RFPs), Request for Qualifications (RFQs), Invitation for Bids (IFB) and any solicitations falling under the disciplines of A&E (Architect and Engineering) will be made available through Intergrated Marketing Systems (IMS) and posted in the Butte County Association of Governments "Projects" web page. The links to these pages are listed below. 
 
 
A&E solicitations also include consultants pursuing work in the soil and environmental sciences as well as city and urban planning.
 
Please create an account with IMS to receive these notifications automatically.
 
Any outside business or agency staff calling our office to be placed on any e-mail based “notification list” will be directed to our related agency web page (http://www.bcag.org/Projects/RFPs/index.html) and to the IMS website (https://www.imsinfo.com/).
 
On March 30, 2023, BCAG informed any contacts listed on previous potential bidders/vendors lists of the current process for notifications. This was the only notice that will be delivered via email regarding this process. BCAG is not responsible for changes in email contacts that it was not notified of prior to that date. 
Current Opportunities

Current Opportunities

B-line fare media modernization

B-line fare media modernization

February 23, 2024
 
As the owner and operator of Butte Regional Transit (B-Line), BCAG is seeking proposals from qualified contractors/vendors to provide a comprehensive fare payment platform for the B-Line public transportation system and its suite of services.
 
Proposals Due Date and Time: February 28, 2024 at 12:00 PM
 
Download Request for Proposals (RFP) Documents:
 
Contact Persons: Victoria Proctor, Associate Planner
AND Sara Cain, Transit Manager
 
Questions Received:
 
  • What is the deadline date for submitting questions? Questions may be submitted up until the submittal deadline.
  • Can companies from outside the USA apply for this? International companies can respond to this RFP as long as all applicable USA Federal and California state regulations are followed.
  • Do we need to come to Chico, California for meetings? We do not currently foresee the need for in-person meetings for this RFP. Respondents would need to be available during normal California business hours for remote meetings and workflow.
  • Can we perform the tasks (related to the RFP) outside the USA? The physical location of the vendor does not need to be within the USA as long as all applicable USA Federal and California state regulations are followed. We do ask that the vendor be available during our normal business hours in California.
  • Can we submit the proposal via email? Page 9 of the RFP details submittal requirements. It must be submitted over email to Sara Cain and Victoria Proctor.
  • Is this RFP for consulting/design services to help BCAG put out a procurement for a new automated fare collection system, or is this RFP for the actual fare collection system and you need proposals that include validators, etc? This RFP includes the actual fare collection system, not just the design portion. It should include all necesssary hardware and software related costs to implement a new fare collection system to our fleet.
  • Would BCAG accept a fixed price bid for this RFP? The evaluation of these proposals does not include cost. As such, if a fixed price bid is deemed by you to be the best way of conveying price and competitiveness, then you can submit it that way. The cost proposal will not be opened unless selected to move forward, at which point contract negotiations will be finalized and may negotiate cost.
  • Does the agency intend to replace the current validators with the new proposed solution? Yes, all validators currently in use would be replaced with the new solution.
  • Does the agency intend to continue to use its Genfare fareboxes alongside the newly proposed solution? Genfare fareboxes will continue to be used until the new solution can eliminate cash fares on board vehicles and implement an appropriate solution for unbanked customers.
  • Please could you provide data for the annual fare value currently collected by the system and the breakdown of cash, smart card, and app sales? In the 2022/23 fiscal year, we collected approximately $220,460 via fareboxes, $500,931 via smart cards, $102,460 via mobile ticketing, and $315,336 via paper passes and invoicing.
  • Do the vehicles have onboard connectivity such as an existing modem with an available ethernet port? What other connectivity will be available on the vehicles? There are modems with available ethernet ports on the vehicles, as well as mobile data connectivity.
  • Please could you describe how boarding and alighting data is captured currently? We currently are just receiving boarding data through ticket validation and Genfare farebox tracking.
  • Please could you provide the FTA funding budget allocation for this project? At this time, we are not in the position to disclose the total funding available. The award will be based on the product that is the best fit for our agency.
  • Will cost be considered in the weighted score for the overall evaluation or was this intentionally left off? Cost is not a factor in evaluation.
  • Do you have a pricing sheet that is itemized for vendors to include their pricing components (software, licensing, hosting, services, validator HW, installations, etc.)? Or can vendors submit their own itemized cost sheet? Three examples are provides of cost proposal formats in Exhibit 10-H1 on pages 72-81 of the RFP. You are welcome to use your own.
  • Please could you provide what the Average Transaction Value (ATV) is for your ticket purchases? We don’t have the Average Transaction Value calculated for our ticket sales. Our current fare structure is listed here: https://www.blinetransit.com/Rider-Tools/Fares--Purchasing-Locations/index.html
  • How many new validators are required? Our fleet is currently made up of 29 motorbuses and 22 cutaways. We would require a solution for all 51 vehicles. Please also keep in mind that our fleet will be changingin the near future as we incorporate microtransit and non-emergency medical transportation to our services.
  • Is BCAG and Butte Regional Transit willing to provide a 2-week extension of the proposal due date? At this time we are not able to offer any extensions to the proposal deadline. It is a firm deadline.
  • Since the submission is via e-mail, is there a size limit of the files that can be sent/received? Submittal guidelines are on page 9. If the files are too big to be sent through email, you are welcome to use a ZIP compressed file.
  • Can we use docu-sign for the forms? Yes.
  • To provide boarding and alighting data for all passengers, is it anticipated to have tap on tap off throughout the system? You’re welcome to include tap on, tap off in your proposal for tracking boarding and alighting.
  • The RFP references an Exhibit A Scope of Work, but it was not included.  Can you please provide? The Exhibit A referenced in the Proposal Attachments Checklist is the contractor’s proposed scope of work. The Scope identified by BCAG is included on page 5.
  • Could it please be clarified whether Form 6 - Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion, needs to only be signed by a subcontractor? Or must the prime contractor also provide a signed copy of the form? Form 6 should be signed by the prime contractor as well as any subcontractors you propose.
  • In page 6, under "Experience" it's written that BCAG wants proposers to share their experience including "experience in working with public transit systems with complex fare structures and providing comprehensive solutions for the cash dependent population of riders, as well as demographically diverse regions." 
    What are the demographically diverse regions that the County is referring to? Our service area encompasses a wide range of riders, including (but not limited to) college students, migrant workers, those with limited English skills, and business professionals. The goal is to provide ease of access to all our riders regardless of their background, while also removing cash fares from being collected on board the vehicles.
  • Can you specify what BCAG's mid-range goals are? And what are the agency's long-range goals? Please see the Routing Study for more details on our mid-range plans: https://www.blinetransit.com/Resources/B-Line-Routing-Study/index.html. Our long-range plans are in a similar vein as the mid-range.
  • BRT's RFP lists a key requirement of "Provides boarding and alighting data for all passengers". Does BRT envision requiring all passengers to tap/scan off vehicles to collect alighting data, or is BRT seeking proposals that include APCs or similar? We are asking that your proposal address this request however you feel is best suited to your technology. We are not explicitly looking for an APC system.
  • Is BRT's FTA funding only contingent on delivering all capabilities in 2024?  No, our funding is not contingent on a 2024 delivery.
  • Is BRT open to a phased delivery approach? We are open to it, but it is not preferred.
  • Does BRT operate fareboxes and/or validators on their Paratransit/ Dial-a-ride services today? We operate both validators and fareboxes on our cutaways used for paratransit today.
  • We want to make sure that we receive all Q&A and Addendums for this RFP. The RFP doesn’t state on those documents will be distributed. Can we ask that these documents be emailed directly? All materials for the RFP are posted on our website here: https://www.bcag.org/Projects/RFPs/index.html We do not distribute any additional documents to individual vendors.
  • What are the current TripSpark technologies used on the fleet? We currently use TripSpark Rangers on the fixed route and Trapeze PASS on the paratransit. There is a second RFP that was released just prior to this one for an updated and unified on-demand platform so it is unknown what solution we will be utilizing in the future for on-demand.
  • How adaptable and "smart" does the fare system need to be in order to know what fare to charge each rider? Our fare structure is zone based, not distance based. The fares for on-demand are fixed at the time of booking. The fares for fixed route are route dependent and if the rider needs an exception to that, it is rider responsiblity to tell the driver before they pay. The fare validator needs to be able to to make that one change through driver interface.
  • To facilitate bidding the proper amount of hardware, could you please supply an inventory of the 29 motor buses specifying whether they are single or 2-door? All of the motorbuses used for fixed route service are 2-door vehicles. The cutaways are all single door.
  • An insurance certificate is to be included with the proposal. However, our insurer issues individual certificates to our customers (as each is included as named insured). They do not issue such certificates prior to award. Would it suffice to provide a statement that we will comply with the insurance requirements, and provide a sample of an actual certificate (marked SAMPLE)? We require proof that your company has adequate insurance coverage. The named insured should reflect your business entity, not BCAG. 
  • In Section VII, what is meant by "index sheets" please? This refers to blank pages used to break different sections of your proposal.
UNIFIED ON-DEMAND SERVICE SOFTWARE

UNIFIED ON-DEMAND SERVICE SOFTWARE

February 20, 2024
 
As the owner and operator of Butte Regional Transit (B-Line), BCAG is seeking proposals from qualified contractors/vendors to provide unified on-demand response software. The project includes the development of a streamlined mobile app platform for scheduling and dispatching on-demand rides to meet current and future needs of B-Line.
 
Proposals Due Date and Time: February 21, 2024 at 12:00 PM
 
Download Request for Proposals (RFP) Documents:
 
Contact Person:  Sara Cain, Transit Manager
 
Questions Received:
  • Would you prefer to use Google Maps or Bing as your mapping interface in NovusDR, instead of a static GIS map that is currently used in PASS? Please note that Google/Bing charges 3rd party microtransaction fees to utilize their mapping API, ($0.07 and $0.01 respectively). Google Maps.
  • Are rider Notifications out of scope for this project? For example, next day reminders, imminent arrival reminders, mass notification reminders? Please add as an optional task.
  • TripSpark can provide training on how to handle customer complaints in the NovusDR software, along with comprehensive training. However, is BCAG looking for a specific module that is capable of streamlining and managing customer complaints? Training is requested. A separate module is not needed at this time.
  • TripSpark understands BCAG looking to be able to provide deep link fare payment integration through the rider facing application, however, should this also be available in the rider facing website? Please add as an optional task.
  • Separate from a deep-link integration to a 3rd party electronic fare provider, TripSpark is able to provide a stored value account in Novus and allows riders to top up this account through the rider facing website with a credit/debit card. Does BCAG desire this functionality in addition to 3rd party deep link integration, or is the preference to have only the deep link integration? This is not needed at this time.
  • Can you please confirm the maximum total number of trips you are currently completing per day? 238 trips for paratransit
  • As it relates to the rider facing website and Notifications (if applicable), do you want these available in both English and Spanish? English, Spanish, and Hmong.
  • How many vehicles will be utilized within this program? We currently have 51 vehicles: 29 fixed route buses and 22 paratransit vans. Our fleet will be expanded with the introduction of microtransit and non-emergency medical transportation services, likely in 2025.
  • Will the vehicles require Driver Tablets (MDTs) for manifests, passenger profiles, directions, etc.? Please add as an optional task.  
  • Will the vendor also be responsible for providing the cellular connections to the MDTs (as may be required)? This is not needed at this time. 
  • I just wanted to confirm that electronic signatures are acceptable for the forms associated with this RFP. Yes, electronic signatures will work.
  • Our understanding of the RFP is that B-Line is seeking a new demand responsive services software solution for its current and future services, including some level of integration with the fixed route B-Line services. However, the questions already submitted make reference to TripSpark and NovusDR as if the latter is seemingly already part of the B-Line technology ecosystem. We had understood this RFP to be seeking a new software platform for on-demand services. Is NovusDR already being used by B-Line? We are seeking new on-demand software. We do not currently use Novus.
  • The RFP seems to indicate that B-Line does not wish to continue using Trapeze PASS for ADA paratransit but does not definitively state this. Is B-Line intending to replace PASS with the new On Demand Service Software solution? Yes, this new on-demand service will replace PASS.
  • Is B-Line seeking a technology solution that will co-mingle ADA paratransit trips, micro-transit trips, and NEMT trips, or is it acceptable to keep these as largely separate services that are managed separately by the technology platform?  Co-mingling is not a magic solution for improving resource utilization for multiple demand responsive services operating in a similar geographic area and involves trade-offs that are often not initially fully understood by agencies. We are seeking a single platform to provide scheduling for paratransit, microtransit, and NEMT trips. The services and scheduling parameters for each service will remain separate. We are not intending to co-mingle our service and that our use of the term NEMT is often seen as a specialized continuation of paratransit as far as the technology needs are concerned.
  • Is B-Line seeking a fully off the shelf solution or is it acceptable for a base on demand services technology platform to be modified/extended to handle the specific requirements of B-Line's new demand responsive software platform (i.e., that which will be implemented as a result of this RFP), including integrating with certain fixed route functionalities? The proposal should include a shelf ready solution that can be public facing and available by January 2025.  We are not looking for a bespoke solution to on-demand transit.
  • The RFP makes reference to the software running on "Windows 10 laptops and desktops, with compatibility for future upgrades without needing to configure individual workstations". However, contemporary on demand services technology platforms actually run on servers in the cloud and are accessed via laptops, desktops, and smartphones. Can you please clarify what is meant by "running" on Windows 10 devices in the language in the RFP. The interface used by dispatch, customer service, and other agency staff needs to be able to be fully accessible on the aforementioned devices. We are not necessarily asking for an application that needs to be installed on a computer, but we are asking that the application can be run on that type of computer.
  • Was this RFP issued as a result of an external or internal study of B-Line's existing demand responsive services, and if so, can B-Line share that study with potential proposers? The desire to streamline services has been identified in many Butte Regional Transit planning documents. The recommendation to implement microtransit services was identified in the Butte Regional Transit Routing Optimization Study.
  • What are B-Line's primary objectives in seeking a new technology platform for its on demand services? Attachment A BCAG Expected Scope of Work details the anticipated outcomes of the new on-demand software.
  • Upon review, we noticed that the RFP mandates the submission of an Exhibit B Cost Proposal. However, we found only a sample cost proposal alongside the RFP documents. Could you kindly provide us with the official Exhibit B Cost Proposal document? Exhibit 10-H1 Cost Proposal is intended to be an example of the information that should be provided.
  • Furthermore, the RFP makes reference to an Exhibit A - Scope of Work, but the documentation we accessed includes only an "Attachment A Expected Scope of Work." Could you please confirm whether Attachment A constitutes the complete Scope of Work for this project, or if there are additional documents we should review? Attachment A is BCAG’s Expected Scope of Work. The Proposer should also prepare their proposed scope as defined in Section IV. Contractor/Vendor Scope of Services on PDF page 4 and VI. Proposal Content Requirements. 
  • Is there a deadline for submitting questions? Questions may be submitted until the proposal deadline.
  • How many vehicles are intended to be used for this deployment? Our fleet is currently made up of 29 fixed route vehicles and 22 paratransit vans. We would require a solution for all 51 vehicles. Please also keep in mind that our fleet will be changing in the near future as we incorporate microtransit and non-emergency medical transportation to our services.
  • Section 17-Term, states, “The term of the contract shall be in effect from the date of contract execution through 6/30/2026.” This would indicate that the contract will be for two years; are there optional years? Please confirm the full contract length with optional years? The contract is draft and can be negotiated upon consultant selection.
  • Do you only use dedicated supply of vehicles (eg. in-house or third-party operator), or do you use non-dedicated supply (eg. TNCs, taxis) for overflow trips? Dedicated vehicles.
  • What is your current eligibility management process? Would BCAG like vendors to offer solutions for eligibility applications and management? Eligibility is determined by BCAG and Transdev staff. Additional eligibility applications and management are not needed at this time.
  • Are drivers unionized? Yes.
  • What is the makeup of BCAG’s operations team? (eg. how many reservationists, dispatchers, etc.) Transdev currently has 5 Dispatchers, 2 Customer Service Representatives, 3 Road Supervisors, 1 Operations staff, 1 Administrative Assistant, and 1 Safety and Training Manager.
  • On Page 32. It states, “In delivering the existing and future services, it is expected the solution will Integrate with our existing system for fixed route dispatch and scheduling.” Can you please elaborate and clarify what the desire is here? Current regulations surrounding public facing GTFS are changing and we want to make sure that the solution offered allows for the potential integration as needed with the fixed route GTFS provided by TripSpark. It should also be noted that we would like a customer facing app that shows all modes of public transit in Butte county, including fixed route and on demand.
  • Can your current fix-route CAD/AVL provider - TripSpark, export GTFS/ GTFS-RT feeds? Yes.
  • We typically provide clients with our software platform under a standard licensing agreement. Since BCAG did not include a sample licensing or platform management agreement in the RFP, can proposers include theirs in proposal submissions? The draft contract is included in the attachments. Proposers may include a standard agreement in their submittal package.
  • Is BCAG open to negotiating final terms with the winning bidder? The contract is draft and can be negotiated upon consultant selection.
  • Does the city operate services in-house, or do you contract with an external third-party operator (e.g., Transdev/MV/RATP Dev)? If so, who do you contract with, and for which services? BCAG contracts with Transdev for day-to-day administration of B-Line.
  • The RFP indicates that the Paratransit Software used is Trapeze Pass. Do you have any specific issues with that software that you’d like to address with this procurement? Please see Attachment A BCAG Expected Scope of Work for further details.
  • Can you please confirm the total number of references to be included in our proposal? The RFP document requests two references, however, the form 11 asks for five. Please provide two references.
  • Can you please provide some guidance as to how the proposers should structure their price proposal for this procurement. Exhibit 10-H1 is intended to be an example from the State of California for you to base your price proposal on. Please use it as a basis for your cost proposal. It does not need to be the same formatting. You should include the items you outlined in your email below as they relate to your proposal.
  • Is an Insurance Certificate required with proposal submittal? Yes, insurance certification is required as indicated on j. Insurance Coverage (page 6).