Revision Date: September 2020 1

Utah Transit Authority (UTA)

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

RFI#26-04054

(Bombardier Bi-Level Passenger Door Overhaul and Modernization Program)

RFI Coordinator

All communication regarding this RFI must be made through the RFI Coordinator identified below.

Name: Timothy Da Silva Title: Sr. Strategic Sourcing Specialist Contact Information: tdasilva@rideuta.com

Informational Meeting (optional)

Date: July 27th-August 7th 2026 Time: By Appointment only Location: Warm Springs Service Center 900 N 500 W, Salt Lake City

Submitted Questions Due

All questions must be submitted via the Bonfire portal by:

Date: August 26th,2026 no later than 3:00 p.m., local time

Response Submission

Submission Deadline: September 9th no later than 3:00 p.m., local time Submit to:

https://solutions.Bonfire.com/apps/Router/SupplierLogin?CustOrg=StateOfUtah

PART I INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose and Background

This Request for Information (RFI) is an information-gathering and market research tool, not a formal solicitation of a specific requirement (such as in a “Request for Proposals” document). UTA is seeking information regarding Bombardier Bi-level Passenger Door Overhaul and Modernization from interested parties as defined in this RFI document. This is an opportunity for interested parties to assist UTA in better understanding the marketplace and/or specific subject matter.

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) to obtain information from qualified rail vehicle system integrators, door system manufacturers, overhaul providers, and engineering firms regarding the overhaul and modernization of the passenger door systems installed on UTA's Bombardier Bi-Level commuter rail fleet.

UTA operates thirty-eight (38) Bombardier Bi-Level commuter rail vehicles consisting of 233-Series and 246- Series Cab and Coach vehicles. The existing passenger door systems utilize legacy pneumatic door actuation and control equipment that is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain due to component obsolescence, aging infrastructure, diminishing parts availability, and reliability concerns.

UTA is evaluating modernization solutions for replacement, overhaul, or modernization of the existing passenger door system architecture. While UTA is particularly interested in electrically actuated door systems, https://solutions.sciquest.com/apps/Router/SupplierLogin?CustOrg=StateOfUtah

Revision Date: September 2020 respondents are encouraged to identify alternative architectures, including modern pneumatic, electro-pneumatic, hybrid, or other commercially proven technologies, that may provide equal or greater benefits in reliability, maintainability, diagnostics capability, lifecycle supportability, passenger safety, and operational performance.

UTA seeks industry feedback regarding available technologies, modernization approaches, overhaul methodologies, lifecycle support strategies, and lessons learned from similar passenger rail door modernization programs. Respondents are encouraged to recommend solutions they believe represent the best long-term value and reliability for the fleet.

Information received may be used in development of a future Request for Proposal (RFP).

B. Current Conditions

UTA currently operates a fleet consisting of:

Fleet Series Vehicle Quantity 233 Series 20 246 Series 18 Total 38

This RFI applies only to exterior passenger boarding door systems located on the sides of the vehicle. End doors, cab doors, interior doors, emergency exit windows, and other non-passenger boarding door systems are excluded unless specifically identified by UTA during a future procurement. Each vehicle contains four passenger doorways with two door panels per doorway.

The existing door systems utilize pneumatic door actuators, legacy electronic controls, trainline interfaces, crew operating stations, emergency access equipment, warning systems, and associated door hardware.

Several components are approaching end-of-life status, have limited manufacturer support, or require significant maintenance effort to maintain operational reliability.

UTA is seeking information regarding a comprehensive passenger boarding door overhaul and modernization program that may include, but is not limited to:

• Complete door overhaul, including but not limited to:

a. Door mechanical assemblies

b. Door leaves and panels

c. Door suspension components

d. Rollers and bearings

e. Linkages and operating mechanisms

f. Locking systems

g. Actuators

h. Emergency release systems

i. Bowden cable systems

j. Passenger pushbuttons

k. Crew interfaces

l. Warning lights and audible warning devices

m. Door control electronics

n. Wiring harnesses and connectors

o. Mounting hardware and support structures

p. Diagnostic and monitoring equipment

• Replacement, refurbishment, or modernization of existing door actuation systems, including evaluation of electric, pneumatic, electro-pneumatic, hybrid, or alternative actuation technologies

• Door control modernization

• Replacement of obsolete components

• Enhanced diagnostics and fault logging

• Standardization across the fleet

• Improved maintainability

• Spare parts support

• Documentation updates

• Training support

• Installation support options

UTA is interested in understanding current industry best practices and commercially available solutions that could support a long-term fleet modernization strategy. Respondents should identify any additional door-related components they would normally include in a comprehensive overhaul program.

C. General Provisions

1. All contact with UTA regarding this RFI must be made through the designated RFI Coordinator. No other person is authorized to make binding statements regarding this RFI.

2. This is a non-binding Request for Information. Therefore, no award shall be made as a result of the RFI process.

3. Issuance of this RFI does not commit UTA to pay any expenses incurred by a Respondent in preparing their response to this RFI. This includes attendance at personal interviews or other meetings and software or system demonstrations, where applicable.

4. Issuance of this RFI in no way constitutes a commitment by UTA to issue a Request for Proposal

(RFP).

5. All responses should adhere to the instructions and format requests outlined in this RFI and all written supplements and amendments, such as the Summary of Questions and Answers, issued by UTA.

6. All submissions in response to this RFI will be considered public records available for public inspection pursuant to the State of Utah Records Access Management Act.

PART II INFORMATION SOUGHT

UTA seeks information regarding complete passenger boarding door overhaul, modernization, replacement, and lifecycle support solutions for Bombardier Bi-Level commuter rail vehicles and welcomes responses to this RFI, including creative suggestions and feedback to enhance and expedite all future processes while providing efficient, reliable, and high-quality outcomes. Respondents are not required to submit responses to every question, but UTA encourages interested parties to respond to any or all relevant aspects of the RFI.

Respondents are encouraged to provide recommendations, alternatives, lessons learned, and innovative approaches beyond the specific areas identified below.

The UTA seeks detailed yet succinct responses that demonstrate the Respondent’s experience and/or familiarity with the subject matter. As this is not a competitive RFP process, Respondents should not provide any detailed and specific cost or customized pricing documentation in their response. General cost estimates, ballpark estimates, or standard pricing history are permitted. If you submit detailed pricing information regarding your preferred product, method, or approach, you will disqualify UTA technical evaluators and potentially contaminate any future procurement that were to be conducted.

A. General Information

Provide a brief overview of yourself and your organization, if applicable.

1. Please identify yourself and any organization you represent in this RFI.

a. Name of respondent

b. Organization and affiliation

c. Address (organizational, if responding on behalf of an entity)

d. Contact information (phone number(s) and email address)

2. Please identify your experience in providing passenger rail door overhaul, modernization, replacement, refurbishment, and lifecycle support services for commuter rail, intercity rail, transit, or similar passenger rail vehicles.

B. Feedback Requested

UTA seeks industry feedback regarding the overhaul, modernization, replacement, support, installation, testing, and lifecycle management of passenger door systems for Bombardier Bi-Level commuter rail vehicles.

Respondents are encouraged to provide recommendations, lessons learned, alternative approaches, and information regarding similar projects. UTA welcomes responses beyond the specific questions listed below.

1. Company Qualifications and Relevant Experience

1. Describe your organization's experience with passenger rail door system modernization, overhaul, refurbishment, and replacement programs.

2. Identify comparable projects completed within the last ten (10) years, including:

o Commuter rail vehicles o Bi-level passenger vehicles o Push-pull passenger equipment o Bombardier fleets o Passenger door modernization projects involving pneumatic, electric, electro-pneumatic, or hybrid door systems

3. Describe your role on each project.

4. Provide examples of projects involving:

o New door systems o Major door component overhauls o Door control upgrades o Fleet standardization programs

5. Describe lessons learned and best practices from previous projects.

2. Modernization Strategy and Technical Approach

1. Describe your recommended overall modernization approach for this fleet.

2. What passenger door architecture do you recommend?

3. Describe your preferred approach for modernizing legacy pneumatic passenger door systems.

Please identify whether you recommend:

o Electric actuation o Pneumatic actuation o Electro-pneumatic actuation o Hybrid actuation o Other architectures and explain the advantages, disadvantages, lifecycle impacts, reliability impacts, maintenance impacts, and operational considerations associated with your recommended solution.

4. Describe technologies you recommend for:

o Door actuators o Door locking systems o Door controllers o Crew interfaces o Passenger interfaces o Emergency access systems o Warning systems o Diagnostics systems

5. What modifications to existing vehicles would typically be required?

6. What opportunities exist to minimize vehicle modifications?

7. Are there alternative technical approaches UTA should consider?

8. For a fleet of this age and configuration, what advantages and disadvantages do you see between electric, pneumatic, electro-pneumatic, and hybrid door architectures?

9. Which architecture would you recommend and why?

10. If UTA were to prioritize reliability, maintainability, lifecycle cost, parts availability, and long-term supportability, how would you rank electric, pneumatic, electro-pneumatic, and hybrid architectures?

3. Complete Door Overhaul Scope In addition to door system modernization, what components should be included in a comprehensive passenger door overhaul program?

Please provide recommendations regarding inspection, refurbishment, or replacement of:

• Door panels

• Door leaves

• Door tracks

• Rollers

• Bearings

• Mechanical linkages

• Operating arms

• Locking mechanisms

• Door hangers

• Threshold components

• Weather seals

• Rubber components

• Emergency release mechanisms

• Bowden cables

• Wiring harnesses

• Electrical connectors

• Crew key switches

• Passenger pushbuttons

• Audible warning devices

• Warning lights

• Mounting hardware

• Structural attachment points Please identify any additional components that should be included in a complete modernization and overhaul effort.

4. Fleet Standardization

1. What opportunities exist to standardize door hardware, software, diagnostics, and maintenance procedures across multiple fleet series?

2. For a fleet of this size and expected service life, what percentage of total project value is typically allocated toward initial spare-parts procurement?

3. What components should be considered mandatory spare parts versus recommended spare parts?

4. What level of commonality is typically achievable?

5. Which components are commonly standardized?

6. What challenges are typically encountered when standardizing multiple vehicle fleets?

7. What methods are used to reduce:

o Inventory requirements o Maintenance complexity o Training requirements o Lifecycle costs

5. Reliability, Availability, and Service Life UTA is evaluating long-term lifecycle requirements for the modernized system.

Please provide recommendations regarding:

1. Appropriate service-life expectations for a modern passenger door system.

2. Recommended reliability targets.

3. Recommended Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) requirements.

4. Recommended availability requirements.

5. Typical reliability performance achieved on similar fleets.

6. Recommended warranty periods.

7. Reliability demonstration testing methods.

8. Fleet reliability monitoring practices.

9. Common failure modes and mitigation strategies.

10. Recommended Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for post-delivery monitoring.

11. What contractual or technical mechanisms do you recommend to manage component obsolescence over a 20-year service-life period?

12. What minimum component support period should UTA require from the Contractor?

13. What reliability metrics are most commonly specified in passenger rail door modernization procurements?

Examples:

• MTBF

• Availability

• Mean Cycles Between Failure

• Failure Rate per Door Cycle

• Fleet Reliability Metrics

6. Diagnostics, Software, and Digital Systems

1. Describe the diagnostic capabilities available with your proposed door system.

2. Describe:

o Fault monitoring o Event logging o Data recording o Maintenance trending capabilities

3. Describe available maintenance and diagnostic software tools.

4. What information can maintenance personnel access?

5. What information can engineering personnel access?

6. Can fault logs be exported for fleet trending and reliability analysis?

7. Describe software update processes.

8. Describe configuration-management capabilities.

9. Describe remote diagnostic capabilities, if available.

10. Describe predictive-maintenance or condition-based-maintenance features, if available.

11. Describe any digital-twin, digital asset management, or configuration management tools available.

7. Software Ownership, Licensing, and Intellectual Property UTA is interested in understanding industry practices associated with long-term ownership and support.

Please describe:

1. Software licensing models.

2. Availability of:

o Configuration software o Maintenance software o Diagnostic software

3. Availability of:

o Firmware files o Configuration files o Backup files o Programming tools

4. Availability of source code access.

5. Availability of source-code escrow arrangements.

6. Restrictions associated with software ownership.

7. Recommended software-rights structure for transit agencies.

8. Methods used to ensure long-term supportability when original suppliers are unavailable.

9. What level of source-code access, source-code ownership, source-code escrow, or configuration ownership is typically provided to transit agencies for systems of this type?

8. Cybersecurity and Network Security

1. What cybersecurity controls are recommended for modern passenger door systems?

2. What risks should UTA consider when implementing microprocessor-controlled door systems?

3. What user-access controls are recommended?

4. How are software changes controlled and documented?

5. What protections are available against unauthorized configuration changes?

6. What cybersecurity standards are commonly applied within the rail industry?

7. What cybersecurity documentation is typically provided?

9. Vehicle Integration and Interface Management

1. Describe your process for evaluating:

o Mechanical interfaces o Electrical interfaces o Trainline interfaces o Communications interfaces

2. Describe field-verification activities typically required.

3. What information should UTA make available to support design activities?

4. What vehicle surveys are normally required?

5. What risks are associated with legacy documentation inaccuracies and how are they mitigated?

10. Installation Strategies UTA is evaluating multiple installation approaches.

Please describe advantages, disadvantages, risks, costs, and recommendations associated with:

• Contractor installation

• UTA installation

• Joint installation teams

• Pilot vehicle installations

• Production installations

Please also describe:

1. Expected installation duration per vehicle.

2. Required staffing levels.

3. Required tooling.

4. Required fixtures.

5. Vehicle downtime requirements.

6. Commissioning activities.

7. Suggested pilot vehicle quantities.

8. Recommended acceptance processes.

9. Considering a fleet of thirty-eight (38) vehicles and approximately one hundred fifty-two (152) passenger doorways, what installation strategy would you recommend and why?

11. Testing and Validation Please describe your recommended testing program including:

• Design verification testing

• Qualification testing

• Environmental testing

• Functional testing

• First Article Inspection (FAI)

• Pilot vehicle testing

• Production acceptance testing

Please provide recommendations regarding:

1. Acceptance-testing criteria.

2. Reliability demonstration testing.

3. Validation periods prior to fleet release.

4. Recommended performance benchmarks.

5. Typical passenger-door safety validation requirements.

12. Training and Technical Documentation Describe technical documentation normally provided for projects of this type.

Please include information regarding:

• Work instructions

• Maintenance manuals

• Troubleshooting guides

• Schematics

• Drawings

• Illustrated parts catalogs

• Training materials

Please describe training recommendations for:

• Maintenance personnel

• Technicians

• Engineers

• Supervisors

• Instructors/train-the-trainer personnel

13. Spare Parts and Lifecycle Support UTA is evaluating multiple spare-parts acquisition strategies.

Please provide recommendations regarding:

1. Initial spare-parts provisioning.

2. Spare-parts quantity methodology.

3. Percentage-based spare-parts budgets.

4. Fixed-quantity spare-parts programs.

5. Recommended critical spares.

6. Recommended spare actuator quantities.

7. Recommended spare controller quantities.

8. Recommended repairable component pools.

9. Long-lead components.

10. Obsolescence risk management.

11. Long-term parts availability commitments.

1. End-of-life component management practices.

2. Exchange, repair, or component rebuild programs.

3. Recommended lifecycle-support period (10, 15, 20+ years).

14. Warranty and Fleet Defect Management

1. Describe your standard warranty coverage.

2. Describe available extended warranty programs.

3. Describe your process for handling recurring fleet issues.

4. What fleet-defect threshold is typically used?

5. What corrective-action process is employed?

6. Describe warranty response timelines.

7. Describe support available during warranty investigations.

15. Schedule and Project Execution Please provide recommendations regarding:

1. Typical project schedules for fleets of approximately thirty-eight (38) vehicles.

2. Typical durations for:

o Engineering o Design reviews o Procurement o Manufacturing o Qualification testing o First Article Inspection o Pilot vehicle installation o Production rollout

3. Major schedule risks.

4. Critical-path activities.

5. Strategies to reduce vehicle downtime.

6. Recommended project execution models.

16. Commercial and Procurement Considerations UTA is not requesting formal pricing.

However, respondents may provide:

1. Typical program cost ranges.

2. Typical overhaul versus replacement cost comparisons.

3. Typical spare-parts budgets.

4. Recommended contract structures.

5. Recommended milestone structures.

6. Recommended payment structures.

7. Methods that minimize change orders.

8. Commercial approaches that improve schedule certainty and lifecycle value.

17. Future Technology and Strategic Recommendations Please provide recommendations regarding:

• Open architecture systems

• Future technology migration

• Remote diagnostics

• Predictive maintenance

• Digital asset management

• Reliability growth programs

• Energy reduction opportunities

• Passenger safety enhancements

• Human factors improvements

• ADA enhancements beyond minimum compliance

• Long-term software support

• Cybersecurity improvements

• Future interoperability considerations

• Obsolescence management

• Emerging door system technologies

Additionally, identify any risks, concerns, lessons learned, or opportunities that UTA should consider before developing a formal Request for Proposal (RFP).

UTA is interested in understanding whether a complete door system replacement, a door system modernization, or a door system overhaul provides the greatest long-term value for a fleet of this age and size. Please provide recommendations and supporting rationale.

PART III KEY RFI EVENTS AND PROCESSES

A. Informational Meeting (optional)

UTA may sponsor an Informational Meeting concerning this RFI on the date, time and location shown on the RFI cover page. The purpose of the Informational Meeting is to provide interested parties with additional information related to this RFI, field questions, and clarify any questions as to this RFI request.

B. Questions

1. General Instructions

a. It is the responsibility of each interested party to examine the entire RFI and to seek clarification in writing if they do not understand any information or instructions.

b. Interested parties should submit questions via the Bonfire Q&A page

c. Questions must be submitted as soon as possible, but no later than the date and time specified on the RFI cover page.

d. UTA assumes no liability for ensuring the accurate/complete/on time submission of questions.

2. Question & Answer Summary

Questions must be submitted via the Bonfire Q&A page before the end of the Question and Answer period listed on the cover page. UTA’s answers to timely submitted questions will be posted on the Bonfire Q&A page. It is the responsibility of all interested parties visit this website to obtain a copy of the Question & Answer Summary.

C. Submitting the Response

1. Responses Due Responses must be received no later than the date and time listed on the cover page.

2. Delivery Instructions

Responses must be uploaded to Bonfire by the “Bid ends” date and time listed on Bonfire.

To submit your Response, log onto Bonfire at:

https://utah.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities ; If you have already registered, log in and search by Utah Transit Authority or the RFI number.

If you need to create an account, please select “Create Account,” and then you can search UTA or the RFI number listed on the Cover Page. If you need assistance, please email the Utah Supplier Portal Support at https://vendorsupport.gobonfire.com/hc/en-us

3. Response Format Responses to this RFI may be developed in a manner that suits the respondent. A list of key questions is included within the RFI, and all submissions, regardless of format, will be reviewed. Respondents are asked to be brief and respond to as many questions as possible within the RFI. Number each response to correspond to the relevant question or instruction in the RFI to allow for comparison and clarity.

PART IV REVIEW OF RESPONSES RECEIVED

General Information

1. UTA will review responses received for the purpose of gathering information and conducting market research only. UTA will not score, or rate responses received.

2. UTA reserves the right to communicate and/or schedule interviews/presentations with Respondents, if needed, to obtain clarification of information contained in the responses received and/or additional information to enhance marketing research efforts.

https://utah.bonfirehub.com/portal/?tab=openOpportunities https://vendorsupport.gobonfire.com/hc/en-us

APPENDIX A

UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY

RESPONSE COVER PAGE

RFI#26-04054

(Bombardier Bi-Level Passenger Door Overhaul and Modernization Program)

Lead Point of Contact - Name/Title:

Organization Name (if applicable):

Tel: Cell:

E-Mail: Website:

Street Address: City/State/Zip: