Addendum #2-274-TransitMobile Ticketing-2026 (002).pdf

City of Raleigh

Request for Proposals #: 274- Transit MobileTicketing-2026

Title: Regional Transit Mobile Ticketing

Proposal Due Date and Time: October 2, 2026 no later than 5:00PM

EST

ADDENDUM NO. 2

Issue Date: September 2, 2026

Issuing Department:

Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:

Dana Smith Transportation Supervisor Email: dana.smith@raelighnc.gov mailto:dana.smith@raelighnc.gov

City of Raleigh Addendum 1 to RFP 274- Transit MobileTicketing-2026

Issue Date: September 2, 2026

To: All Proposers

This Addendum, containing the following additions, clarifications, and/or changes, is issued prior to receipt of proposal packages and does hereby become part of the original RFP documents and supersedes the original RFP documents in case of conflict.

Receipt of this addendum must be acknowledged by signing in the area indicated below. Please make the follow additions, clarifications, and/or changes to the RFP as listed below and sign and return this addendum with your proposal package.

1. Given the scope and complexity of this regional procurement across four transit agencies, Vendor respectfully requests a three-week extension to the proposal submittal deadline, moving it from September 11, 2026 to October 2, 2026.The additional time would allow proposers to fully review the requirements, coordinate with necessary partners and third parties, and submit complete and well-considered responses. We believe this additional time would also help ensure full and fair competition by providing all interested proposers a reasonable opportunity to develop their strongest response. Extending to October 2, 2026

2. The bid file name is in a Request for Qualifications naming convention and page 11 states This is not a bid. There will not be a public opening. Can you please confirm that this is in fact a bid (RFP)? This is a request for proposals and NOT a bid or request for qualifications.

3. Regional Transit Mobile Ticketing, Section 1.3 Would the City consider extending the proposal submission deadline of September 11, 2026 by four weeks, to allow sufficient time to prepare a comprehensive technical and commercial response? Please see question 1 answer

4. Could the City please clarify the expected implementation and go-live timeline for the new fare payment system, including any anticipated phased rollout across the participating agencies? Timeline will come from awarded vendor.

5. Appendix III requires reference forms by August 21, 2026. Has this submission date been extended to Sep. 11th as well? The deadline for submission of the Reference Questionnaire (Appendix III) has been revised. The original deadline of August 21, 2026, at 5:00 PM EST was extended to September 11, 2026, at 5:00 PM EST according to addendum #1. The RFP proposal due date has changed to October 2, 2025 at 5:00 PM EST.

6. Please confirm the anticipated base contract term, SaaS operating period, implementation period, and any renewal options. Go live date will be 3year with 1 one year options and implementation period will not count as the base year contract time period.

7. Should pricing assume one validator per bus or multiple validators to support all-door boarding, particularly for BRT? One validator per bus

8. Please provide the referenced exhibit identifying existing validators, fareboxes, onboard network equipment, card media, TVMs, and other equipment being considered for reuse.

Exhibit A &B

9. Given the extensive nature of this RFP covering multi-modal transit across a region, would Raleigh please consider extending the submission deadline by three weeks to enable vendors adequate time to prepare a comprehensive response? Please see question 1 for answer

10. Can Raleigh please confirm if all in-scope vehicles currently have validators installed?

Can we reuse the existing cabling and mounting locations? All GoRaleigh vehicles have validators installed. Reuse of existing cabling (power/gnd/ethernet) and location is OK.

11. Can audited financial statements be replaced by financial statements signed by the CFO?

“Section 2.1.3 requires the proposer to provide the financial information and documentation specified in that section, including the certified, signed statement from a licensed CPA verifying the financial viability of the firm.”

12. There is a risk that our reference agencies may not complete and return the reference form. Would it be permissible to provide the reference form, completed as specified, but within our proposal? All references should be sent in by the reference agency not with the submitted proposal.

13. Are three references required, or is the requirement for five? Three references.

14. Page 15 of the RFP refers to all door boarding on vehicles, please advise how many validation devices per vehicle are required for installation. One validator per bus

15. Appendix II Proposer questionnaire requires vendors to indicate if they are registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State. As a technology provider for hardware and software solutions, we believe state registration may not apply to us. Please confirm if there is a requirement of which we are unaware? If vendors are required to be registered, is it at time of submission, or can this be in progress and completed during the award phase? Yes the vendor must be registered and needs to be completed prior to contract execution

16. Should validators obtain route, trip, block, operator, vehicle and stop information from the existing CAD/AVL system, or should the proposed fare system independently determine this information? Existing validators obtain route, trip, block, vehicle, stop information from GTFS-RT feed. No integration currently exists between validator and CAD/AVL system.

17. Please identify the current agency-issued fare card technologies and standards in use at each participating agency. Genfare Magnetic Stripe Ticket, Umo Card

18. Does the City or any participating agency currently have an acquiring bank, payment processor, payment gateway, or merchant services agreement that the Contractor is expected to utilize? GoTriangle currently uses Fiserv, see question 46,47.

19. Please provide the anticipated quantity of TVMs by agency and installation location for proposal pricing purposes. The BRT program is not in revenue service yet, with an anticipated start date of 2030. In 2030 we will have 19 platforms along New Bern Ave with one TVM each. In 2031 Southern BRT is expected to come online with 12 total platforms (this project remains in design and this number is subject to change). In 2032 Western BRT is expected to go into revenue service with a total of 21 platforms (also subject to change). For Northern BRT we do not have an idea yet of how many TVMs we may need as design has not started.

20. Please provide the quantities and assumptions proposers should use to establish a comparable evaluated base price, including validators, vehicles, accounts, transactions, mobile users, fare cards, agencies, and integrations. Qty 129 vehicles with validators, plus spares.

21. If we provide the Financial Statement of our publicly traded Parent corporation, and a guarantee letter from the Parent for the actions of the Proposer, will that satisfy the requirements of 2.1.3? “Section 2.1.3 requires the proposer to provide the financial information and documentation specified in that section, including the certified, signed statement from a licensed CPA verifying the financial viability of the firm.”

22. Are GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary the only agencies participating under this contract? Yes, right now GoDurham and GoCary are fare free.

23. Does the agency have a desired implementation date? See question 4

24. Are there anticipated quantities for validators, mobile users, TVMs, fare cards, or other equipment that proposers should use for pricing? See bus list for existing equipment in Exhibit A & B.

25. Does the City expect the proposer to migrate existing GoPass users and partner accounts into the new system? We cannot migrate existing user accounts from Umo. Some riders accounts have email or phone number information, but I wouldn't expect the future vendor to migrate accounts.

26. Can the City provide the complete current and anticipated regional fare policy, including transfer, fare-capping, reduced-fare, and cross-agency rules? Fare structure chart included in RFP

27. Please provide the fixed route bus quantities for Go Durham and Go Cary. Currently both agencies are fare free

28. Please provide the number of buses for the BRT service? Are these buses in addition to the buses in the other fleets? Up to 44 buses. These buses will be in addition to buses already operating.

29. Is the BRT service a separate agency partner or included as part of the GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary fleets? BRT is for GoRaleigh agency

30. Please provide the bus/equipment lists in excel for GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary. Excel cannot be provided at this time

31. Will GoDurham and GoCary resume fare collection? If yes, on what date will they resume fare collection? Not at this time

32. How many years of software licensing should be included in the price? Appendix IV refers to a base term of 3 years plus 2 1-year options. Reference Appendix IV

33. Does the proposal price need to include the fare payment equipment and installation of that equipment on the GoDurham and GoCary fleets? Currently for GoRaleigh and GoTriangle

34. Is the expectation for regional fare capping to include any pass purchased will contribute to capping or if a rider is “fare capped” on one agency for weekly/monthly then it is considered capped on all agencies? This should be for all participating agencies

35. Given that the RFP does not mention/require smart cards, to what extent would the Incomm network be used? Refer to p.16 Accessibility and Customer Experience, “The system must have the ability to allow riders to add value to their accounts at retail locations (GoTriangle currently uses the InComm retail network for this purpose).”The city of Raleigh may consider the Incomm network as an option for page 16 Accessibility and Customer Experience.

36. Would the City consider a two-week extension on the due date for proposals? See question 1

37. Section 3.6 states that the project is federally funded and subject to applicable federal requirements. Can the City confirm whether the project is subject to Davis-Bacon Act and/or prevailing wage requirements, including any applicable wage determinations that Proposers should incorporate into their pricing? No Davis Bacon is only for construction

38. Regarding Appendix I – Proposal Cost Form, does the City have a standardized itemized pricing template that Proposers should follow to ensure all required Scope of Work components are accounted for and evaluated on a consistent basis? Additionally, please clarify how Proposers should capture optional TVM pricing and associated costs, including installation, shipping, warranties, and applicable labor rates, etc. Proposers should provide an itemized pricing breakdown that clearly identifies all costs associated with the proposed solution, including implementation-period costs, validator costs, applicable user fees, transaction fees, and any other costs necessary to meet the Scope of Work. Validator pricing should include applicable warranty terms beginning from the system go-live date. Optional TVM pricing should be provided separately and include the cost of the TVMs, shipping, warranties, and an optional price for installation, including applicable labor costs. TVM warranty pricing should align with the contract term for up to five years.

39. How many Ticket Vending Machines (while optional) should the vendors use for pricing calculations? Pricing is often related to the volume purchased. Please see question 19, GoTriangle does not need TVMs

40. With the Labor Day holiday approaching, combined with the requirement to coordinate completion and return of the Reference Questionnaire Forms and prepare the physical proposal submission, would the City consider extending the proposal due date by two weeks to allow Proposers sufficient time to provide a complete and responsive submission? See question 1

41. Can the City confirm that the total required quantity of onboard validators is 211, consisting of 135 validators for GoRaleigh and 76 validators for GoTriangle?

Additionally, the Onboard Fare Validation section on page 15 references “all-door boarding where applicable.” Please clarify whether additional validators will be required to support all-door boarding and, if so, the anticipated quantity by agency. Qty 129 vehicles with validators, plus spares. GoTriangle unknown. If all door boarding is desired, qty validators = 272.

42. Can the City clarify UMO’s current role in managing the GoPass Card program? Upon expiration of the existing contract, who will be responsible for the manufacturing, inventory management, fulfillment, and distribution of the smart card fare media? The GoPass program is availble to riders who use a physical card, or riders who use mobile ticketing (mobile phone). Currently Umo is the vendor for the GoPass program.We would expect the Proposer/ future vendor would allow us to continue to use cards and phones for the GoPass program. We would also like an option to source our own cards.

43. Can the City clarify the anticipated role of InComm and the VanillaDirect retail network under the new contract? Specifically, has InComm committed to continuing these services with the selected Proposer, and does the City maintain a direct agreement with

InComm, or will the selected Proposer be expected to establish and manage the contractual relationship on the City’s behalf? Currently the City of Raleigh and GoTriangle does not have an agreement with Incomm or VanillaDirect but may consider implementing for improved user experience.

44. Section 4 describes Ticket Vending Machines as optional. Should TVM pricing be included within the Appendix I not-to-exceed total that is scored under the cost criterion, or presented separately as a priced option outside the evaluated total? TVM cost will not be considered under the overall evaluation of the proposals.

45. Are there any integration requirements with the existing Diamond fareboxes, including the use of a separate hardware component to capture and record cash fare deposits? City of Raleigh and GoTriangle farebox information is included in Exhibit A & B. If proposer has options for cash fare collections they may include them as optional equipment to purchase within their proposal.

46. Will the City of Raleigh and its regional transit partners act as the Merchant of Record (MoR) for all contactless open-loop (credit/debit) and mobile ticketing transactions, or does the City expect the vendor to serve as the Merchant of Record and remit net fare revenues to the agencies? The City expects the awarded vendor to serve as MoR, remit GROSS (not net) fare revenue to the agencies, and then bill separately for any interchange, network, gateway, and payment-processing fees.

47. If the transit agencies will serve as the Merchant of Record (MOR), can the City clarify its expectations for the payment acquiring model, including whether the Proposer is required to support an existing acquiring bank and payment gateway or provide these services as part of the proposed solution? This will need to be discussed. We currently have providers; however, each agency may use its own provider, which may differ from the City's.

48. The RFP defines an initial contract term of 3 years with up to 2 one-year renewal options (for a 5-year maximum duration). Will option year costs be evaluated, or just base proposal? See question 32

49. Section 1.13 (Proposer Acceptance) references "Appendix VI Exceptions to RFP" as the form for noting any exceptions to the RFP's terms. This appendix does not appear to be included in the RFP document, which contains only Appendices I–V. Could the City provide Appendix VI, or confirm the correct process for submitting exceptions if the appendix is not applicable? There are no exceptions to this RFP so Appendix VI is not applicable to this RFP.

50. The Proposer Questionnaire (Appendix II) requests a DUNS number. As the DUNS number was retired by the federal government in April 2022 and replaced by the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) issued through SAM.gov (consistent with the SAM requirement in Appendix V, item 31), could the City please confirm whether proposers should provide their UEI in place of the DUNS number on Appendix II? The city will need the UEI as part of the sam.gov registration.

51. Section 4 (Fare Payment and Ticket Options) states that "cross agency transfers are currently provided between some of the Transit Agencies' service, with differing fare rules between agencies." Could the City confirm: (1) with how many transit agencies -beyond GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary - do any of the four named Transit Agencies currently have active cross-agency transfer agreements, and (2) which agencies those are? GoRaleigh and GoTriangle are the only two active agencies with the agreement and have had agreements with GoCary and GoDurham. Those agencies are both fare free but if decided to collect fares we would have agreements with them.

52. Does the City of Raleigh (COR) envision a single regional mobile application serving all participating agencies, or should the proposed solution provide separate agency-branded mobile applications for GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary? One single mobile application serving all participating agencies. Regional Branding.

53. Please provide the current transfer rules (including cross-agency transfers), and fare capping rules for each participating Transit Agency (GoRaleigh, GoTriangle, GoDurham, and GoCary)? See question 26

Dana Smith Transportation Supervisor

SIGN BELOW AND RETURN THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR PROPOSAL.

Proposer Name & Company: _____________________________ Date: __________

Signature: ____________________________ Title: ___________________________