RFP Addendum

DOTRFP-22

Daniel Baker Project Manager

(860) 594-3651 Telephone Number dot.transit@ct.gov E-Mail Address

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CTDOT)

Office of Transit & Ridesharing

2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06111

RFP NO.

33365

RFP Due Date:

7 April 2026

Date Addendum Issued:

6 March 2026

RFP Addendum #4

Contactless Fare Collection Platform and Support Services

NOTICE TO VENDORS:

To automatically receive notification of new Bids & RFP’s and Addenda from CTSource, the State of Connecticut’s Contracting Portal via e-mail click on the following link. Review the Supplier Registration section; click on CTSource Supplier Registration and follow the instructions to create your CTSource account.

https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/CTSource

PLEASE NOTE:

This document must be signed where indicated below by a person authorized to sign Proposals and Addenda on behalf of your company and returned with your Request for Proposal (RFP) submission. Failure to do so may result in rejection of your Proposal.

Addendum 4 provides responses to questions received in accordance with the 'Receipt of Questions' item in the Proposal Schedule. The following page contains the responses to all questions submitted. Please note that any inquiries received after the deadline of Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 2:00 PM EST were not considered.

All other Terms and Conditions remain the same.

Signature Date mailto:dot.transit@ct.gov https://portal.ct.gov/DAS/CTSource/CTSource

Question # Page Number Section Questions Attachments CTDOT Responses

1 N/A N/A

What is the estimated or actual budget for the services for Contactless Fare Collection

Platform? N/A CTDOT will not be providing an estimated budget, and encourages Proposers to submit competitive pricing.

2 N/A N/A

We respectfully request a one month extension to the 4/7/26 proposal submittal deadline. Please advise if a month or any time extension is possible. N/A CTDOT will not be extending the proposal submittal deadline at this time.

3 N/A N/A

Will a full list of participants be made available either before the meeting or as part of a future addendum? N/A

Please see Addendum #2 for a list of company names that attended the mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting held on February 5, 2026.

4 N/A N/A

Will you accept custom built or tailor made solution for this project?

N/A

CTDOT does not prefer a custom or tailor-made solution, and will evaluate proposals based on the posted evaluation criteria and how well the proposal fulfills the requirements listed in the scope of work.

5 N/A N/A Can we the list of participants of the ppc meeting.

N/A

Please see Addendum #2 for a list of company names that attended the mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting held on February 5, 2026.

6 29 Background & Vision

Do you have an existing solution?

N/A

CTtransit currently offers mobile ticketing through Token Transit and a smart card called the Go CT card through Scheidt & Bachmann. CTDOT piloted a contactless EMV fare payment system through its Tap & Ride pilot in 2024 - please see the "Background and Vision" (Page 29 of 139 of PDF) for more details. There is no existing statewide fare collection platform.

7 N/A N/A

Is there any incumbent for this opportunity?

N/A

Token Transit is the current vendor for mobile ticketing services with CTtransit and four independent transit agencies in Connecticut, each with their own contract with Token Transit.

8 N/A N/A What is the allocated budget for this RFP?

N/A CTDOT will not be providing an estimated budget, and encourages Proposers to submit competitive pricing.

9 N/A N/A Can you share your budget for this project?

N/A CTDOT will not be providing an estimated budget, and encourages Proposers to submit competitive pricing.

10 50 SOW section 4.12

Are CTDOT and participating agencies expecting a single statewide back-office, or multiple agency-specific instances?

N/A

Please see SOW section 4.12 for more details, in particular 4.12.4 (Page 50 of 139 of PDF): each transit agency should have access to "its own administrative back-office portal." The back-office solution should accommodate this requirement.

11 N/A N/A

Will you post clarification responses once as a single addendum or will you release batches ? N/A

Responses to questions are addressed in an addendum via the CTSource Bid Board on 3/6/26 in accordance with the RFP timeline. This will be the only round of questions and answers.

12 N/A N/A Have you retained a consultant to support you in this procurement? N/A CTDOT has limited consultant support for this procurement.

13 N/A N/A

Is CTDOT expecting the contractor to be the Merchant of Record (MoR), or will agencies retain MoR status? N/A

Yes, the current intention is for each agency to operate as its own Merchant of Record with separate merchant IDs. See SOW section 4.12.3 (Page 50 of 139 of PDF) for more details.

14 N/A N/A

If a proposal is submitted by a consortium or joint venture, may required certifications and compliance documents be provided by consortium or JV members other than the

Prime Contractor? N/A

Each member of the consortium or joint venture should submit applicable certifications and compliance documents.

15 N/A Exhibit B

Cost Breakdown: Will you be publishing how you will allocate the 20 points for Costs based on different submitted prices.

N/A

CTDOT will evaluate total costs proposed over a 5 year period, taking into account one time costs, annual fees, and transaction fees as requested in the Price Schedule (Exhibit B). CTDOT will evaluate transaction fees as part of total costs, and will use an internal cost assessment process using fare revenue and fare media usage assumptions to normalize across proposals.

16 N/A SOW sections 4.13 & 4.14

Related to "future optional support" - are you requiring pricing for these items or just info on how we could deliver?

N/A

Proposers are not required to provide pricing for optional scope items, but pricing is encouraged where possible to aid CTDOT's understanding of potential future costs. Optional scope pricing will not be considered as part of total project cost evaluation.

17 32 E.8

Scope of Work: Should we answer each question from the Scope of work separately as part of the technical narrative?

N/A

Please follow the guidelines listed under "Content of Proposals" (Page 32 of 139 of PDF) for more information on how to write the proposal. The Requirements Traceability Matrix (Exhibit C) also allows Proposers to note compliance with each item in the Scope of Work.

18 N/A N/A

Would CTDOT be open to accept electronic submissions instead of paper based submissions as the RFP currently requires? N/A CTDOT is not changing the proposal submission requirements at this time.

19 34 F.12

Governance

Who will be the primary owner of the program post-award — CTDOT, individual agencies, or a joint governance group?

N/A

CTDOT will be the owner of the products for CTtransit services post-award. Independent transit agencies that enter into agreements with the selected Proposer will be the owners of the products specific to their services.

Please see Section F (Proposal Requirements), item 12, "Ownership of Subsequent Products" (Page 34 of 139 of PDF) for more detail on ownership.

20 49 SOW section 3.31

I understand that CTDOT expects Mobile app and ticketing Must be online and running

3 months after contract execution ? N/A

The timeframe specified for the mobile application in SOW section 3.31 (Page 48 of 139 of PDF) is to minimize potential disruption for CTtransit 's existing mobile ticketing customers.

21 30 N/A Is there a specific subject line you would like included with our emailed questions?

N/A Proposers should include RFP No. 33365 in the subject line as indicated on page 30 of 139 of the PDF.

22 N/A N/A

Will you accept custom build solution?

N/A

CTDOT does not prefer a custom or tailor-made solution, and will evaluate proposals based on the posted evaluation criteria and how well the proposal fulfills the requirements listed in the scope of work.

23 29 C.2

Can you elaborate on the Project Goals and what led CTDOT to establish these seven items in particular? N/A

The project goals (Page 29 of 139 of PDF) were developed based on lessons learned from CTDOT's Tap & Ride pilot project, program planning efforts, and industry research.

24 N/A N/A

Will CTDOT establish new branding for this system? Is existing branding and design standards documented and available for review? N/A

CTDOT anticipates establishing new branding in the future. Detailed design standards are not available for review at this time.

25 46 SOW section 2.16

Can you provide more information on the requirement for an account management website (2.16)? N/A

Please see SOW section 2.16 (Page 46 of 139 of PDF) for details on requirements for customer accounts, including 2.16.4 which explains requirements for a customer-facing website.

26 27 Background & Vision

Who are the vendors that participated in the pilots completed over the last few years?

N/A

CTDOT and CTtransit 's current mobile ticketing vendor is Token Transit. For CTDOT's Tap & Ride pilot, the hardware vendor was SCsoft and the fare calculation software vendor was Littlepay. Please see the

"Background and Vision" (Page 27 of 139 of PDF) for more details on the Tap & Ride pilot.

27 49 SOW section 4.4

Do you plan on implementing a state wide reloadable pass to compliment EMV payments? Or do you already have one?

N/A

Statewide fare products will be determined and coordinated by CTDOT and independent transit agencies in

Connecticut. CTtransit currently offers a closed-loop smart card solution that is branded as the Go CT card, but CTDOT does not have a statewide reloadable pass. Please see SOW section 4.4 (Page 49 of 139 of PDF) for more detail on requirements related to the Go CT card.

28 130, 5, 113, 39 N/A

Are companies in financial default permitted to bid on this procurement?

N/A

"Financial default" is a broad term, and it is unclear what is meant by it, therefore CTDOT cannot say with certainty whether or not a company in financial default is permitted to submit a proposal. Please refer to the

FTA "Debarment and Suspension Certification" in Exhibit D (Page 130 of 139 of PDF) and State of Connecticut

"Proposer Debarment and/or Suspension" form (Page 5 of 139 of PDF) for required disclosures. Also see FTA provision #20 "Federal Tax Liability and Recent Felony Convictions" in Exhibit D (Page 113 of 139 of PDF).

Note that a company's overall financial standing is considered as part of the selection process - please refer to section H, "Selection Criteria," (Page 39 of 139 of PDF) for more details.

29 24-26 B.4

Are financial statements required to submit a response? Are bank references required?

N/A

Financial statements and bank references are not required submissions, as per submission requirements noted in Section B-4 (Page 24-26 of 139 of PDF). It is optional if Proposers would like to provide.

30 N/A N/A

Are there plans to replace cash farebox equipment following the migration to the new system? N/A

CTDOT anticipates releasing a cooperative procurement RFP in 2026, including CTtransit and the independent transit agencies, for cash fareboxes.

31 N/A N/A

Is there an openness to newer approaches that meet requirements?

N/A

CTDOT will evaluate proposals based on the posted evaluation criteria and how well the proposal fulfills the requirements listed in the scope of work. Custom or tailor-made solutions that fulfill the requirements listed in the SOW may be considered but are not preferred.

32 N/A N/A Who is your current farebox provider?

N/A

CTtransit 's current farebox vendor is Scheidt & Bachmann. Vendors for the independent transit agencies include Genfare and Diamond.

33 43, 45

SOW section 1.15 and

2.14

For the mobile inspection device requirements, is the proposer expected to provide the device hardware, the software, or both, and in what form?

N/A

CTDOT is not requiring the Proposer to provide device hardware. Proposers should demonstrate how mobile inspection is possible through the proposed solution. Proposers may choose to provide pricing for physical inspection devices as a Value-Added Service if desired. Please see SOW sections 1.15 and 2.14 for details on mobile inspection device requirements (Page 43-45 of 139 of PDF).

34 49 SOW section 3.31 Is there a reason for the mobile app to be stood up within 3 months?

N/A

The timeframe specified for the mobile application in SOW section 3.31 (Page 48 of 139 of PDF) is to minimize potential disruption for CTtransit 's existing mobile ticketing customers.

35 32 E.8

Would the CTDOT please consider extending the proposal page limit to 100 pages instead of 60 pages? This additional length would allow evaluators to more fully assess each proponent’s qualifications and experience as they directly relate to the needs and complexities of the Department and the 13 Transit Districts. Thank you for your consideration. N/A

CTDOT will not be extending the proposal page limit at this time.

36 32 E.8

Regarding Section 8, Content of Proposals, could CTDOT please clarify if the cover page and table of contents count toward the total 60-page limit? The RFP states: “Proposals must not exceed 60 pages in length, using font size 12, and include the following information, in the following order and structure, with the following recommended page lengths.”

N/A

All sections listed "Content of Proposals" (Page 32 of 139 of PDF) are included within the 60-page limit, including cover page and any optional table of contents.

37 32 E.8

Regarding Section 8 (Content of Proposals), could CTDOT please clarify whether the 60-page limit refers to single-sided pages (60 pages total) or double-sided pages (up to

120 pages total)? The RFP states that proposals must not exceed 60 pages in length. N/A

The 60-page limit refers to single-sided pages (60 pages total).

38 6, 39 H

Regarding Proposal Section 6, as described in RFP Section E.8, could CTDOT please consider expanding the Qualifications and Experience requirements to include the track record and performance of the SaaS platform itself? Since CTDOT is procuring a

Software-as-a-Service solution, providing information on existing deployments and revenue service outcomes—in addition to the experience of the proposed project team—would offer evaluators a more comprehensive view of the solution’s proven capabilities. This adjustment may also help reduce potential redundancy between

Section 2 (Key Staff Resumes) and Section 6 (Qualifications and Experience).

N/A

The Selection Criteria (PDF page 39) takes into account Proposer's experience. Proposers should also include information on at least 3 completed projects similar in nature to this RFP in the "Proposer's Statement of

Qualifications" (PDF page 6).

39 N/A N/A

Could CTDOT please provide available adoption rates for mobile ticketing and open payments for CTtransit and any other Transit Agencies currently offering these fare payment options? This information would be helpful for proposers in understanding current usage and adoption trends. Thank you for your consideration.

N/A

Since mobile ticketing launched at CTtransit in April 2023, over 166,000 unique users have purchased mobile tickets. Approximately 25-30% of CTtransit riders use mobile tickets. Four independent transit agencies also offer mobile ticketing services through Token Transit, and their mobile ticketing percentages range from approximately 20-25%. In addition to mobile tickets, Estuary Transit District (dba River Valley Transit) accepts open-loop fare payment, which has accounted for 6% of fare revenue in the past 6 months.

40 N/A N/A

Regarding RFP No. 33365, could CTDOT please clarify if proposals may be submitted fully in digital format? As this solicitation is for a cloud-based SaaS platform, allowing digital submission would align with the nature of the solution and help facilitate broader participation by reducing the logistical complexity of physical submissions.

N/A

CTDOT is not changing the proposal submission requirements at this time.

41 49 SOW section 4.4

Would CTDOT please provide the vendor name and contact information referenced in

Section 4.4 of the RFP, which states that the selected Vendor is expected to migrate all existing Go CT accounts from CTDOT’s back office to the Vendor’s back office?

Additionally, it appears that CTDOT expects Go CT cards, which are MIFARE DESFire smart cards, to be supported within the Vendor’s back office to enable a seamless transition. Could CTDOT please confirm the current vendor associated with the Go CT card program, provide relevant contact information, and advise whether that vendor holds the encryption keys for the Go CT cards? Thank you for your consideration.

N/A

Scheidt & Bachmann is the current vendor for the Go CT card, and CTtransit has encryption keys available for the selected Proposer to use.

42 N/A N/A

For the Transit Agencies expected to join the statewide fare payment platform, could

CTDOT please provide available baseline data, including average transaction size and most recent annual fare revenue (where available)? This information would help proposers appropriately size and price the solution. Thank you.

Data table

Please see the data table for additional information.

43 N/A N/A

For the Transit Agencies expected to join the platform, could CTDOT please provide fare product sales by product and sales channel (where available) to help proposers understand expected usage patterns during onboarding? Thank you.

N/A

Fare media and products vary at the independent transit agencies and include magnetic stripe paper tickets, cash fares, and mobile tickets. Four independent transit agencies offer mobile ticketing through Token

Transit, and their mobile ticketing percentages range from approximately 20-25%. In addition to mobile tickets, Estuary Transit District (dba River Valley Transit) accepts open-loop fare payment, which has accounted for 6% of fare revenue in the past 6 months.

44 6, 39 H

To support a fair, consistent, and well-informed evaluation, could CTDOT please describe any methods the Department may use to assess and validate vendors’ experience with EMV, mobile ticketing, and account-based fare payment solutions, including verification of deployment dates and functionality currently in revenue service for those projects used by vendors as references? N/A

The Selection Criteria (Page 39 of 139 of PDF) takes into account Proposer's experience. Proposers should also include information on at least 3 completed projects similar in nature to this RFP in the "Proposer's

Statement of Qualifications" (Page 6 of 139 of PDF).

45 25 N/A

Section 4 (Proposal Responses) lists multiple forms, certifications, and exhibits to be submitted as part of the Proposal. However, certain listed items—such as Exhibit A –

Scope of Work and Exhibit A.1 – CTDOT Legal Documents—appear to be informational reference documents included within the RFP and not proposer-completed formats.

Could CTDOT please clarify whether the Proposal submission is expected to include the Technical Proposal prepared in accordance with Section 8 (Content of Proposals), together with only the following proposer-provided documents:

● Signature Page (DOTRFP-26)

● Statement of Qualifications (DOTRFP-14)

● Employment Information Form (DOTRFP-45)

● Agency Vendor Form

● Form W-9

● Compliance with Connecticut General Statute Section 31-57b

● Acknowledgement of Addenda (if applicable)

● Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Certifications, including:

○ Tax Liability Certification

○ Debarment and Suspension Certification

○ Lobbying Certification

○ Buy America Certification

○ Certificate of Compliance with Bus Testing Requirement

○ Transit Vehicle Manufacturer Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

Certification

○ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification

○ Certificate of Compliance with Rolling Stock Limitation

● Exhibit B – Price Schedule

● Exhibit B – Price Schedule

● Exhibit C – Requirements Traceability Matrix

● Example of Terms and Conditions for hardware and software services

● Technical Proposal structured in accordance with Section 8 (Content of N/A

Proposers need to complete the required RFP forms and submit their proposal response and reference the

Instructions section (Page 25 of 139 of PDF) in the RFP-22 document.

46 75 N/A

Could CTDOT please confirm whether specific insurance requirements (including coverage types and minimum limits) apply to this RFP? As these requirements do not appear to be explicitly defined in the solicitation documents, we would appreciate clarification on the expected coverage for this contract.

N/A

CTDOT intends to issue an addendum with additional guidance on insurance requirements soon. Please see

Exhibit A.1, Exhibit B, 8-e (Page 75 of 139 of PDF) for details on insurance coverage requirements.

47 N/A N/A

Section 4 (Proposal Responses) lists several Federal Transit Administration (FTA) certifications that are typically associated with the procurement of buses or rolling stock.

Given that this RFP is for a Contactless Fare Collection Platform and supporting services, and does not include the procurement of buses or other rolling stock, can

CTDOT please clarify whether submission of the following FTA certifications is required as part of the Proposal:

● Certificate of Compliance with Bus Testing Requirement

● Transit Vehicle Manufacturer Disadvantage Business Enterprise Certification

● Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification

● Certificate of Compliance with Rolling Stock Limitation

Please confirm whether these certifications apply to this solicitation or whether they may be marked as “Not Applicable.”

N/A

None of the FTA certifications listed in the question apply to this solicitation, and therefore do not need to be completed and submitted as part of your proposal. The following certifications are required: (1) CT Consulting

Agreement Representation, (2) Tax Liability Certification, (3) Debarment and Suspension Certification, (4)

Lobbying Certification, and (5) Buy America Certification.

48 60 Exhibit A.1

Regarding the Standard RFP Terms and Conditions, could CTDOT please clarify if proposers are expected to submit a redlined version with their proposal, or if any exceptions and modifications will be addressed only during negotiations with the highest-ranked proposer? N/A

The Standard RFP Terms and Conditions, which include those provisions that are required by Connecticut state statutes to appear in a solicitation as is, govern the content of your proposal and cannot be negotiated.

49 N/A N/A

Regarding Section 4 (Proposal Responses), could CTDOT please clarify if a standard form is required for the certification of Compliance with Connecticut General Statute

Section 31-57b? As a corresponding template does not appear to be included in the

RFP documents, please provide the applicable form or a link where it can be downloaded. N/A

Applicable form uploaded as Addendum #3 DOTRFP-12 Certification of Compliance.

50 24 N/A

Regarding the OPM Ethics Form 1 and Insurance ACORD Certificates, could CTDOT please confirm that these documents are required prior to contract execution and do not need to be current within the proposer’s CTSource profile at the time of Proposal submission? Thank you for the clarification. N/A

OPM Ethics Form 1 is required at the time of contract execution. Please reference DOT RFP-22, page 6 of 22

(Page 24 of 139 of PDF), which states that the OPM Ethics Form 1 to be completed at the time of contract execution. Please reference DOT RFP-22 (Page 24 of 139 of PDF) for Insurance ACCORD certificates instructions to proposers.

51 N/A N/A

It is understood that none of the forms or certifications required to be submitted as part of this RFP are required to be notarized. Please confirm whether this understanding is correct. Thank you. N/A

Certificate of Compliance with Connecticut General Statue Section 31-57b must be notarized. Additionally, OPM Ethics Form 1 has to be notarized when submitted at the time of contract execution.

52 6-8 N/A

Regarding Form DOTRFP-14 (Proposer’s Statement of Qualifications), could CTDOT please clarify the requirements for the two project experience sections? As both sections request at least three completed projects similar in nature to this solicitation, please confirm if the same projects may be used to satisfy both sections or if different projects are required for each. Thank you. N/A

Yes, for form DOTRFP-14 (Page 6-8 of 139 of PDF), the three (3) completed projects similar in nature to this request for proposal may be the same as the three (3) completed projects you use as references.

53 N/A N/A

Regarding the RFP’s goal to reduce bus dwell times, could CTDOT please provide specific examples of routes or stops where improvement is sought? The Final

Implementation Report for the CT-ITMP project indicates that dwell time data is available through the Swiftly platform, and sharing representative data for these locations would be highly beneficial for proposers in refining their technical approach.

N/A

CTDOT is looking to improve operational efficiency along all of its routes through modernized fare collection technology.

54 N/A N/A

Regarding the specified implementation timelines, such as the three-month requirement for the mobile ticketing application, could CTDOT please clarify the expected timeline for the overall project implementation? Specifically, does the

Department have an anticipated target timeframe for the end-to-end rollout of the full platform, including hardware, back-office integrations, and agency onboarding? This information will help proposers align their Work Plan with CTDOT’s broader expectations.

N/A

While CTDOT does not have a specific timeline requirement for implementation, CTDOT anticipates that validator installation will begin on CTtransit buses in early 2027. Implementation timelines are not known at this time for the independent transit agencies and may vary depending on each agency's readiness. Each deployment is subject to funding availability and approval by transit agency boards of directors. Proposers are encouraged to provide details on project schedule as part of their proposal. For example, Proposers can note lead time on validator purchase orders and delivery, installation time per bus, testing timeframes, etc.

55 52 SOW section 5.6.3

CTDOT references Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) on page 12. Can CTDOT please identify which transit agencies/operators currently have TVMs deployed, including the manufacturer/model and approximate quantities by agency/operator?

N/A

The RFP references Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) in SOW section 5.6.3 (Page 52 of 139 of PDF). CTrail uses Vontas (formerly Trapeze) TVMs. CTtransit currently has 3 multi-function vending machines which are

Scheidt & Bachmann FareGo Sales ST | 80. CTtransit currently has approximately 27 ticket vending machines throughout the CTfastrak station network which are Ventek venSTATION machines.

56 N/A N/A Can CTDOT please identify the CAD/AVL vendor currently used by each transit agency?

N/A

CTtransit 's CAD/AVL vendor is Vontas. CAD/AVL vendors for the independent transit agencies vary, but include Avail, Passio, and Swiftly.

57 42 SOW section 1.1

Regarding requirement 1.1, what additional payment scheme are expected other than

Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and Amex?

N/A

As per SOW section 1.1 (Page 42 of 139 of RFP), only Visa, Mastercard, Discover, and Amex are requirements.

Proposers must also be able to implement "any additional Payment Scheme transit specific requirements" such as the Visa's Mass Transit Transaction (MTT) mentioned in SOW section 1.2 (Page 42 of 139 of RFP) and

Mastercard's Pay As You Go.

58 48 SOW section 4.1

Requirement 2.7 states that "Send final charges to the payment processor for settlement request". Is there a separate payment processor designated by CTDOT?

N/A

Please see SOW section 4.1 (Page 48 of 139 of PDF) for more details on payment processors.

59 45 SOW section 2.14

What kind of mobile inspection devices and/or operating software are currently in use by the CTDOT agencies? Please provide relevant information so we can design the interface stated in requirement 2.14. N/A

CTtransit does not currently use mobile inspection devices. Proposers should provide a mobile inspection solution that meets requirements.

60 48 SOW sections 3.21

Regarding requirement 3.21, please provide clarifications of the current cash farebox system. Which vendors and products are in use? What are the formats of fare data to be integrated or ingested into the analytics platform? N/A

CTtransit 's current farebox vendor is Scheidt & Bachmann. Vendors for the independent transit agencies include Genfare and Diamond. Fare data may include transaction value, route numbers, time of transaction, and fare media used.

61 48 SOW section 3.28

Requirement 3.28 states that "The mobile ticketing application must be deployed and in use at an existing transit agency that provides over 10,000,000 annual transit trips."

Should the contractor provide the exact application, or building a new application with the similar architecture would be allowed? N/A

As per SOW section 3.28 (Page 48 of 139 of PDF), CTDOT is seeking a white-label or commercial off the shelf application and does not prefer custom-built apps. Proposers can note compliance status or proposed alternatives to this and other requirements in the Requirements Traceability Matrix (Exhibit C).

62 48, 49

SOW sections 3.21, 4.3;

Exhibit B

Please specify the scope of integration with the transit agency’s current and future cash farebox vendor stated in requirement 4.3

N/A

The selected Proposer will be responsible for integrating with the farebox vendor for fare data reporting purposes, such that CTDOT and independent transit agencies will be able to view all fare data in the

Proposer's back office. Proposers should describe their approach to this integration, including any proposed alternatives, in their proposal and Requirements Traceability Matrix (Exhibit C). Please see Scope of Work items 3.21 and 4.3 (Pages 48-49 of 139 of PDF) for more details on farebox integration. Please also specify any costs related to this integration in the "Implementation" tab of the Price Schedule (Exhibit B) under

"Integration Fees total" (rows 8-10).

63 N/A N/A

Regarding the required documentation, please specify the submittal format for

‘Compliance with Connecticut General Statute Section 31-57b’. N/A Applicable form uploaded as Addendum #3 DOTRFP-12 Certification of Compliance.

64 N/A N/A

Regarding requirement 4.4, please provide current issuance status of Go CT card. Will the issuance of new Go CT cards stop after the migration? Does the contractor need to provide a solution to maintain the new Go CT issuance? N/A

Go CT card issuance status details are under evaluation and will be determined in the future. The Proposer does not need to provide a solution to maintain Go CT card issuance, but may propose a solution as a Value-

Added Service.

65 N/A N/A Would CTDOT consider an electronic-only submission? N/A CTDOT is not changing the proposal submission requirements at this time.

66 43, 45

SOW section 1.15 and

2.14

Referencing Item 1.15 in Exhibit C: Mobile inspection devices are mentioned. How many devices is CTDOT requiring?

N/A

CTDOT is not requiring the proposer to provide device hardware. Proposers should demonstrate how mobile inspection is possible through the proposed solution. Proposers may choose to provide pricing for physical inspection devices as a Value-Added Service if desired. Please see SOW sections 1.15 and 2.14 (Page 43 and

45 of 139 of PDF) for details on mobile inspection device requirements.

67 N/A N/A

Item 3.26 in Exhibit C states: “Ability for third party applications such as Google Maps, Apple Maps, Transit App, Citymapper, and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) to offer mobile tickets in their app via API or SDK. Integrations shall not result in ongoing or recurring fees to CTDOT from either the contractor or the trip planning application vendor(s).” If Contractor and third party application vendors have existing recurring expenses for providing these services, and a recurring fee is not desired, what fee arrangements would CTDOT allow for these services to be provided?

N/A

CTDOT's preference is for fees related to third party application integrations to be built into the overall fees for mobile ticketing transactions, and that Proposers have revenue sharing agreements with third party applications outside of this contract.

68 48 SOW section 4.1

Item 4.1 in Exhibit C states: “Contractor will have connection(s) to the payment networks for authorization and settlement of payment transactions via payment processors to settle fares to the transit agencies’ bank accounts. The contractor will propose credit card payment processing solution(s) as part of the proposal. The contractor shall outline all payment processors it has previously integrated with in prior deployments. If the contractor proposes handling payment processing as a part of a turn-key solution, CTDOT and each regional transit agency reserves the right to use a payment processor of its choice in the future. The contractor agrees to pass through credit card processing fees with no markup and will provide credit card processing invoices to the transit agency upon request. The contractor agrees to use the most cost advantageous Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) to minimize interchange fees.” Is

CTDOT open to alternative fee arrangements in which payment processing fees are incorporated inside of a transaction fee rather than pass through to reduce the overall cost of transaction fees? N/A

Yes, CTDOT will consider alternative fee arrangements.

69 48, 49 SOW sections 3.21, 4.3

Item 4.3 in Exhibit C states “Contractor will provide a comprehensive back office and system integration with the transit agency’s current and future cash farebox vendor.

All cash and transfer issuance transactions from the farebox will be transmitted to the central back office for consolidated reporting alongside all other electronic fare media.” – Who are the farebox providers at CTtransit and the independent transit agencies? Are there existing integrations provided by the current farebox providers?

N/A

CTtransit 's current farebox vendor is Scheidt & Bachmann. Vendors for the independent transit agencies include Genfare and Diamond. There is an existing integration between CTtransit 's Scheidt & Bachmann fareboxes and Fastrak ticket vending machines.

70 49 SOW section 4.4

Referencing Item 4.4 in Exhibit C: Does the Agency have ownership and possession to decrypt the information in the Go CT cards? Stored value migration: Who owns the bank account of all the stored value in the system today? What agreement is in place to migrate that stored value? Can CTDOT provide a technical description of the Go CT architecture and the logical location of stored customer information, value and passes in the system (“truth on card” vs. “truth on server”).

N/A

Scheidt & Bachmann is the current vendor for the Go CT card, and CTtransit has encryption keys available for the selected Proposer to use. CTDOT holds the stored value of Go CT cards. CTDOT and CTtransit will facilitate coordination between the selected Proposer and the existing farebox vendor, including data sharing, throughout the transition. The Go CT card system follows a "truth on server" model, where customer information is stored and maintained in a central database that serves as the system of record for rider accounts, balances, and fare products. The physical card stores only limited reference data used to support validation and account linkage, while authoritative customer information resides within the secure server environment.

71 N/A N/A

Referencing Item 4.9 in Exhibit C: 8 garages are referenced, but can CTDOT provide the location of garages and how many vehicles are stored at each garage?

Data table

Please see the data table for additional information.

72 N/A N/A

Can CTDOT provide an excel sheet list of the different year/make/model vehicle types included in the fleets? Or at least identify a ballpark of how many different vehicle types may be included across the fleet of services (i.e. 2013 Gillig Low Floor, 2021 Ford

E450, etc.). A high level understanding of how many different vehicle types and what make/models/years CTtransit has in scope, is critical to estimating installation and vehicle work costs. Data table

Approximately 82% of CTtransit's fleet is New Flyer (years from 2007-2025, primarily 2010, 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2025) 10% MCI (years 2003-2020, primarily 2010, 2017, and 2019), 6% NOVA (years 2010, 2011, and

2014), 2% Gillig (years 2014 and 2015), and 1% Ford E450 (year 2023). Please see the data table for additional information.

73 N/A N/A

CTtransit express buses currently have zone based fares (tap on / tap off), is this something they hope to continue supporting, or will this change with the implementation of the fare unification project? N/A

Proposers should be able to support zone-based tap-on/tap-off fare currently in effect on CTtransit express services. Fare structures and policies are subject to change through fare unification efforts.

74 43, 47 SOW sections 2.3, 3.13

Could you provide more detail on how you envision interagency fare capping to work -especially with regards to fees paid out to individual agencies?

N/A

Please see SOW sections 2.3 and 3.13 (Pages 43, 47 of 139 of PDF) for more details on fare capping requirements. Interagency fare capping policies and specifics are not known at this time, and will be coordinated between CTDOT and independent transit agencies throughout 2026. The solution provided by the Proposer should be able to identify the distributed revenue, capping benefits and transfer benefits, chargeback and fare disputes across agencies, based on the defined and accepted revenue apportionment rules that will be defined by CTDOT in the future.

75 N/A N/A

Which Ticket Vending Machines does CTDOT employ?

N/A

CTrail uses Vontas (formerly Trapeze) Ticket Vending Machines. CTtransit currently has 3 multi-function vending machines which are Scheidt & Bachmann FareGo Sales ST | 80. CTtransit currently has approximately 27 ticket vending machines throughout the CTfastrak station network which are Ventek venSTATION machines.

76 47 SOW section 3.2

Item 3.2 in Exhibit C: For the purposes of fraud prevention, real world experience has shown that requiring a user account is an easy action that saves transit agencies from large amounts of fraud. Would CTDOT be open to a fast user account / sign-in option in order to minimize fraud rather than a no user-account / sign-in option.

N/A

Please see SOW section 3 (Page 47 of 139 of PDF) for details on mobile ticket requirements. Proposers can note any proposed alternatives to scope requirements in the Requirements Traceability Matrix and in the written proposal.

77 43, 47 SOW section 2.3, 3.13

1. Policy - Multi-Period Fare Capping Rules

a. If cross-agency capping is required, will CTDOT define revenue apportionment rules, or should the inter-agency settlement logic be implemented within the proposed platform?

N/A

Please see SOW sections 2.3 and 3.13 (Pages 43, 47 of 139 of PDF) for more details on fare capping requirements. Interagency fare capping policies and specifics are not known at this time, and will be coordinated between CTDOT and independent transit agencies throughout 2026. The solution provided by the Proposer should be able to identify the distributed revenue, capping benefits and transfer benefits, chargeback and fare disputes across agencies, based on the defined and accepted revenue apportionment rules that will be defined by CTDOT in the future.

78 51 SOW section 5

2. Mobile Ticketing & Validator Interaction

a. Does CTDOT mandate any specific QR code or mobile token standard, or is this vendor-defined for non-CTRail/Amtrak?

N/A

Please see SOW section 5 (Page 51 of 139 of PDF) more details on QR code requirements for integration with

Amtrak Rail Ticketing - specifically sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 5.6.4. For QR code requirements in SOW sections

1-4, CTDOT does not mandate any specific QR code or mobile token standard but prefers the use of open standards.

79 95, 76-77

Exhibit A.1: Exhibit D, Exhibit B

3. Data Retention & Audit Requirements

a. What are the minimum retention requirements for transaction data, audit logs, settlement records, and configuration change history?

b. Are there any regulatory or statutory compliance requirements governing data retention? N/A

Yes, all records, including data, are subject to federal and state retention and audit requirements. Please refer to FTA provision "Access to Records and Reports," found in Exhibit D, FTA Required Provisions, #4 (Page 95 of

139 of PDF), and State of Connecticut Required Provisions, numbers 11 and 13, found in Exhibit B (Pages 76-

77 of 139 of PDF). Under federal law, all records, including data, must be retained for at least 3 years after the date the agreement terminates or expires.

80 32, 39 E.8, H

4. Value-added services

a. What value-added services are being referred to? N/A

Please see section E-8, "Content of Proposals" (Page 32 of 139 of PDF) and section H, "Selection Criteria"

(Page 39 of 139 of PDF) for more details on Value-Added Services.

81 N/A N/A

1. What is the name/model of the farebox system currently in use?

N/A

CTtransit currently uses Scheidt & Bachmann FB50 fareboxes. Vendors for independent transit agencies include Genfare and Diamond.

82 N/A N/A

2. What is CTDOT's current mobile ticketing system (for the April 2023 CTtransit pilot and the existing transit district deployments)? Will the selected contractor be required to coordinate a data migration or formal handoff from this vendor? N/A

CTtransit 's current mobile ticketing vendor is Token Transit. Four independent transit agencies also offer mobile ticketing through Token Transit. The selected Proposer will not be expected to coordinate data migration or formal handoff.

83 51 SOW section 5

3. What CTrail eTix mobile ticketing platform is currently in use? Will the selected contractor be expected to replace or operate alongside the existing CTrail eTix system?

N/A

Vontas is the current vendor for the CTrail eTix app. Please see SOW section 5 (Page 51 of 139 of PDF) for more details on the option for CTrail mobile ticketing. If exercised, the selected Proposer's solution for CTrail mobile ticketing is anticipated to replace the existing CTrail eTix app in the future.

84 N/A N/A

4. When does the current mobile ticketing and/or farebox software contract expire?

N/A

The mobile ticketing contract with Token Transit and the farebox services contract with Scheidt & Bachmann both expire in August of 2026.

85 N/A N/A

5. What is the approximate total annual fare revenue collected across all CTtransit divisions and participating transit districts in 2025? Data table Please see the data table for additional information.

86 N/A N/A

6. Please provide a breakdown of fare revenue and transaction volume by agency

(CTtransit vs. each transit district) if available, or at minimum by the major CTtransit divisions (Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, etc.). Data table

Please see the data table for additional information.

87 N/A N/A

7. Please provide an approximate breakdown of current fare payment types (e.g., cash, magnetic stripe pass, mobile ticket, contactless/EMV) expressed as a percentage of total transactions. N/A

The approximate usage of fare media at CTtransit is as follows: 45-50% cash fares, 25-30% magnetic stripe paper tickets, 25-30% mobile tickets, and 1% Go CT card.

88 48 SOW section 4.1

8. What is the agency's current credit card processing rate, and does CTDOT pay the processing fee directly or is it passed to the end user? Please provide a sample recent merchant processing statement (including percent per transaction, per-transaction cost, card brand fees, and any other fees charged to the agency) if available.

N/A

CTDOT will not be providing detailed information on current payment processors at this time. Processing fees are not passed onto the end user. Current credit card processing rate vary. See SOW section 4.1 for details on payment processor requirements.

89 42, 44, 48

SOW section 1.3, 2.6, 3.27, 4.1

9. Does CTDOT have a preference or requirement for a specific payment processor, acquiring bank, or payment gateway, or is the contractor free to propose any PCI-compliant solution? N/A

See SOW section 4.1 (Page 48 of 139 of PDF) for details on payment processors, and sections 1.3, 2.6, and

3.27 (Page 42, 44, 48) of 139 of PDF) for details on compliance with Payment Card Industry (PCI) standards.

90 N/A N/A

10. Does CTDOT have an established budget or budget range for this project (one-time and recurring)? N/A CTDOT will not be providing an estimated budget, and encourages Proposers to submit competitive pricing.

91 N/A N/A

11. Does CTDOT have a target go-live date for the initial CTtransit deployment? Is there a planned phasing order for CTtransit locations or transit districts (e.g., which agencies/locations are prioritized for early deployment)?

N/A

While CTDOT does not have a specific timeline requirement for implementation, CTDOT anticipates that validator installation will begin on CTtransit buses in early 2027. Implementation timelines are not known at this time for the independent transit agencies and may vary depending on each agency's readiness. Each deployment is subject to funding availability and approval by transit agency boards of directors. Proposers are encouraged to provide details on project schedule as part of their proposal. For example, Proposers can note lead time on validator purchase orders and delivery, installation time per bus, testing timeframes, etc.

92 N/A N/A

12. What is the current annual transaction volume on the CTrail Hartford Line and

Shore Line East services that would be processed through the new mobile ticketing system? N/A

CTrail eTix revenue for 2025 was approximately $2.51 million (64% of total CTrail revenue).

93 N/A N/A

For forms requiring signature (e.g., DOTRFP-26 Signature Page, Agency Vendor Form, certifications), does CTDOT require original wet ink signatures on the mailed copies?

N/A

The forms with either a wet signature or authorized digital signature will be equally accepted.

94 N/A N/A

Is a scanned PDF of a wet-signed document acceptable for the required electronic submission? N/A The forms with either a wet signature or authorized digital signature will be equally accepted.

95 N/A N/A

Is there a maximum file size for email submission to dot.transit@ct.gov?

N/A

The dot.transit@ct.gov email inbox generally does not accept file sizes above 25-30mb. Proposers can send zip files and/or multiple emails if necessary to ensure receipt of all files. Please do not send links to document sharing websites.

96 N/A Exhibit B Should pricing (Exhibit B) be submitted in native Excel format in addition to PDF? N/A Exhibit B, the Pricing Schedule, should be submitted as an Excel document.

97 N/A Exhibit C

Should Exhibit C – Requirements Traceability Matrix be submitted in Excel format, or only as PDF? N/A Exhibit C, the Requirements Traceability Matrix, should be submitted as an Excel document.

98 29 N/A

Is acknowledgment of the listed documents in CTSource (Legal Notice, RFP document, Exhibits) required prior to proposal submission, or is email submission sufficient?

Where in the CTSource Portal is this to be acknowledged?

N/A

Upon submission of Proposal it is understood that the Proposer has carefully reviewed and accepted the forms listed. (Page 29 of 139 of PDF)

99 32 E.8

Do resumes count toward the 60-page limit, or are they included within the 4-page

“Project Organizational Chart and Key Staff Resumes” allocation? N/A

Resumes do count toward the 60-page limit. Please see "Content of Proposals" (Page 32 of 139 of PDF) for a list of sections that count toward this page limit.

100 32 E.8 Are appendices permitted, or is all content required to be within the page limits? N/A Appendices are not permitted; all content should be within page limits.

101 24 N/A

The RFP states certain forms must be uploaded to CTSource annually (e.g., Ethics Form

1).

• Are these required at proposal submission or only at contract execution?

• Must vendors confirm upload prior to proposal submission? N/A

OPM Ethics Form 1 is required at the time of contract execution. Please reference DOT RFP-22, page 6 of 22

(Page 24 of 139 of PDF), which states that the OPM Ethics Form 1 to be completed at the time of contract execution.

102 N/A Exhibit B

Should Exhibit B – Price Schedule be submitted:

• In Excel (native format)?

• As PDF only?

• Both? N/A

Exhibit B, the Pricing Schedule, should be submitted as an Excel document.

103 N/A N/A

The RFP requires submission of “Example of Terms and Conditions for hardware and software services.”

• Is this to be submitted as a full legal document?

• Does it count toward the page limit?

• Should it be redlined against CTDOT’s standard terms? N/A

Proposers should submit an example terms and conditions for CTDOT review (see page 26 of 139 of PDF). It does not count toward the 60-page limit for proposals and does not need to be submitted as a full legal document. Exact terms will be addressed during contract negotiations with selected Proposer.

104 50 SOW section 4.12

Will CTDOT execute a single master contract with pricing extended to all participating agencies, with individual agencies issuing their own task orders or purchase orders?

N/A

No, independent transit agencies will enter into their own agreements with the selected Proposer. See SOW section 4.12 (Page 50 of 139 of PDF) for details on working with independent transit agencies, specifically section 4.12.2.

105 50 SOW section 4.12

Will each transit district execute a separate agreement directly with the selected contractor, or will CTDOT serve as the centralized contracting authority for all agencies? N/A

Yes, independent transit agencies will enter into their own agreements with the selected Proposer. See SOW section 4.12 (Page 50 of 139 of PDF) for details on working with independent transit agencies, specifically section 4.12.2.

106 36 F.14.6.a

For agencies that elect to join the platform after initial award, will pricing remain…