B-31956 VIM Amendment 1 final.docx

23-532EPA-AIR53-B-31956

Vehicles Emissions Testing Amendment 1 This amendment is to provide questions and answers that have been received. Because these questions and answers may materially affect the proposal, vendors must sign and return this acknowledgement with your proposal.

Vendor acknowledgement of Amendment 1 Vendor signature: ________________________________ Date: ___________

1. Section 1.A. Instructions for Submitting Offers, Page 5.

The RFP states only electronic proposal submissions are permissible. However, on RFP page 5, it says “The State does not accept electronic offers in response to RFPs through BidBuy. Offerors must continue to submit offers in paper format and in accord with the instructions for submission.”

Please clarify Offeror’s proposal response must be in electronic format and submitted on BidBuy.

Agency Response: Yes, all proposal responses must be submitted electronically in BidBuy. Please refer to the following attachments in BidBuy for more details: Notice of Electronic Submission Only v.22.1 and Vendor Instruction for RFPs v23.1.

2. D.2.1.2 Network Design Requirements, Page 23.

Inspection and Repair (I&R) facilities in a hybrid network are a great way to augment small pockets of underserved areas with little population. However, we are concerned about using I&Rs to serve high-density, underserved areas such as the City of Chicago. They do not have the same capacity to inspect vehicles at the same throughput rates as that of a multi-lane high-throughput centralized station. Hundreds of vehicles would likely arrive at these locations at once causing severe traffic problems, angry motorists, and frustrated shop owners.

To avoid public relations issues such as these, would the IEPA modify the RFP to allow appointments at I&Rs as a means to control their arrival rates and improve the motorist’s experience?

Agency Response: No. The Agency has had I&Rs in its vehicle emissions testing program within the City of Chicago in the past and did not require appointments. In its view, the Agency did not have public relations issues with not requiring appointments at I&Rs. Conversely, the Agency has had experience with I&Rs in its testing network where appointments were required which caused public relations issues. These public relations issues included issues with scheduling times and availability, motorists presenting vehicles for testing without an appointment, and motorists not showing up for appointments or showing up late. Additionally, requiring appointments will cause more work on the part of the vendor to address scheduling and likely more complaints. Also, motorists in Illinois are not accustomed to making appointments and will likely present for testing without an appointment and/or have concerns over the need to schedule testing. 40 CFR 51.355(b) requires vehicle emissions testing stations to test any subject vehicle presented for a test during its test period. The Agency views this as requiring the selected vehicle emissions testing contractor, including any subcontracted I&R, to test any vehicle presented for testing regardless of whether the owner of that vehicle has made an appointment. These motorists must not be refused testing pursuant to this federal regulation. Finally, the RFP requires the selected vendor to design an I/M Program network, including in the City of Chicago, that meets applicable requirements in the RFP, including wait-time (RFP Section D.2.1.2).

3. D.2.1.2 Network Design Requirements, Page 23.

Hybrid networks pose significant challenges when it comes to recruiting and retaining repair shops to perform emissions tests. Unless shops can collect a high-cost per test fee, the only real benefit for them to participate in a hybrid program, like the Illinois I/M Program, is the potential acquisition of new customers as a result of offering the tests. Certain aspects of this RFP will make it increasingly difficult, and likely impossible over the term of the contract, to retain and replace I&Rs in the program. This realistic challenge happens when the RFP requires adding ROBD testing locations to the network; a test type which requires significantly fewer business encumbrances and costs than an I&R, yet includes the same potential customer acquisition benefits.

Specifically, the requirements to use ROBD technology as defined in the RFP, will result in disgruntled I&Rs because they will have significantly higher overhead costs, and negative business impacts as compared to all other business types allowed to perform ROBD tests in the program. At the same time, the increased ROBD deployments will reduce the test volume at I&Rs, meaning the shops with the highest burden of participation in the program, which are also the locations necessary to satisfy drive distance requirements, will see fewer emissions testing customers, reducing the number of new customer acquisitions. At a minimum, I&Rs will want to become ROBD facilities, or more likely, they will simply quit the program because of the inequities brought about by ROBD deployments.

The real long-term challenge with this type of testing network, will be the ability to satisfy the 12-mile drive distance requirements throughout the term of the contract as I&Rs dropout. The RFP requires drive distance be measured only with centralized and I&R locations, excluding locations in the City of Chicago, regardless of how many ROBD locations exist in the network. What incentive does an I&R have to stay in the network considering these factors? It is our expert opinion that deployment of ROBD technology as described in this RFP will result in an unsustainable hybrid network of I&Rs.

Perhaps this problem could be overcome by significantly increasing fees paid to I&Rs to remain in the program. However, this approach will result in a higher per-test cost to the State, and it is unclear if it will prevent the problem of drive distance non-compliance.

Below is a high-level comparison of the inequities between I&R and ROBD locations that demonstrate disadvantages to the I&Rs. We foresee challenges with meeting the I&R network participation requirements.

Reduction in test counts and customer acquisition opportunities as ROBD is deployed

Will the Agency modify the RFP to allow Inspection and Repair facilities (I&Rs) to transition to Remote OBD (ROBD) Repair Shops when the Repair Shop Self-Testing phase of ROBD begins, and include ROBD Repair Shops in the list of locations used to satisfy the 12-mile drive distance requirement?

Agency Response: Depending on the make-up of the selected vehicle emissions testing vendor’s I/M Program network, the vendor may be able to allow certain I&Rs to transition to ROBD repair shops when the Repair Shop Self-Testing phase of ROBD begins if the vendor still satisfies the distance requirements with remaining centralized and I&R test stations. If the vendor has more I&Rs than needed for purposes of satisfying distance requirements, the vendor may be allowed to transition these I&Rs to ROBD Repair Shops. The vendor must still comply with the RFP’s distance requirements (RFP Section 1.2.1.2) which means that the vendor must provide for emissions testing located within twelve miles of the entire subject vehicle population, including vehicles not eligible for ROBD testing. To provide for the future evolution of the I/M Program, in the RFP, the Agency has provided for future modification of the inspection facility network based on inspection facility testing volumes at the request of the Agency and by agreement of the parties (RFP Section D.2.1.2).

4. D.2.1.2. Network Design Requirements, Page 23.

Is the selected vendor required to bear the cost for modifications and preparation to make the Forest Preserve inspection facility ready for testing? If so, will the Agency provide an opportunity for prospective bidders to inspect the facility before submitting a bid?

Who is responsible for the identification, cost and completion of capital leasehold improvements related to the building and property of the Forest Preserve inspection facility, including but not limited to: roof repairs and replacement, slab repairs, grate replacement, asphalt repairs, flooring, HVAC repairs and replacement, sewer repairs, electrical systems, and wiring?

Regarding the Forest Preserve inspection facility (Appendix 3), please describe the process, and timeframe, to secure written approval from CMS for any site modifications and alterations.

Agency Response: Capital leasehold improvement projects involving the need for design firm work (plans/drawings) on State owned properties generally fall under the jurisdiction and process of the Capital Development Board (CDB). Those projects that do not involve the need for design firm work generally fall under the jurisdiction of the individual agencies to address. Costs relating to capital leasehold improvement projects may be paid for by the State. The selected vehicle emissions testing program vendor should identify any capital leasehold improvements that need to be made during the term of the vehicle emissions testing contract. Any such improvements should be presented to the Agency and IL Department of Human Services (DHS) for approval. If the project falls under CDB jurisdiction, in addition to the Agency and DHS reviewing/approving the request, CDB would need to review and approve the request. In such case, CDB would oversee the request, design work and construction activity. Capital leasehold improvements projects accepted by the State must follow the procurement code and process, and the Agency, DHS and/or CDB would move the improvement project through the procurement process and oversee the project.

The Agency has scheduled a non-mandatory site visit at the Forest Preserve site for Monday, March 20 at 12:30 p.m. CST. Vendors planning to attend must register with IEPA Procurement by emailing Alyson Moore at Alyson.moore@illinois.gov no later than close of business on Thursday, March 16. If no vendors register to attend by this date, the site visit will be cancelled. Please note that this site visit will only serve as a means for vendors to see the facility. No questions about the VIM program or the solicitation will be addressed during the site visit.

5. D.2.1.3. Fleet Self Testing, Page 46.

The RFP includes several requirements related to fleet vehicles. Please provide bidders with a list of commercial and government fleet owners, including their name, address and number of vehicles so that bidders can adequately plan and price their responsibilities under the RFP requirements.

Agency Response: Due to restrictions in the existing Access Agreement (Appendix 9 to the RFP) for the exchange of data, which includes vehicle owner information and vehicle address information, to implement and enforce the vehicle emissions testing program, and appliable privacy laws, the Agency cannot provide a list of commercial and governmental fleet owners by name and address. However, based on 2021 and 2022 vehicle emissions test data, the Agency believes there are at least 730 fleets and 53,400 subject fleet vehicles in the Chicagoland I/M program area and at least 60 fleets and 3,050 subject fleet vehicles in the Metro-East I/M program area.

6. D.2.2.7. Repair Technician Assistance Program Requirements, Page 80.

Is the Agency expecting bidders to develop and pay for repair technician training curriculum, or just identify the training resources that could help struggling repair technicians identified through evaluations per RFP Section D.2.2.7.?

Agency Response: The Agency’s expectation is the offeror comply with 40 CFR 51.369(c). This means that the offeror shall assess the availability of adequate repair technician training in the I/M areas, and, if training is not currently available, ensure that training is made available either through private or public facilities. This may involve working with local community colleges or vocational schools to add curricula to existing programs or start new programs or it might involve attracting private training providers to offer classes in the area.

7. F.1. Term and Termination, Page 103.

Does the contract’s initial term of eight (8) years include the Implementation Phase? The RFP states that the “contract with the awarded Offeror shall have an initial term of eight (8) years.” Later, the RFP states the I/M program is organized into two (2) phases, the Implementation Phase and Operating Phase and that the Operating Phase is to start no later than 12 months from contract execution. If the Implementation Phase takes the full 12 months, is the Implementation Phase one (1) year and the Operating Phase seven (7) years of the of contract’s eight (8) year initial term?

Agency Response: Correct. The contract is a total of eight (8) years – one (1) year for implementation and seven (7) years for operating.

8. H.1. State Supplemental Provisions, Page 112.

The RFP uses business days as deadlines for a number of deliverables. Page 112 of the RFP describes a “business day” as an Agency scheduled workday.

Please confirm “business days” are Monday through Friday, excluding State Holidays.

Agency Response: Yes, business days are Monday through Friday, excluding State holidays.

9. D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Page 42.

This section includes requirements to perform a minimum number of “successful” remote OBD (“ROBD”) inspections in each I/M Program area, presumably to ensure the Vendor promotes the use of this new technology in the I/M Program. However, “successful” ROBD inspections have been narrowly defined as only those with a pass or fail test result, excluding those failing for a “failure to communicate” between the remote OBD device and the vehicle. The Vendor has no control over the outcome of motorist vehicle inspections. The technology could be highly promoted and extremely popular, yet, the Vendor may still not meet the minimum because a disproportionate number of vehicles arriving for testing are rejected for monitor readiness. If the spirit of this requirement is to measure the popularity and actual use or performance of ROBD, why would tests that end in a reject result, such as those rejected for monitor readiness, not count as “successful” inspections? Would the Agency consider including these types of outcomes in the minimum requirements?

Agency Response: The Agency will not consider including reject results as “successful” inspections. The minimum number of “successful” tests is intended to satisfy the federal requirement at 40 CFR 51.371 and be consistent with USEPA guidance document entitled: “Guidance for On-Road Testing Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs,” dated March 2020. For this guidance, see the following link: Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M): Policy and Technical Guidance | US EPA. Further, this definition of “successful” ROBD inspections is based on confirmation from USEPA, Region V, representatives.

10. D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Page 42.

This section includes the following requirement: “In each I/M Program area (Chicagoland, including City of Chicago, and Metro-East test areas) and each calendar year, the Offeror shall perform successful remote OBD inspections on at least 0.5% of the vehicles subject to testing in that calendar year or 10,000 vehicles, whichever is less.”. Creating a minimum requirement based on vehicles subject to testing in an area is not a fair measure because nobody knows where those vehicles are located or if the offeror has the opportunity to test them in the area. Additionally, ROBD technology is designed to test only 2005 and newer vehicles. With this in mind, we request you please modify the requirement from “…of the vehicles subject to testing in that calendar year…” to instead say “…of the MY2005 and newer vehicles actually tested in the I/M Program area in that calendar year”.

Agency Response: The Agency will not modify this requirement. This requirement is intended to satisfy 40 CFR 51.371 and be consistent with USEPA guidance document entitled: “Guidance for On-Road Testing Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs,” dated March 2020.

11. Section D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Page 43, Bullet #1.

Displaying all of this required information on a small ROBD device would require a tiny font that would be difficult to read. As an alternative, will the Agency allow the use of a QR code that displays the required information on a user screen?

Agency Response: This referenced bullet states as follows: …"The remote OBD program and devices shall display the Illinois Air Team service mark, motorist/repair assistance hotline phone number and motorist assistance website address, or other language and/or graphics, as approved by the Agency.” The Agency would accept a QR code to display the required information on a user screen provided the ROBD device includes an image of the Illinois Air Team service mark.

12. Section D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Pages 41, 42 and 44

· Will the Agency consider the inclusion of businesses, such as oil change locations, as ROBD repair shop testing?

Agency Response: Yes, the Agency would consider the inclusion of businesses, such as oil change locations. The USEPA guidance document entitled: “Guidance for On-Road Testing Requirements for Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs,” dated March 2020, references examples of device-sharing partnerships with gas stations, car washes, oil change shops and repair service centers.

· Will the Agency clarify how repair shops are to be considered an alternative ROBD method (page 44) when it’s previously stated that repair shop testing is a required ROBD method (pages 41 & 42)?

Agency Response: On page 44, regarding potential locations, “repair shops” is an error and should state “gas stations” as repair shops are already a required ROBD method. A revised RFP reflecting this correction is attached.

· Will the Agency clarify what is meant by the repair shop “self-testing” phase versus the motorist “self-testing” phase? It’s understandable how motorists can self-test their own vehicles at repair shops, but not how repair shops “self-test”.

Agency Response: Repair shop self-testing means the repair shop staff conduct ROBD tests for motorists. Motorist self-testing means motorists conduct ROBD tests on their vehicles.

· Regarding the ROBD percent minimum requirements for categories:

· The Offeror and Offeror-assisted testing are the first two (2) stages of the phase-in. The RFP states that “regardless of the phase”, fleets must be tested. Will the Agency confirm if the minimum percent of fleet requirements must be met even during the first two (2) phases?

Agency Response: Yes, the minimum percentage (25 percent) of fleet successful ROBD tests must be met regardless of the phase, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency.

· Once the final phase-in stage is complete, will the Agency clarify what the ongoing minimum percentage requirements are for each category?

Agency Response: Yes, the Agency will clarify this percentage if/when the final phase-in stage is complete.

13. Section D.2.1.3. Fleet Self Testing, Page 46.

Does offering ROBD equipment count toward accommodating self-testing fleets and providing them with necessary equipment under this section?

Agency Response: Yes, provided the participating fleet’s vehicles are all ROBD eligible.

14. Section D.2.1.5. Equipment Requirements, Page 49.

By design and definition, ROBD does not have the capability to capture images or video. How does the Agency expect the Offeror to install, maintain, and operate an internet-based video surveillance system for remote OBD testing that, at a minimum, captures and transmits to the VID a minimum of two photographs or a video clip of the vehicle being tested if the remote OBD test is Offeror performed or Offeror assisted?

Agency Response: The minimum requirement in this section for offeror performed or offeror assisted ROBD testing is to capture and transmit a minimum of two photographs of the vehicle being tested. Video clips are not mandatory if photographs are the chosen method of compliance with this provision. Regarding the ability to capture images or video clips, there are other methods of capture than through the testing device. One option may be body cameras or cameras mounted at an MTU.

15. Section D.2.3.3.Q. Liquidated Damages, Page 94, Bullets #1 and #2.

The list is excessive, and in some cases, the activity is well beyond the control of the Vendor.

A few examples include:

· Failure to meet the annual minimum number of successful remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area: $15,000 per I/M Program area per year.

· Failure to meet the percentage of successful remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area per category (fleet vehicles, repair shop, motorist): $1,000 per I/M Program area, per category, per year.

Vendors can promote, offer, and encourage the use of technology, but they cannot make or force a consumer or business to use this technology any more than a retailer can force a citizen to purchase their products.

We request that the items listed above be struck from the Liquidated Damages list. Further, we request a complete review and rethinking of the entire list of some sixty (60) Liquidated Damages in Section D 2.3.3.

Agency Response: The liquidated damages section and provisions will not be revised or removed from the RFP.

16. D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Page 42.

We request that the Agency allow ROBD self-testing immediately. While phasing ROBD in with Vendor performed (Phase 1), and Vendor assisted (Phase 2) inspections prior to allowing self-testing may seem like a good approach, it severely restricts the ability to take advantage of the new technology. As defined and required by the RFP, the first two (2) phases cannot realistically be scaled to test a significant number of vehicles unless it continues for an extended period. In addition, the only potential benefit to the motorist receiving a test in the first two (2) phases is to learn how the device works, but it will not come into practice until two (2) years later when their next inspection is due. Allowing the use of ROBD self-testing without delay will offer an immediate convenience benefit to underserved areas such as the City of Chicago.

· Agency Response: The Agency does not agree with this approach at this time and the RFP will not and does not need to be revised in this regard. Section D.2.1.2.H of the RFP specifies as follows: “…The Offeror shall phase-in how and by whom a remote OBD test is performed. Remote OBD testing shall initially be performed by the Offeror followed by Offeror-assisted testing and then self-testing. The transition between these forms of testing shall be at the sole discretion and approval of the Agency. For self-testing, the Offeror must initially start with fleet testing followed by repair shops and then motorists, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency. The transition between these self-testing forms shall be at the sole discretion and approval of the Agency. The Offeror must ensure that regardless of the phase, at least 25% of the required minimum number of successful remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area are performed on fleet vehicles, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency. The Offeror shall ensure that during the repair shop self-testing phase, at least 25% of the required minimum number of remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area are performed by repair shops, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency. The Offeror shall ensure that during the motorist self-testing phase, at least 25% of the required minimum number of remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area are performed by motorists, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency.” This provision provides flexibility to phase-in and transition remote OBD testing based upon real world application. Further, the Agency strongly encourages the utilization of remote OBD in MTUs (RFP Section D.2.1.2.G.).

17. D.2.1.2.H. Remote OBD Design Specifications and Requirements, Page 42.

We are concerned about the achievability of the standard that requires fleet testing to be at least 25% of the ROBD volume. This requirement amounts to a minimum of 2,500 tests per year in the Chicagoland area alone. With fleets defined as owners or lessees with 15 or more vehicles, vendors would have to convince as many as 160 fleet owners to join the fleet program at that level. Over the past 10 years, no fleet owners have been willing to join the fleet program. It is not certain how many fleet owners are even subject to the program. We respectfully request that this requirement be struck from the RFP.

Agency Response: This requirement will not be removed from the RFP. Section D.2.1.2.H of the RFP specifies as follows: “...The Offeror must ensure that regardless of the phase, at least 25% of the required minimum number of successful remote OBD tests in each I/M Program area are performed on fleet vehicles, unless otherwise agreed by the Agency....” This provision provides flexibility to modify percentages based upon real world application of the requirement.