C250131_PP.pdf

Revised: 07/20/2010

INTEROFFICE MEMO

Date: January 14, 2026

To: Charles Main, Section Manager III, Transit Service Planning

From: Gina Torres, Senior Contract Administrator, CAMM

Subject: Procurement Schedule for Release, Selection and Award RFP 250131 "Los Angeles 2028 Olympics Transportation Service Plan and Capital Needs Assessment"

Please review the procurement plan for the subject RFP and advise your concurrence with the evaluation criteria and contract elements. Include suggested evaluation team members and/or comments.

Procurement Type: RFP IFB

Justification (explain the rationale for using the particular procurement type):

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued as the nature of the procurement demands that evaluation criteria, in addition to price, be used to select a firm to provide Olympic-related foundational strategy and planning transit services.

Evaluation Criteria:

PROPOSAL WEIGHT

Qualifications of the Firm 20%

Staffing/Project Organization 25%

Work Plan 30%

Cost 25%

Justification: The standard 25 percent for each criterion was not used in this procurement. Several factors were considered in developing the weights. Qualifications of the firm is weighted at 20 percent to ensure the firm has prior experience providing transportation services. Staffing and project organization is weighted at 25 percent to ensure the proposed staff have expertise in completing the work required. Staff proposed assigning the greatest importance to work plan as the firm must demonstrate its approach to planning, strategizing, and implementing Olympic-related transit services. Cost is weighted at 25 percent to ensure OCTA receives the best value for the service provided.

Contract Type: Time & Expense CTO-Based Firm Fixed Price

Justification (Explain the rationale for using the particular contract type): The contract type is time-and-expense because firms are requested to propose fully-burdened hourly rates and anticipated expenses for the work specified in the Scope of Work. The RFP does not have a specific Scope of Work detailing individual tasks. Therefore, a firm-fixed price contract cannot be used.

Procurement Plan, RFP 250131

Revised: 0720/2010

Retention: Yes % No N/A

Prevailing Wages: Yes $ No N/A

Liquidated Damages: Yes $ No N/A

P.M. to provide support documentation identifying how the LD amount was established.

Procurement Schedule: Attached

Suggested Evaluation Team Members:

5 members are required over $500k

Internal Evaluators:

Gina Torres, Senior Contract Administrator, CAMM

Charles Main, Section Manager III, Transit Service Planning

Greg Nord, Department Manager, Planning & Analysis

Matt Ankley, Department Manager, Security & Emergency Prepardness

Laura Gillette, Schedule Analyst, Schedule and Bus Operations Support

External Evaluator:

Rafael Cobian, T.E., LEED GA, City Traffic Engineer, City of Anaheim

Contract Term: Twenty (20)-month term

Funding Source: Local Measure M STGB STIP PPM FTA Note: Per the PM there may be federal funding applied during the term of the agreement.

Dollar Amount: Term $950,000

Independent Cost Estimate Received: Yes No

Requisition Received: Yes # R000889 No

DBE Goal: Yes No

Project Manager Concurrence:

Charles Main, Section Manager III, Transit Service Planning Date

CAMM Section/Department Manager Concurrence:

Iris Deneau, Section Manager, Procurement Date