C250131_PP_idedits.docx

INTEROFFICE MEMO

Procurement Plan, RFP 250131

Date: January 11, 2026

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

From: Gina Torres, Senior Contract Administrator, CAMM

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: |X| 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:

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: |X| 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.

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

Procurement Schedule: |X| 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 Comment by Iris Deneau: It doesn’t look like Laura has taken the evaluation training yet. Please have her reach out to me to schedule training Comment by Gina Torres: Will do

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 |X| STGB |X| STIP PPM Comment by Iris Deneau: Make sure you have confirmation from PM that there may be federal funds tied to the state funds, which is why we are federalizing the procurement Comment by Gina Torres: Copy of email confirmation is in the Communications folder

Dollar Amount: |X| Initial Term $950,000 |_| Option Term Comment by Iris Deneau: Is there an option term? If not, remove this and the word “initial”

Independent Cost Estimate Received: |X| Yes |_| No

Requisition Received: |X| Yes # R000889 |_| No

DBE Goal: |_| Yes |X| No

Project Manager Concurrence:

CAMM Section/Department Manager Concurrence:

Revised: 07/20/2010 Revised: 0720/2010 image1.png