C250211_PP_04-14-26_gmedits.docx

INTEROFFICE MEMO

Procurement Plan, RFP 250211

Date: April 14, 2026

To: Eden Wang, PMP, IS Department Manager, Enterprise Business Solutions

From: Rhea Aninzo, Contract Administrator, CAMM

Subject: PROCUREMENT PLAN – RFP 250211 “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Title II Assessment”

Please review the procurement plan for the subject RFP and advise on 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):

An RFP is applicable as the procurement requires evaluation criteria, in addition to price, to be used to select a firm to conduct a comprehensive assessment of OCTA's digital assets to evaluate compliance with ADA Title II and WCAG 2.1 standards.

Evaluation Criteria:

Justification:

Qualifications of the firm is weighted the highest at thirty percent (30%) as firms must demonstrate relevant experience performing comprehensive assessments and have knowledge of ADA Title II requirements and WCAG 2.1 standards. Staffing and project organization is weighted at twenty-five percent (25%) as the proposed team must demonstrate expertise in accessibility testing, including assistive technologies, and the ability to effectively coordinate with OCTA staff throughout assessment, validation, and reporting activities. Work plan is weighted at twenty percent (20%) as the firm’s proposed approach should clearly outline the methodology for conducting baseline, intermediate, and final validation scans. Cost and price is weighted at twenty-five percent (25%) to ensure OCTA receives the best value for the services.

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

Justification (Explain the rationale for using the particular contract type):

The contract type is firm-fixed price because the RFP has a specific Scope of Work detailing specific tasks and deliverables.

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

Procurement Schedule: |X| Attached

Suggested Evaluation Team Members:

Internal Evaluators:

Eden Wang, PMP, IS Department Manager, Enterprise Business Solutions Comment by Rhea Aninzo: Eden asked if we could have Alexander Cruz (who will be the PM once the contract is executed) participate as a non-scoring member on the panel. Would that be ok? Comment by Georgia Martinez: No, only scoring evaluators are allowed. If she wants him to be on the panel he can be added as a scoring member since he doesn’t report directly to Eden.

Jack Garate, Department Manager, Specialized Transit Services Jacqueline Moon, Principal Marketing Specialist, Marketing & Customer Engagement Elina Rojas, Senior Employee Relations Representative, Human Resources

Contract Term: (Include Option Years)

Eighteen (18)-month term

Funding Source: |X| Local |_| Measure M |_| Federal

Dollar Amount: $350,000

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

Requisition Received: |X| Yes #R000818 |_| No

DBE Goal: |_| Yes |X| No

Project Manager Concurrence:

CAMM Section/Department Manager Concurrence:

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