Golden_Bike_Share_RFPQB_4.16.25_-_FINAL.docx.pdf

A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

for

Golden Docked Bike Share Feasibility Analysis

April 16, 2025

DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

1001 17th Street, Suite 700

Denver, Colorado 80202

Docusign Envelope ID: 881EF401-E186-4C73-BA22-40076F81EF97

Table of Contents I. Instructions for submittal of proposal

A. Summary

B. Solicitation schedule

C. General instructions

D. Required elements in response/response format

E. Selection process

F. Special conditions

II. Project description

Attachment A – Principles for determining costs applicable to contracts with the Denver Regional

Council of Governments

A. Purpose and scope

B. Definitions

C. Basic guidelines

D. Accounting system

E. Billing procedure

Attachment B – Federal and state requirements

A. Nondiscrimination Provisions

B. Noncompliance

C. Single Audit Act Amendment

D. Employee Financial Interest/Conflict of Interest (C.R.S. § 24-18-201 and 24-50-507)

E. The Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) and Public Law 95-454 Section 4728

F. 42 USC 6101 et seq. 42 U.S.C. 2000d, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R.

Part 80 et. seq

G. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336); 42 U.S.C. 12101, 12102, 12111-

12117, 12131-12134, 12141-12150, 12161-12165, 12181-12189, 12201-12213; 47 U.S.C. 225 and

47 U.S.C. 611

H. The Drug-Free Workplace Act (Public Law 100-690 Title V, subtitle D, 41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.). 21

I. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6101 et. seq. and its implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 91; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, as amended, and implementing regulation 45 C.F.R. Part 84

J. §§24-85-101, et seq., C.R.S., or the Accessibility Standards for Individuals with a Disability as established by OIT pursuant to Section §24-85-103 (2.5), C.R.S

Attachment C – Denver Regional Council of Governments disadvantaged business enterprise program information request form

Attachment D – E-Verify federal contractor rule employment eligibility verification

Attachment E – Sample contract

I. Instructions for submittal of proposal

A. Summary

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) hereby issues this Request for (RFP) (referred to further herein also as solicitation) in order to solicit proposals from individuals, firms, and teams (referred to further herein also as “respondent”, “contractor” or “consultant” interchangeably) with experience in conducting bike share feasibility studies to evaluate the feasibility of deploying a fully solar-powered, docked bike share system in Golden, Colorado.

B. Solicitation schedule

Consideration of the responses will be governed by the following schedule, which is subject to revision by DRCOG.

Milestone Details Date

Distribution

Solicitation will be forwarded to respondents and firms who have indicated an interest in participating in this project.

The solicitation is posted on the BidNet Direct System at:

www.bidnetdirect.com

April 16, Questions and inquiries

Questions and inquiries should be sent to bids@drcog.org by 2:00 pm Mountain time.

April 28, Question responses

DRCOG will respond to questions and inquiries via the BidNet Direct System. Responses are posted as an addendum to the solicitation by this date.

April 30, Submittals due

Responses to this request must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. Mountain time. Proposals must be submitted via the BidNet Direct System at www.bidnetdirect.com.

Registration for the site is free. If you have any questions related to registration or the BidNet Direct site, please call the BidNet customer support line at 1-800-835-4603.

Note that DRCOG staff is unable to assist with the registration process or any technical difficulties that may occur using Bidnet.

May 12, Interviews Interviews, if required, will be held on or before this date.

Notification of selection for an interview will be given on or before May 19, 2025

June 9, 2025

Recommendation and authorization

Following review of responses, DRCOG staff to prepare recommendation to proceed to contract with one (or more) of the respondent(s). DRCOG staff to seek approval from DRCOG’s Finance and Budget Committee if applicable to proceed to contract with selected respondent(s). This date is approximate.

July 16, 2025

Docusign Envelope ID: 881EF401-E186-4C73-BA22-40076F81EF97 http://www.bidnetdirect.com/ mailto:bids@drcog.org http://www.bidnetdirect.com/

Contract execution

DRCOG staff to begin contract negotiations with selected respondent(s). DRCOG may contract with one (or more) respondent(s) to complete the entire scope of work. This date is approximate.

July 17, 2025

C. General instructions

1. Questions

Questions regarding this solicitation must be submitted by the date listed above.

Questions should be submitted electronically to bids@drcog.org.

2. Signatory requirements

Responses must be signed by a duly authorized official of the respondent. Consortiums, joint ventures, or teams submitting responses will not be considered responsive unless it is established that all contractual responsibility to DRCOG with regard to the project shall rest solely with one contractor or legal entity, which shall not be a subsidiary or affiliate with limited resources. Each response should indicate the entity responsible for execution on behalf of the team.

3. Responses to solicitation

All responses to this solicitation become the property of DRCOG upon receipt and will not be returned to the respondent. Selection or rejection will not affect this right.

DRCOG shall have the right to use any or all of the ideas or adaptations of the ideas contained in any response received, excluding case study materials or other reference materials prepared for clients of respondent. Any confidential/proprietary information submitted in response to this request shall be readily identified, clearly marked, and separated from the rest of the response. Co-mingling of confidential/proprietary and other information is not acceptable and may disqualify the submittal from the selection process. Submittals will be handled in accordance with applicable federal and state public records laws and procurement regulations. Neither cost information nor the total response will be considered confidential/proprietary.

D. Required elements in response/response format

1. Cover letter

Respondents should submit a cover letter expressing their interest in the project. The letter must contain, at a minimum, the following information:

mailto:bids@drcog.org

a. Statement of interest in completion of the work as described herein.

b. Certification that the information and data submitted is true and complete to the best knowledge of the individual signing the letter.

c. Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the individual to contact regarding the submittal.

d. An authorized principal or partner of a firm shall sign the letter.

e. Identification of whether the prime respondent is certified as a Disadvantage

Business Enterprise, or indication as to the Respondent’s goals for DBE participation, if any (see Section E.5).

2. Qualifications and experience of the respondent(s)

Respondents shall describe projects and experience of the past three years relevant to the draft scope of services described in Section II, Project Description, below.

Respondents should place particular emphasis on projects for which key staff to be assigned to this project have either been primarily responsible or have performed substantial work. If subcontractors are to be used, the means by which these firms will participate must be specified and their experience and credentials presented in this section.

3. Qualifications and experience of key staff

Respondents shall identify the key individuals to be assigned to this project (by name and position) and describe the work tasks assigned to each individual. The respondent must also provide experience summaries of these key individuals, describing for each individual their previous experience on similar projects in similar roles, their educational background, and their length of tenure with the consulting firm. Resumes of these key individuals may also be included and can be added in the optional section. Respondents shall also list any professional affiliations, licensures, and certifications that are pertinent to the work described in Section II, Project Description.

4. References

Respondents shall submit names, addresses, email address, and phone numbers of references familiar with the Respondent's ability, experience, and reliability in the performance and management of projects of a similar nature. References listed in any submitted proposals will not be eligible to serve on the selection panel.

5. Cost information

Both cost and other factors listed herein will be weighed in selecting a respondent.

Respondents shall provide a listing of the hourly billing rates for each job classification and job title they would expect to deploy on this project, including any supporting personnel. Respondents shall provide a complete budget for the project including hours and cost broken out by project task and a total dollar amount proposed for the project.

Respondents shall also include a complete budget for the project including breakout of costs associated with any materials, services, or travel that may be required in the course of performing the tasks outlined below. Overhead costs such as business insurance premiums, cellular phone, technology needs related to staff, etc., also known as the typical cost of doing business, should be factored into hourly consultant rates and will not be reimbursed on a line-item basis.

Allowable costs under any contract with the selected Respondent will be administered in accordance with Attachment A of this solicitation.

6. Contract review

The successful Respondent will be required to sign a Contract for Services substantially similar to the contract form in Attachment E. DRCOG reserves the right to add or delete provisions to the form prior to contract execution.

Sample Contract for Services.

A Sample Contract is attached for your reference. Respondents should be aware of

DRCOG’s standard contract terms and conditions in preparing your response.

Respondent is responsible for reviewing the contract and understanding the terms and conditions therein, including, but not limited to, insurance requirements, indemnification, equal opportunity, and termination. Much of the language reflected in the contract is required by our funding agreements and not open to negotiations. Respondent shall identify and include any proposed revisions to the standard contract terms with your proposal. Any requested revision of any of the terms, conditions or language in the contract will be reviewed by DRCOG and accepted or rejected at its sole discretion.

Certain requested revisions may result in your proposal being disqualified from further review and evaluation. Respondents are strongly advised to seek legal counsel prior to preparing such a list. DRCOG shall assume that the Sample Contract has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed with legal counsel prior to submission of the response.

DRCOG reserves the right to add or delete provisions to the form prior to contract execution.

Any proposed contract revisions made by the Respondent after the Notice of Intent to

Award the Solicitation may be grounds for rescinding said Notice.

Prospective respondents are advised that as recipients of federal and state funding, DRCOG contracts with vendors and consultants mirror the language set forth in its funding agreements. As a result, DRCOG contracts are largely non-negotiable. Extensive changes, “wordsmithing”, and alterations of primary provisions will not be accepted by DRCOG.

7. Project management

Respondents shall identify the management techniques that they are using to assure the completion of projects within schedule and budget.

8. Project schedule

Respondents should include a project timeline or schedule showing major tasks, proposed duration of each task and when key deliverables will be complete.

9. Insurance requirements

Respondents shall provide acknowledgement of the following insurance requirements and a statement ensuring they are able to meet these minimum requirements. Any

Contract resulting from award of this solicitation will require the selected respondent(s) to procure and maintain, and shall cause each subcontractor of respondent to procure and maintain the minimum insurance coverages listed below:

a. Workers’ Compensation in statutory limits.

b. Employer's Liability Insurance: $100,000/ each accident, $500,000/ disease -policy limit, and $100,000/ disease - each employee.

c. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance $1,000,000/Occurrence.

d. Automobile Liability or Hired & Non-Owned Vehicle Liability Insurance:

$1,000,000/each accident.

e. Professional Liability Insurance: $1,000,000 per occurrence.

DRCOG, its officers, employees and the State of Colorado are to be named as additional insured under both the Contractor's General Liability and Automobile

Liability policies. Said insurance will be required to be maintained in full force and effect during the term of the contract.

The foregoing insurance types, limits, and coverages may be modified only with the express written consent of DRCOG and shall be subject to additional terms and conditions of any contract awarded pursuant to this solicitation

10. Disadvantaged business enterprise information

All Respondents shall complete and return with their response the Disadvantaged

Business Enterprise Information Request Form (Attachment C).

11. Equal employment opportunity clause

Parties hereby incorporate the requirements of 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.4(a), 60-250-5, 60-

300.5(a), 60-741.5(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 471, Appendix A, if applicable. This contractor and subcontractor shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR 60-300.5(a) and 41 CFR 60-

741.5(a), if applicable. These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified protected veterans and qualified individuals with disabilities and require affirmative action by covered prime contractors and subcontractors to employ and advance in employment qualified protected veterans and qualified individuals with disabilities.

12. Colorado law for persons with disabilities

The State of Colorado, through House Bill 21-1110 and Senate Bill 23-244, has legislated that it is a state civil rights violation for a public entity to exclude people with disabilities from receiving services or benefits because of lack of accessibility. This applies to all information and communication technology that is used and/or funded by public entities, whether the users are members of the public or employees. Respondents are expected to review the law in detail before responding. Respondents intending to provide software, or an application must submit an accessibility conformance report using the most current Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) template.

Respondents intending to provide digital documents as their deliverable will be required to provide appropriate documentation of their accessibility, as defined in the scope of work.

13. Reservations and special conditions

The respondent should review the Special Conditions in Section F below, the principles for determining costs in Attachment A, and the Federal and State Requirements in

Attachment B. The respondent should note any elements/reservations, special conditions, constraints, and exclusions related to the terms of this solicitation. Failure to comply with the requirements in Attachments A and B may result in termination of the contract with the selected respondent.

14. Project Understanding and Approach

Respondents shall describe their understanding of the project and explain their proposed approach to the work. Respondents’ response should include their understanding of the project purpose and goals, a discussion of the potential challenges and opportunities for the project, and acknowledgement of the context in which the project is taking place.

Respondents should also outline their unique approach to meeting project goals and addressing tasks outlined in the scope of work, including innovative strategies, recommendations for how to accomplish each task, and a project timeline.

E. Selection process

Evaluations of proposals will be based on the following criteria:

1. Experience and capability

Respondents will be evaluated with respect to the experience of the respondent(s) and personnel assigned to the project both in terms of past efforts in this type of work and the quality and level of commitment to this project. Of prime concern will be the capabilities and accomplishments of the individuals to be assigned to this particular project.

2. Management qualifications

Qualifications of the respondent in terms of its ability, experience, and reliability in performing and managing work within a schedule and budget will be included in the evaluation process.

3. Cost information

Likely project cost, determined from the standard service fee break out provided by the respondent, will be considered in the selection; however, it will not be the only determining factor. Specific attention will be given to the commitment implied for key staff and the overall labor effort proposed, and their relationship to the estimated project cost.

4. References

Information provided by respondent’s references addressing the knowledge, skills, abilities and performance of the respondent to complete the work outlined below will be included in the staff evaluation of the response.

5. Contract and insurance

Respondents will be assessed on their ability to comply with DRCOG’s sample contract verbiage and insurance requirements.

6. Colorado law for persons with disability compliance

It is the policy of DRCOG to evaluate each respondent’s ability to comply with House Bill

21-1110 and Senate Bill 23-244. Non-compliance does not necessarily preclude a vendor from contracting with DRCOG but may be taken into consideration during the selection process depending on the service or product.

7. Project Understanding and Approach

Respondents will be evaluated on their understanding and approach to the project. This will include awareness of goals, opportunities, and challenges, as well as innovative strategies for the work. Specific attention will be given to goals and priorities outlined in the RFP and scope of work.

8. Other

Other factors that may be determined by DRCOG to be necessary or appropriate in its discretion.

F. Special conditions

1. Rejection rights

All respondents are notified that the execution of a contract pursuant to this solicitation is dependent upon approval by DRCOG. DRCOG reserves the right to reject all responses and re-solicit if deemed by DRCOG to be in its best interests, and to abandon the project and this solicitation at any time for any or no reason. Selection of a respondent or respondents is also conditioned on the negotiation of an acceptable contract.

2. Other conditions; reservation of rights

This is a solicitation and not an offer to contract. The provisions in this solicitation and any procurement or purchasing policies or procedures of DRCOG are solely for the fiscal responsibility of DRCOG and confer no rights, duties, or entitlements to any party submitting responses to this solicitation. DRCOG reserves the right to issue clarifications and other directives concerning this solicitation, to make and issue modifications to the solicitation schedule; to require clarification or further information with respect to any response or proposal received; to waiver any informalities or irregularities; and to determine the final scope and terms of any contract, and whether to enter any contract. The provisions herein confer no rights, duties or entitlements to any respondent.

3. Costs of response preparation and other charges

Respondents are solely responsible for all costs of preparing their proposals and participation in this solicitation and DRCOG assumes no responsibility for payment of any expenses incurred by a respondent as part of this process. For the selected firm, no reimbursement will be made by DRCOG for any costs incurred prior to full execution of a contract and issuance of written notice by DRCOG to commence project services.

4. Conflict of interest

Respondents shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which conflict in any way with the full performance of respondent’s obligations in this project. Respondents shall acknowledge that with respect to any subsequent contract, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to DRCOG’s interests. Absent DRCOG’s prior written approval, respondents shall refrain from any practices, activities or relationships that reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of respondents’ obligations to DRCOG. If a conflict or appearance exists, or if respondent is uncertain whether a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, respondent shall submit to DRCOG a disclosure statement setting forth the relevant details for DRCOG’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow DRCOG’s direction in regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach of contract.

5. Federal and state requirements

The selected respondent shall be responsible, at all times during the execution of the project, for strictly adhering to and complying with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including but not limited to those set forth in Attachment B.

6. Cooperative purchasing

Respondents are asked to indicate their willingness to extend the terms of resulting contracts, inclusive of price, to Colorado local government entities, including counties and municipalities. While this clause in no way commits any other local government entity to purchase from DRCOG’s awarded contractor, nor does it guarantee any additional orders will result, it does allow such local governmental entities, at their discretion, to make use of DRCOG’s competitive process (provided said process satisfies their own procurement guidelines) and purchase directly from the awarded contractor. All purchases made by other local government entities will be transactions between that entity and the awarded vendor; DRCOG will not be responsible for any such purchases.

7. Funding Sources

DRCOG reserves, in its sole discretion, the right to add additional funding sources for this solicitation should it become available. Respondents must agree to and be capable of tracking different funding sources, allocating expenses, and billing accordingly. This provision in no way commits or obligates DRCOG to provide additional funding for this project.

8. Suspension and debarment

By submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation, the respondent represents its organization, and its principals are not suspended or debarred per Federal requirements.

9. Period of performance

Performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation will commence on or about August 31, 2025 The initial term of the work to be performed will terminate March 31, 2027 DRCOG will have an option to renew for 1 additional one-year terms, upon renewal terms mutually agreed upon by the parties.

II. Project description

Introduction

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) seeks proposals from teams qualified and experienced in conducting bike share feasibility studies to evaluate the feasibility of deploying a fully solar-powered, docked bike share system in Golden, Colorado.

This work is part of DRCOG’s Innovative Mobility Set-Aside program, which supports member jurisdiction emerging mobility planning efforts. The program focuses on preparedness, feasibility and planning of emerging mobility in the Denver region. Collaborative efforts through the program will help address challenges such as curbside management, emerging modes, shared mobility, and mobility as a service. This project will be led by DRCOG but developed in close collaboration with the City of Golden.

The purpose of the Golden Docked Bike Share Feasibility Analysis is to determine if a solar powered docked electric bike share system can help the City of Golden meet its transportation policy goals and to understand what is needed to successfully launch and manage the system.

The scope of this work will include developing a recommended system management structure

(after evaluation of ownership and operation models), community engagement, recommendations for number of bikes, adaptive vehicles or cargo bikes in the fleet, identifying docking locations, renewable energy power options, and annual operating costs, pricing models, and a phasing plan.

All submitting teams should possess an understanding of the region and proven ability to work within the continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated regional transportation planning process.

Respondents should have extensive expertise and experience in shared micromobility programs with a specific focus on docked bike share systems. Knowledge of emerging solar charging technologies is a plus. It is also expected that the consultant team will have experience in effective public engagement approaches, such as conducting events (workshops, interactive activities, walk audits, pop-up booths), engaging hard to reach communities, and setting up online public engagement platforms, such as interactive mapping tools, to solicit input.

While the next section includes potential tasks and deliverables, DRCOG does not want to be overly prescriptive to maintain flexibility in the process and the means and methods for obtaining the desired outcomes and products. Once the consulting firm or team of firms is selected, the

DRCOG project manager (PM) in coordination with key project representatives, and the consultant will work together to further define the Scope of Work and the associated tasks.

The entire timeline to develop this plan is approximately 18 months from when a contract is executed. The budget for this contract is up to $150,000.

0. Project management

This task includes managing the project and associated deliverables. This may include items such as regular meetings with the project management team, monthly progress reports, invoices and billing, meeting summaries, and other project management activities identified by the project team.

Deliverables:

Project management plan for study, including timeline and key milestones.

Project management team meetings twice a month.

Agendas and presentations for project management team meetings.

Monthly invoices and progress reports.

https://www.drcog.org/transportation-planning/emerging-mobility/innovative-mobility-set-aside

1. Background Analysis

The City of Golden had a brief experience with dockless shared micromobility in 2018 with the introduction of Ofo bikes. Like with many dockless programs, there were concerns with devices blocking sidewalks, ending up in Clear Creek, and causing unwanted clutter. Many cities (Chicago, Boulder, Washington, D.C.) have moved toward a docked bike share system to avoid many of these challenges. An important part of this effort will be educating the community on the differences between a docked and dockless system and the benefits that a docked system has towards meeting the City’s transportation goals along with keeping sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes clear among other things. Another key element will be ensuring alignment with the City’s Roadmap to

Electrified Transportation which outlines the City’s commitment to 100% electric transportation including e-mobility options.

There are a variety of different structures when it comes to operating shared micromobility. Some cities, like Washington, D.C., own the docking structures and the bikes and contract with an operator to manage the system, while some cities do not own any of the equipment or associated infrastructure. This task includes researching, analyzing, and documenting various management structures and costs associated with the different shared micromobility models (with a focus on docked systems) to help determine a recommendation for Golden based on the City’s size, topography, existing bike facilities, and locations of key destinations (Clear Creek Trail, School of

Mines, Coors, etc.).

This task will analyze existing solar charging docking technologies and a recommended approach for the City of Golden. It should include research to understand projected power needs, performance of existing solar charging technologies, and provide recommendations for a durable electrified e-bike program, powered by renewable energy. Given the topography in Golden, charger technologies must accommodate the increased e-bike motor use and turnover to meet customer demand. In addition to understanding which technologies are being utilized in other markets, understanding which vehicle types are capable of charging in a docking system is an important part of this task.

Deliverables:

A report that includes:

o A summary of various management and cost structures both in Colorado and across the country.

o Analysis of existing solar charging docking technologies and recommended approach for the City of Golden.

o Analysis of vehicle types that are capable of charging in a docked system.

2. Stakeholder and Community Engagement

Engagement will be essential for understanding community needs. Stakeholder and community engagement should occur throughout the project and should be directly tied to interim and final products and recommendations.

Engagement Plan

A first step in the engagement process will be developing an engagement plan, in close collaboration with the project management team. The engagement plan should identify the different periods in the study’s timeline when engagement will be necessary, a primary goal for each engagement phase, and recommended tactics and strategies to achieve these goals.

Project Management Team

The consultant team should work with the project management team to understand who the key stakeholders are. It is anticipated that a project management team, consisting of the City of Golden and the Colorado School of Mines, and any other stakeholders will meet at least monthly and provide guidance to all stages of this project. Building buy-in with this group will be essential to future project success. The project timeline should leave enough time for the project management team to review and provide feedback on each deliverable before it is finalized.

Steering Committee

Beyond the project management team, a broader coalition of stakeholders will be important to engage with to ensure a range of perspectives. This will be made up of the City’s Mobility and

Transportation Advisory Board (MTAB).

Community Engagement

Community engagement will be a critical component of this project. The first step is to understand overall appetite for a docked bike share system and to understand concerns from the community.

Communicating how a bike share system can help the City meet their transportation and sustainability goals and the difference between a dockless and a docked system will be an important part of this effort. Community input will be needed to guide proposed dock locations, recommended vehicle types, and payment structure (including payment structure for an equity program).

DRCOG is interested in creative ideas for community engagement efforts from responding firms.

Communication strategies will be coordinated with the City’s communication department.

Engagement efforts should include ways to reach traditionally underserved communities, including low-income families, older adults, students, residents with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, people with limited vehicle access, and immigrants.

It is anticipated that community engagement may include:

2 traditional, in-person public meetings

1 virtual public meeting

Review and summary of any past engagement efforts

Engagement website (managed by the City of Golden on their Guiding Golden platform)

Social media content development and digital engagement strategies

Pop up engagement at key community events or locations

Community surveys

Signage at relevant locations

Mailers and other print materials

Other creative ways to reach the community

In addition, Spanish translation and interpretation should be included at all stages. A plan for how this material will be marketed to Spanish speaking communities is also an important part of this engagement plan.

Deliverables:

Public engagement plan

Engagement website content

Content for digital engagement (social media plan, newsletter content, graphics)

Agenda and materials for engagement events

Translation and interpretation

Engagement accommodations, where necessary and reasonable

Staff time to plan and execute engagement events

Engagement summary to be included in final report

3. Management Structure, Devices, and Dock Placement

DRCOG will provide data, such as crash data, land use, demographics, small area forecast through the Regional Data Catalog. Additionally, the City of Golden recently published an online map showing the various bike facilities across the City (including trails, protected bike lanes, and unprotected bike lanes). The existing bike network should be considered when strategically deciding where docks should be located.

Evaluate which vehicle types that could be offered (like cargo-bikes or adaptive vehicles) and a recommendation to ensure that this bike share system is available to people of all ages and abilities. Community feedback will also be critical when providing this recommendation.

Deliverables:

Summary of various management structures both in Colorado and across the country, and a recommended management structure for the City of Golden.

Analysis of demographics using DRCOG’s Equity Index. Docks should be placed equitably across the City of Golden.

A recommended fleet size and type based on size and population. Include a mix of device types and how each device would be “checked out.”

Recommended solar charging station technology or how the system could utilize renewable energy to offset the consumption.

Recommended number and locations for docking stations (that can support onsite solar charging) and guidance on a seasonal program or a year-round program and the costs associated with both models.

Confirmation that selected locations obtain enough direct sunlight to adequately charge the bikes.

Chart of the number of devices required for a pilot program and a breakdown by device type.

Map of proposed docking stations in a format that can be overlayed with City’s interactive bike and trail network map.

Diagram of docking station specifications and placement for each location (will it be in the public ROW or in the street?). If the proposed location is on the sidewalk, conduct desktop research to ensure it is in City of Golden ROW.

Identify needs to accommodate the electrical infrastructure needed for solar equipment (new meter, panel structure, inverter) and any electrical needs.

4. Develop ridership pricing models

There are a variety of different pricing models when it comes to shared micromobility. Some programs offer a distanced based fee (relatively few) while some programs charge an unlock fee plus a per minute fee. The goal of this task is to evaluate a variety of pricing structures and present a recommendation. The recommendation should include both a standard pricing structure and a low-income option. For example, the Divvy program partners with the Chicago Department of

Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Evanston offer $5 annual memberships for qualifying residents. Consultants should provide information on how people can sign up for an income-based program without needing a smart phone (MoGo in Detroit is a good example to review). The proposals should include recommendations for cost per ride, monthly membership, day passes, and yearly pass options.

Deliverables:

Analysis of existing pricing models across the Country for docked bike share systems.

A recommended pricing structure for a program in the City of Golden that includes a program for low-income ridership.

5. Data Sharing and Policy Best Practices

It is important to establish clear communication and expectations around data sharing and mobility data specification feeds with operators. While Mobility Data Specification (MDS) feeds are becoming increasingly common, not all operators include these data feeds in their operations.

Some communities with shared micromobility programs in the region have had challenges with obtaining this data from operators. Individual shared micromobility trip data is sensitive and should be treated as protected information. This task will include an analysis of best practices when it comes to shared micromobility data and recommendations for the City of Golden.

Understanding the regulatory environment is also an important piece when it comes to program deployment. What policies may need to be considered, including speed caps, allowable places to ride. What policies may be included in the current city code that may need to be revised to support a shared micromobility system?

Deliverables:

A chapter in the final report about data sharing practices and recommendations.

An analysis of any existing policies that are in place to support program compliance.

A list of new policies needed to support program compliance or existing policies that need to be revised.

6. Implementation Plan and Possible Funding Opportunities

The implementation plan should consider how a program could be rolled out to the City of Golden.

The City will likely not be able to immediately implement a complete network of docking stations across the city due to limited resources. This plan will need to include priority locations that create a complete enough network for people to be able to use the system. Pilot programs provide local agencies with an opportunity to study the deployments and effects of shared micromobility programs on local goals and to hear from constituents about considerations before developing an ongoing or permanent program. The goal of this task is to recommend what is needed to launch a pilot program in the City of Golden.

If a pilot program in the City of Golden is successful, the next step is for the City of Golden to secure implementation funding. Provide a list of potential state or federal funding opportunities that the City of Golden could pursue if so desired.

Deliverables:

Phasing Plan that includes recommended number of minimum docking stations and priority locations to make a pilot successful.

A recommended number of devices (of each type) for a pilot program.

Guidance on a recommended length of pilot program and evaluation criteria (including measure of impact on transit ridership).

A phased plan for scaling up a pilot program over time. For example: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier

3 priority docking locations.

Evaluate current regulatory environment and any policies/codes that would need to be revised or adopted to support this effort.

A list of funding opportunities to secure implementation dollars.

Notes for all deliverables

All deliverables will need to adhere to DRCOG brand standards, which will be provided by

DRCOG after contract execution.

All digital deliverables, including PDFs, meeting materials, and PowerPoints, will need to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA as required by

Colorado’s web-accessibility law.

DRCOG will provide accessible PowerPoint, agenda, map and memo templates upon request.

It is expected that the Consultant will format as necessary any material received from

DRCOG, local governments, and others for seamless graphical, structural, and narrative integration into the final deliverable.

Attachment A – Principles for determining costs applicable to contracts with the Denver Regional Council of Governments

A. Purpose and scope

1. Objective

This policy procedure sets forth principles for determining the allowable costs of contracts with DRCOG and provides a general summary of applicable policies. Allowable costs are determined and administered in accordance with these principles and applicable federal regulations and requirements, including without limitation 49 C.F.R. Part 18 Subpart C and

49 C.F.R. 18.22.

Applicable Cost Principles. For each kind of organization, there is a set of Federal principles for determining allowable costs. The following table lists the kinds of organizations and the applicable cost principles:

2. Policy Guides

The application of these principles is based on the fundamental premises that:

a. Contractors are responsible for the efficient and effective administration of contract programs through the application of sound management practices.

b. Contractors assume the responsibility for seeing that contract funds have been expended and accounted for consistent with underlying agreements and contract objectives and provisions.

c. Each contractor organization, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff facilities and experience, will have the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of organization and management techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration.

3. Application

These principles will be applied to all contracts with DRCOG in determining costs and cost reimbursement type contracts including subcontracts.

B. Definitions

Approval or authorization of DRCOG means documentation evidencing consent prior to incurring specific costs.

For the costs of a: Use the principles in:

State, local, or federal-recognized Indian tribal government 2 C.F.R. Part 225 (OMB Circular A-87)

Private nonprofit organization other than: (1) an institution of higher education; (2) a hospital; or (3) organization named in 2 CFR Part 230, Appendix C, as not subject to that part

2 C.F.R. Part 230 (OMB Circular A-122)

Institutions of Higher Education 2 C.F.R. Part 220 (OMB Circular A-21)

For-profit organizations other than: (1) a hospital; (2) a commercial organization; or (3) a non-profit organization listed in 2 CFR Part 230, Appendix C, as not subject to that part

48 C.F.R. Subpart 31.2

Cost allocation plan means the documentation identifying, accumulating, and distributing allowable costs under DRCOG’s contracts, together with the allocation methods used.

Cost, as used herein, means cost as determined on a cash, accrual, or other basis acceptable to the DRCOG as a discharge of the Contractor's accountability for DRCOG’s funds.

Cost objective means a pool, center, or area established for the accumulation of cost. Such areas include organizational units, functions, objects or items of expense, as well as ultimate cost objectives including specific on-site direct and indirect activities.

Contract program means those activities and operations of the Contractor which are necessary to carry out the purposes of the contract.

Services, as used herein, means goods and facilities, as well as services.

Supporting services means auxiliary functions necessary to sustain the direct effort involved in administering a contract or an activity providing service to the program. These services may include procurement, payroll, personnel functions, maintenance and operation of space, data processing, accounting, budgeting, auditing, mail and messenger service, and the like.

C. Basic guidelines

1. Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs

To be allowable under a DRCOG contract, costs must meet the following general criteria:

a. Meet the standards and criteria set forth in the applicable federal regulations and requirements.

b. Be necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient administration of the contract, be allocable thereto under these principles, and except as specifically provided herein, not be a general expense required to carry out the overall responsibilities of the Contractor.

c. Be authorized or not prohibited under state or local laws or regulations.

d. Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles, federal laws, or other governing limitations as to types or amounts of cost items.

e. Be consistent with policies, regulations, and procedures that apply uniformly to all activities of the Contractor.

f. Be accorded consistent treatment through application of generally accepted accounting principles appropriate to the circumstances.

g. Not be allocable to or included as a cost of any other program in either the current or a prior period.

h. Be net of all applicable credits.

i. Be satisfactorily documented.

2. Allocable Costs

A cost is allocable to a particular cost objective to the extent of benefits received by such objective.

3. Applicable Credits

Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to contracts as direct or indirect costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts; rebates or allowances; recoveries or indemnities on losses; sales or publications, equipment, and scrap; income from personal or incidental services; and adjustments of overpayment or erroneous charges.

D. Accounting system

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a proper accounting system in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards (a separate set of accounts, or as a separate and integral part of its current accounting scheme) to assure that project funds are expended, and costs accounted in a manner consistent with the contract and project objectives.

All allowable costs charged to the project, including any approved services contributed by the

Contractor or others, shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contractors or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature of the charges.

Any check or order drawn up by the Contractor, including any item which is or will be chargeable against the project account, shall only be drawn up in accordance with a properly signed voucher on file in the office of the Contractor, which will detail the purpose for which said check or order is drawn. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders or other accounting documents shall be clearly identified, readily accessible, and to the extent feasible, kept separate and apart from all other such documents.

E. Billing procedure

Billings shall include appropriate documentation, such as detailed listing of charges being submitted for payment including billable hours and hourly rate, payments to sub-contractors, parking and mileage, supplies, etc. Certain funding sources may require more documentation, such as approved timesheet copies of invoices paid, etc. Contractors must maintain detailed records that are subject to review and/or audit by DRCOG or its representatives.

Attachment B – Federal and state requirements

A. Nondiscrimination Provisions

In connection with this request, the selected respondent(s) shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of age, race, sex, color, religion, veteran status, marital status, national origin, disability, being a disadvantaged person, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or any other status protected by applicable state or local law. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including any apprenticeship.

Selected respondent shall comply with all applicable provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 162(a) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973 and with the Regulations of the Department of Transportation relative to nondiscrimination in Federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21).

The selected respondent(s) will furnish all necessary information and reports and will permit access to its books, records, and accounts by DRCOG for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of any resultant contract.

B. Noncompliance

In the event of the selected respondent(s) noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provision of any resultant contract, DRCOG shall impose such contract sanctions as it may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:

1. Withholding of payments under the contract until the compliance by the selected respondent(s), and/or

2. Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part.

C. Single Audit Act Amendment

State and local governments and nonprofit organizations receiving more than $1,000,000 in

Federal funds (all federal sources, not just FHWA funds), shall comply with the audit requirements of 2 C.F.R. 200, Subpart F.

D. Employee Financial Interest/Conflict of Interest (C.R.S. § 24-18-201 and 24-50-507)

These laws require the selected respondent to aver that no State employee has any personal or beneficial interest in the contract and that it has no interest and shall acquire no interest that would conflict with its performance of the services.

E. The Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) and Public Law 95-454 Section 4728

These statutes state that federal funds cannot be used for partisan political purposes of any kind by any person or organization involved in the administration of federally assisted programs.

F. 42 USC 6101 et seq. 42 U.S.C. 2000d, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 80 et. seq.

These acts require that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap, be excluded from participation in or be subjected to discrimination in any program or activity funded, in whole or part, by federal funds;

G. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336); 42 U.S.C. 12101, 12102, 12111-12117, 12131-12134, 12141-12150, 12161-12165, 12181-12189, 12201-12213;

47 U.S.C. 225 and 47 U.S.C. 611.

H. The Drug-Free Workplace Act (Public Law 100-690 Title V, subtitle D, 41 U.S.C. 701 et seq.).

I. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6101 et. seq. and its implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 91; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.