PP_idedits.docx
DOCX document 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 2026 TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
- Solicitation number
- 250015
- Issued by
- Orange County, California
About this file
This is a project description document for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in California related to the 2026 Transit Asset Management Plan Update. The Authority is seeking qualified consultants to develop a comprehensive transit asset management plan with a project term of thirteen (13) months. The scope of work requires consultants to update and enhance OCTA's existing asset management practices, ensuring compliance with federal transit asset management requirements and supporting the Authority's long-term operational and strategic planning objectives.
The project budget is established at $250,000 for the thirteen-month contract period. The engagement will require consultants to conduct a thorough assessment of OCTA's transit assets, develop updated management strategies, and provide recommendations for asset lifecycle management and capital planning. This project is funded through OCTA's operating budget and represents a key initiative to maintain regulatory compliance with federal transit asset management mandates while optimizing the Authority's capital investment decisions and asset utilization practices.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2026_TRANSIT_ASSET_MANAGEMENT_PLAN_UPDATE_(Addendum_#1_Revision).pdf | ||
| Exhibit_A_SOW.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_C_Agreement.pdf | ||
| RFP_5-4254_Exhibit_B.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_D_Safety_Specifications.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_A_SOW_gmedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_C_Agreement_gmedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| PP.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_B_idedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| PS_idedits.doc | DOC document | |
| Exhibit_A_idedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_C_Proposed_Agreement_idedits.pdf | ||
| Exhibit_C_idedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit_E_idedits.doc | DOC document | |
| ICE.docx | DOCX document | |
| REQ35213.pdf | ||
| Form_700_Review.pdf | ||
| PS.doc | DOC document | |
| Risk_Response.pdf | ||
| SOW_Verification.pdf | ||
| ICE_Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
INTEROFFICE MEMO
Procurement Plan, RFP 250015
Date: August 27, 2025
To: Charles Main, Principal Transportation Analyst, Transit Service Planning
From: Michael Cardozo, Contract Administrator, CAMM
Subject: PROCUREMENT PLAN - RFP 250015, “2026 Transit Asset Management Plan Update”
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:
A Request for Proposals (RFP) procurement type is applicable because there are multiple factors for selection to be considered beyond cost.
Evaluation Criteria:
| PROPOSAL |
| WEIGHT |
| Qualifications of the Firm |
| 20% |
| Staffing/Project Organization |
| 30% |
| Work Plan |
| 30% |
| Cost | |
| 20% | Comment by Iris Deneau: Cost has to be weighted at least 25% |
Justification: The standard 25 percent for each criterion was not used for this procurement. Staffing and project organization, as well as work plan are weighted at 30 percent each as the firm must demonstrate it has the requisite personnel and understanding associated with this project in order to complete the tasks required under the scope of work. Qualifications of the firm and cost are weighted at 20 percent to ensure firms have prior experience performing similar services and that firm-fixed rates remain competitive so OCTA receives value for the services provided.
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
| Retention: | |
| |X| Yes | Comment by Iris Deneau: State % retention |
| |_| No |
| |_| N/A |
| Prevailing Wages: |
| |_| Yes |
| $ |
| |_| No |
| |X| N/A |
| Liquidated Damages: |
| |_| Yes |
| $ |
| |_| No |
| |X| N/A |
Procurement Schedule: |X| Attached
Suggested Evaluation Team Members:
Internal Evaluators:
Charles Main, Principal Transportation Analyst, Transportation Modeling Trevor Mathias, Business Unit Analyst, Government Relations Luis Perez, Section Manager, General Services Comment by Iris Deneau: What subject matter expertise does Luis provide?
Anthony Baruch, Section Manager, Financial Planning and Analysis
Contract Term: One(1)-Year one(1)Thirteen (13)-month term
Funding Source: |_| Local |X| Measure M |_| FTA |_| FHWA
Dollar Amount: |X| Term $250,000.00
Independent Cost Estimate Received: |X| Yes |_| No
Requisition Received: |X| Yes Req. 34819 35213
DBE Goal: |_| Yes |X| No
Project Manager Concurrence:
| _________________________________________ | ______________ |
| Charles Main, Principal Transportation Analyst, Transit Service Planning | Date |
CAMM Section/Department Manager Concurrence:
| _________________________________________ | ______________ | |
| Iris Deneau, Section Manager, Procurement | Date |
Revised: 05/09/2018 Revised: 05/09/2018 image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .