RFP 21-020 Contactless Fare Payment System - FPS - Addendum 2 - With Exhibits A thru D.pdf

RFP 21-020 – Addendum #2

SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP 21-020

CONTACTLESS FARE PAYMENT SYSTEM (FPS)

ADDENDUM #2

Salem Area Mass Transit District is providing information and making changes / additions / modifications / revisions as an Addendum to RFP 21-020.

The following changes, clarifications and SAMTD responses to questions posed to date are hereby provided to all proposers:

1. Question: The solicitation refers to the requirement to be licensed in the State Of Oregon.

What licenses are required?

Response: Proposer must be licensed to do business in the State of Oregon and any permits necessary by the local jurisdictions. Please refer to the State of Oregon Secretary of State website for state licensing requirements. This can be accomplished though the Oregon Secretary Of State, State Corporation Division. Please visit https://sos.oregon.gov for information on how to get this done.

2. Question: What are the locations where the Agency may wish to have the optional reload Kiosks installed?

Response:

a. Downtown Transit Center / Customer Service

220 High Street NE Salem, OR 97303

b. Keizer Transit Center 5860 Keizer Station Blvd.

Keizer, OR 97303

c. Chemeketa Community College Building 2, Intersection of Cooley Dr. NE and Salter Drive NE Salem, OR 97305 https://sos.oregon.gov/

3. Question: Part 2, Section 3.2 Hardware: On-board Validators: Proposer shall describe the ability of the system to support tap on/tap off to collect origin and destination data.

a. Must the proposed system and validators support tap on/tap off functionality?

b. Given that origin and destination data can be collected in other ways and SAMTD does not currently use zone-based or distance fares, what is SAMTD seeking to accomplish with tap on/tap off functionality?

Response: a. While tap off is not intended to be used at initial deployment, it is a desirable feature for potential future use.

b. The desire is to know as much as possible about where riders are boarding and alighting so we could best understand ridership patterns. So, for example, when rider gets on at the local community college, what is the most frequent place they get off - do they come downtown and then take another bus to complete their trip? Again, not an initial deployment goal but something we may consider for the future.

4. Question: Page 13 states… “System must support the use of student/university IDs for institutional partners who participate in the Group or Employer Pass Program…” Please provide more information on the cards issued by local schools and universities along with Group or Employer Pass participants, specifically, please provide the card specifications/schematics, card brands and technology used (magnetic stripe, RFID, proximity card, etc.).

Response: This requirement was more intended for the Proposer to identify what types of cards they support natively, not for the Proposer to design a solution unique to the District to support any specific type of card. Given that it would be unlikely that SAMTD would want to program the selected system to read foreign cards (ones we did not issue) at the start of the project, Proposer’s should presume that we would instead issue a QR code or RFID sticker, or some similar solution, that the user would affix to their university or employee ID until which time that it makes business sense to program the system otherwise.

5. Question: Exhibit 13 does not list spare equipment. Does SAMTD intend to purchase spare validators? If so, please provide a quantity for all vendors to price accordingly.

Response: At this moment we are not identifying spares. Once we have vetted the solutions and better understand the technologies being offered, we may identify some level of spares as part of our BAFO process.

6. Question: Who is the current payment gateway provider for Salem?

Response: We currently don’t have a payment gateway for use by the District, however our Customer Service department does use Square POS for managing credit card transactions.

7. Question: We propose the following edits (in red) to section 3.5 System Security, bullet point

10: Proposer will carry a cyber security insurance policy that will cover all remediation and ransom costs where SAMTD data has been compromised, should a breach take place, if caused by the vendor. Losses caused by SAMTD shall not be covered.

Response: SAMTD declines this request.

8. Question: Noting the direction in Exhibit 13: “Please complete this form to provide your proposed price for the criteria listed in the specification attachment to this solicitation, in a sealed envelope marked "RFP 21-020 Contactless Fare Payment System (FPS)" and the COVID considerations allowing an electronic submission, can the agency please advise how it would like Exhibit 13 submitted electronically – as part of the primary electronic submission or as a separate electronic file / email?

Response: If a Proposer elects to submit a Proposal response electronically in accordance with solicitation instructions, then please submit Exhibit #13 Price Proposal Form as a separate electronic file attached to the email with electronic Proposal submission.

9. Question: Please provide the following statistical information for SAMTDs’ system usage for the most recently completed fiscal year:

a. Total Sales of each pass broken down by sales channel (i.e. ticket windows, online, TVMs, etc.).

b. Total passenger boarding’s by payment method used (cash, pass, transfer slip, change card, etc.).

c. Total ridership and fare revenue from 2019 & 2020.

Response: Please see Exhibit A to this Addendum #2 for this information.

10. Question: Please confirm if all vehicles are currently equipped with an antenna. If confirmed, please provide the following information about these devices:

a. Make and Model of antennas.

b. Confirmation that existing antennas are connected to the modems for GPS availability.

c. Confirmation that the existing antennas are internal or attached to the roof of vehicles.

Response: a. All vehicles are equipped with the identified Cradlepoint router.

b. Yes, a GPS antenna is connected to the Cradepoint.

c. Presume the GPS antenna is on the top of the bus.

11. Question: Please confirm that the current data plan for the modems can accommodate additional monthly data transfers of up to 100MB per modem.

Response: Yes, the current Verizon plan can accommodate this as SAMTD plans are unlimited data plans.

12. Question: The price proposal states vendors can add additional lines to the proposal form as needed. However, the price proposal form provided is locked. Please provide an unlocked version so we may adjust as needed to complete the forms.

Response: Exhibit 13 - Price Proposal Form has been modified to allow additional lines to be added. This modified Exhibit is incorporated herein and is attached as Exhibit 13A. Exhibit 13A replaces former Exhibit 13 in its entirety.

13. Question: Please provide an unlocked version of Exhibit 14 – References.

Response: Exhibit 14 – References is already unlocked in the cells that allow Proposer’s to fill data in. This form will not be revised.

14. Question: In Exhibit #5 (DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT STATEMENT) of the RFP Instructions, it states that the agency goal is 2.49%;

however the project goal appears to not be stated. Please clarify if there is a specific project DBE goal for this opportunity?

Response: SAMTD has an overall DBE participation goal of 2.49%. While we strive to meet this goal in our procurements, there is not a specific goal tied to this solicitation.

15. Question: The price proposal includes a line for “Fare Transaction Integration with existing Mobile Transit Applications.” Please provide a list of the existing Mobile Transit Applications the system is expected to integrate with.

Response: This was intended to be more of an inquiry to identify what Mobile Transit applications the Proposer already has integrations with, but the District currently uses Transit (https://transitapp.com/).

16. Question: Please confirm SAMTD utilizes IBR1100 or IBR900 Cradlepoint routers on board its vehicles and please confirm the number of available ports for use by the Fare Collection System.

Response: As stated in the RFP, the District uses the identified Cradlepoint routers. In all local buses there is a network switch on the bus as well, so the Proposer can presume there will always be at least one available open port. If more than one is required please indicate so.

17. Question: Section 1 of the RFP requires the new Fare Payment system to integrate directly with the existing ITS configuration which includes Syncromatics, Genfare and Infodev. However, the price proposal only provides a space for vendors to price the Syncromatics integration.

Please confirm the following:

a. Is integration with Genfare and Infodev a requirement?

b. If yes, please provide a list of requirements for these integrations and a soft copy of the vendor’s documentation on the application programming interfaces (API).

c. Please also confirm that Genfare and Infodev will cooperate with the selected vendor and provide all technical information and support required to facilitate integration per SAMTD requirements.

Response: It is only a requirement that the solution integrate with the GMV Syncromatics CAD/AVL system. If there is value in integrating with Genfare, then the functionality value of that integration can be specified by the Proposer.

18. Question: The RFP indicates that vendors are responsible for the credit card processing.

Most commonly, agencies would like to enter into a merchant acquiring relationship and have vendors responsible for processing technology connecting through to the agencies merchant acquirer. Can Salem please confirm if this is the intended operating model or is Salem looking for vendors to provide the merchant facility for the solution?

Response: If the Proposers solution uses a 3rd party payment gateway that is not integrated into their system, then that is acceptable provided there is no transition fee charged by the Proposers system. In other words, it would be preferable for the respondent to be the agent for transactions as they are then ultimately responsible for all matters related to these financial transactions, and that way we are not paying a processing fee to multiple places.

19. Question: Section A. Evaluation Criteria (page 46) requires vendors to submit proposals with … “written information on both sides of each sheet of paper”. Please confirm single sided is acceptable for email submissions.

Response: SAMTD confirms that single sided proposals are acceptable for electronic submission.

20. Question: Please clarify the number of vehicles SAMTD operates. The fleet list provided in Exhibit D has 72 vehicles listed, page 3 of the RFP states 113 vehicles ( 64 local, 34 paratransit and 15 regional) and the price form is requesting 78 validators.

Response: No validators are being installed on our paratransit fleet at this time so please use 78 as the number of validators being proposed.

21. Question: During the pre-proposal conference SAMTD referenced the possibility of utilizing more than one validator per vehicle to facilitate dual boarding. Please confirm the number of vehicles that will need two validators (front and rear door), and please confirm the number of available ports in the modem of those vehicles for use by the Fare Collection System.

Response: At this time please use 78 as the number of validators being proposed.

22. Question: In Section 2 of the above referenced RFP, the Project Milestones are stated as follows:

• Notice to Proceed to successful contractor - November 1, 2021

• Substantial contract completion by - April 1, 2022 (estimate)

• Final contract completion by - June 30, 2022 (estimate)

In reference to the estimated Substantial and Final dates would you please expand on SAMTD's interpretation / definition of these terms? More specifically, how much flexibility would a contractor have in submitting a compliant proposal that delivers a solution well outside these dates?

Response: “Substantial Completion” is defined as the stage when a project is deemed sufficiently completed to the point where the owner can use it for its intended purpose.

“Final Completion” is defined as date when the owner determines the project to be 100% completed, with all punch list work included. This is usually the point where the contractor has satisfied any remaining contract terms and requirements.

SAMTD will consider all compliant proposals and estimated deliveries. The dates identified in the solicitation documents are provided as estimates to the supplier base. Final dates will be established based upon material & component availability, along with Proposer schedules, and SAMTD requirements.

23. Question: Regarding the 90 day timeline in the Implementation Plan. Would you be able to please clarify whether the need for a 90 day delivery of hardware/completion of testing is a hard requirement, or whether SAMTD would be open to a proposed project implementation plan more closely aligned with the contract completion requirement? Based on our reading of the RFP, there is both a preliminary design review and a final design review, which usually takes anywhere from 6-8 weeks in total. That takes us to 42-56 days from NTP, and leaves us only 48 days to implement the validators etc., (best case scenario). The other issue is with potential supply chain issues, 90 days is quite an unrealistic timeline for hardware vendors.

Response: SAMTD will consider all compliant proposals and estimated deliveries. The dates identified in the solicitation documents are provided as estimates to the supplier base. Final dates will be established based upon material & component availability, along with Proposer schedules, proposed implementation plans, and SAMTD requirements.

24. Question: The RFP indicates that all exceptions and modifications are due on Friday 8/27. Did SAMTD mean just questions/clarifications are due, or do we have to have all final modifications/exceptions submitted? It will be challenging to do this without having the answers to the Q&A, so we are wondering if that date can be moved to at least after that time.

Response: Please refer to Part 1 “Instructions For Proposer” Section 3.1(I) and Section 3.13 for submission of questions, clarifications, modifications, and exceptions. RFP timelines remain unchanged. If there is a need to modify timelines and extend additional time for questions, clarifications, modifications, and / or exceptions after release of Addendum #1, SAMTD may consider an allowance for additional time at that point.

25. Question: Reference RFP 21-020, Part 1. Section 3, 1. A. 6. - RFP states that an email submission with electronic signatures submitted on or before the proposal close date and time will be accepted and considered a timely response to SAMTD's solicitation. Could SAMTD please provide the preferred email address and any format or limitation for the email submission?

Would SAMTD please consider allowing vendors to submit their proposal electronically through the Oregon Buys web portal? This option is not currently available within the web portal.

Response: Please refer to solicitation instructions Part 1, Section 3, 1.A(4) for proposal submission instructions. Submit electronic responses to dan.knauss@cherriots.org. Salem Area Mass Transit District is an Oregon Cooperative Procurement Program (ORCPP) member. ORCPP members do not currently have access to electronic bid/proposal submission through OregonBuys.

26. Question: Reference RFP 21-020, Part 1. Section 3, 1. A. T. - SAMTD states in RFP that the base Proposal MUST be based upon specified materials. However, proposers are encouraged to submit value engineering cost Proposals for Owner/Engineer review. SAMTD shares that these items can be submitted on the Proposal Form and clearly marked “Value Engineering Ideas”.

Could you please provide vendor with more, clarifying information about this request?"

Response: Value (VE) Engineering is defined as an organized effort to analyze the function of systems, equipment, facilities, procedures and supplies by a multi-disciplined group for the purpose of achieving the required function at the lowest total cost. Considerations are given to effective ownership consistent with requirements for performance, reliability, quality, maintainability and safety. FTA guidelines endorse the use of value engineering in analyzing the design and cost effectiveness of federally funded projects. SAMTD will consider VE in the solicitation review process. Please review Part 1, Section 3.1.T carefully as it states that “Base Proposal MUST be based upon specified materials.”

mailto:dan.knauss@cherriots.org

27. Question: Reference Exhibit B: Sample Goods & Services Contract - Section 1 of Draft

Contract refers to a base term from 1 February 2021 to 31 December 2021, being less than 1 year. However, the RFP itself references/requests 5 years of service so it is the Contractor’s expectation that the contract would be extended/amended as such. As the Contractor has proposed pricing for a 5 year term, can you please confirm the term of the Contract?

Response: The resultant Contract will have multiple dates for milestone completion of tasks, software license terms, and maintenance terms. The full term of the resultant Contract will be from the date of Contract Commencement through all license and maintenance terms identified in the resultant Contract.

28. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions GC.3 provides that that the "Contractor shall not assign any of its rights or subcontract any of its responsibilities under this Contract without the prior written consent of SAMTD". Contractor considers that requests for assignment should not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Contractor also requests that it should be entitled to assign this Agreement and its rights and obligations (i) to an affiliate; or (ii) in connection with a sale of Contractor (i.e. a Change of Control). Will SAMTD entertain these amendments?

Response: SAMTD confirms that it will not unreasonably withhold or delay requests for assignment. SAMTD assignability rights will not be modified.

29. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions GC.4 A deals with Indemnification. SAMTD's current clause, if not revised, could permit contractual indemnity, meaning that SAMTD could seek money upfront for what is basically an alleged contract breach, even before it is decided in dispute resolution whether such a breach claim has any validity. Will SAMTD entertain revised language so that the indemnity is generally limited to third party claims for injury to body or property, to the extent the Contractor has caused such injury? Further, will SAMTD agree to the indemnity being made subject to market standard conditions regarding notification and Contractor having the right to control the third party claim?

Response: SAMTD insurance requirements as identified in the solicitation will remain unchanged.

30. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions GC.6 deals with compliance with law. Where there is a change in law that cannot reasonably be mitigated by Contractor and that impacts provision of the Services (including the cost of providing the Services), Contractor considers it should be relieved of its obligations to supply the Services in accordance with the terms of the Contract until the impact of the change in law on the Services has been assessed and agreed; and (ii) be entitled to an increase in the Charges (to be agreed between the parties via a written change order) as the result of the change in law.

Will SAMTD entertain amendments to address this?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, GC.6 will remain unchanged.

Should a change in applicable law occur during the performance of a resulting Contract, SAMTD would review effects of such changes and, if warranted, negotiate in good faith with the Contractor any Contract modifications, as needed, to continue performance of services under the Contract.

31. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.13 para’s A, B and C provides for termination for default. Contractor accepts SAMTD’s right to terminate for default, however, considers that (i) there should be a materiality threshold (i.e.

termination for material default); (ii) there should be a minimum cure period of thirty (30) calendar days to correct the material default; (iii) there should language providing that the Contract will not be terminated for untimely performance when there is any failure or delay in delivery of the Services caused by events beyond the Contractor’s reasonable control i.e. a Force Majeure; and (iv) language is inserted stating that a wrongful termination for default will be converted into a termination for convenience. All of which Contractor considers are reasonable and in line with market practice. Will SAMTD entertain amendments to address any or all of these points?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, GC.13 will remain unchanged.

Additionally, please see Exhibit A “FTA Clauses”, Section 34 “Force Majeure” for information pertaining to events beyond Contractor’s reasonable control.

32. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.14 provides for termination for convenience but currently provides for no period of notice. Will SAMTD agree to 30 days’ prior written notice of a termination for convenience?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, GC.14 will remain unchanged.

SAMTD will strive to give Contractor as much advance notice as is reasonably possible should a termination for convenience become necessary.

33. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.14 provides for termination for convenience. SAMTD’s language provides for no damages if the convenience termination occurs prior to start of the work, and only payment for completed work if the termination occurs after the start of the work. Contractor suggests changing this to reflect typical termination for convenience damages where Contractor gets paid for all work performed plus reasonable termination costs including cost to terminate subcontracts and all sunk costs (i.e. costs of materials that can’t be returned, sold or used for other contracts. Will SAMTD entertain such an amendment?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, GC.14 will remain unchanged.

34. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.14 provides for termination for convenience. As Contractor’s pricing proposal is calculated for the life of the Contract will SAMTD agree to Contractor charging an early termination charge (being 3 months of BAU revenue sgare fees) in the event that the Contract is terminated early by SAMTD for convenience?

Response: No.

35. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.18 deals with ownership of 'Work Product' and provides that "All work product of Contractor that results from this Agreement (the “Work Product”) is the exclusive property of SAMTD." As an off the shelf (OTS) SaaS Platform provider Contractor does not develop or design products specifically for SAMTD. As a base ticketing system/platform, nothing will be created by Contractor as a custom product specifically and exclusively for SAMTD. This is because Contractor has an OTS base product, its Justride mobile ticketing application that it has developed, that Contractor uses as the base starting point for all customer deployments.

Contractor then deploys APIs and STKs that ‘tweak’ the base platform to meet the specific customer requirements as per the agreed Contract. Any specific development of the Contractor’s OTS product that is required to meet a customer’s (in this case SAMTD’s) requirements and deliver the required solution, is an acceleration of Contractor’s (and/or its third party licensors) development roadmap(s) (i.e. furthering the development of the platform(s) and is not stand alone) and will be built into the OTS offering(s) for further reuse by Contractor’s (and/or its third party licensors) respectively going forward. On that basis can SAMTD confirm that it accepts all IPRs in the Contractor's mobile ticketing platform and software remain the Contractor's property ie that pre-existing Contractor IP, modifications of such IP, and any third-party IP provided by the Contractor, remains the property of the Contractor?

Response: This statement is accurate in so much as the District expects that any expenses we incur for the development of solutions to meet our unique needs, cannot be resold to others, but remain a custom solution for the District. SAMTD is not interested in, nor will our grant funding permit, the funding development of solutions that the respondent can then resell, however, if solutions are added that we did not fund, then yes, those remain the property of the Proposer.

36. Question: Reference Exhibit C: General Conditions - Exhibit C - General Conditions - GC.19 deals with Audits and Inspection of Records. Contractor requests that the inspections/audits are on reasonable written notice (say 14 days), conducted during business hours, do not impact service delivery and are limited to two inspections per year. Will SAMTD entertain these amendments?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, GC.19 will remain unchanged.

Additionally, please see Exhibit A “FTA Clauses”, Section 12 “Access To Records And Reports” for information applicable to this request.

37. Question: Reference Exhibit D: Special Conditions - Exhibit D - Special Conditions - SP 7 paragraph 2 provides for Business Auto Liability Insurance with not less than the following limits:

(a) Bodily injury: $2,000,000.00 per person; $2,000,000.00 per accident; and (b) Property damage: $2,000,000.00 per accident. Contractor does hold Business Auto Liability Insurance but only for the following amounts: (a) Bodily injury: $1, 000,000.00 per person; $1,000,000.00 per accident; and (b) Property damage: $1,000,000.00 per accident. Given the nature of the services to be provided by Contractor, Contractor does not consider that Business Auto Liability Insurance is necessarily relevant or applicable. On that basis, are the Contractor's policy cover limits acceptable to SAMTD?

Response: SAMTD insurance requirements as identified in the solicitation will remain

38. Question: Reference Exhibit D: Special Conditions - Exhibit D - Special Conditions - SP.8 deals with time being of the essence. The timeframes for beginning and completing the contracted work should be made expressly subject to any delay causes by events outside of the Contractor’s control (including but not limited to SAMTD failing to comply with its obligations under this Contract). Will SAMTD agree to this? Further 'time of the essence' makes any delay, no matter how minor, a repudiatory breach, which would entitle SAMTD, in addition to any remedy available under the contract, a common law right to terminate the entire contract. If there are delivery issues, SAMTD has rights to terminate for material breach. On that basis, will SAMTD agree to delete SP.8?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit D, SP.8 will remain unchanged.

39. Question: Reference Exhibit D: Special Conditions - Exhibit D - Special Conditions - SP.9 deals with 'Changes' and as drafted permits SAMTD to make unilateral changes to the Contract.

Contractor does not consider that unilateral changes (by SAMTD) are fair or reasonable and considers (in line with market practice) all changes/amends should require the written consent of both parties. Will SAMTD agree to SP.9 being amended such that all changes must be agreed in writing between the parties?

Response: Reference Exhibit B “Sample Contract”, Exhibit C, SP.9(B) & SP.9(C) allow for equitable adjustments from any change. Additionally, Contract Amendments require both the

Owner’s and the Contractor’s signature to become fully executed. Exhibit C, SP.9 will remain

40. Question: Reference Exhibit E: Contract Terms Addenda - Exhibit E - Contract Terms Addenda - provides for additional contract terms. Given the nature of Contractor’s Platform Services and SDK, Contractor wishes to use its standard (template) SaaS and Hardware Agreement Terms (to be submitted as part of its Proposal) to be included as Contract Addenda at Exhibit E. Contractor acknowledges and accepts that, to the extent there is any conflict between the Contractor’s standard SaaS and Hardware terms and SAMTD’s contractual documents, Contractor’s standard SaaS and Hardware terms will remain subsidiary to the provisions of SAMTD’s contractual terms. Subject to seeing and commenting on the Contractor’s standard SaaS and Hardware terms, does SAMTD agree with this approach in principle?

Response: Yes, SAMTD agrees in principle with this concept and asserts its reservation of rights identified in the solicitation. SAMTD urges Proposers to carefully review Part 1, Section 3, 2(D) of the solicitation’s “Instructions For Proposer”, and in particular to our response to this question, the conditioning or limiting the proposal in the submission of proposal responses.

41. Question: There is no limitation or exclusion of liability provision in SAMTD's proposed contract terms. Market practice is for contracts for these types of services to contain a mutual limitation and exclusion of liability clause. Contractor proposes the inclusion of a market standard section (applying to both parties) that (i) caps liability in any 12 month period at fees paid or payable by SAMTD to Contractor under the Contract in the 12 months prior to the act that gave rise to the liability; and (ii) excludes (a) indirect, exemplary, incidental, special or consequential loss or damages; and (b) any loss of profits, business etc. Will SAMTD accept these provisions?

42. Question: Can SAMTD please confirm if All Door Boarding is required, if so, does this mean that SAMTD requires pricing for multiple validators per vehicle, or would SAMTD prefer that extra validator(s) be priced as an option?

Response: Any door boarding must be supported, but no, SAMTD is not implementing this at the initial deployment so only one validator per bus has been specified.

43. Question: In regard to all door boarding and the tap on/off requirements - can SMATD please confirm how they would like this to work, for example is tap on at the front and tap off at the rear or any validator could be used for tap on/off

Response: Tap off must be supported, but we are not implementing this at the initial deployment. Proposers should therefore specify the capabilities of their system as it relates to tap off, with the expectation that we may implement it at a later date.

44. Question: Are the partner pre-existing RFID-enabled cards such as student IDs or employee badges ISO 14443 compliant and does SAMTD have access to the keys? If cards are not ISO 14443 compliant, could SAMTD please provide details?

Response: This requirement was more intended for the Proposer to identify what types of cards they support natively, not for the Proposer to design a solution unique to SAMTD that will support any specific type of card. The District does currently use mag-stripe cards for rechargeable monthly passes, and while it would be desirable to be able to only have to issue one type of card that could be used on the Genfare system or the Proposers system, it is not a requirement to do so.

45. Question: SAMTD states, within the RFP, that the retail portal must allow retail partners to distribute SAMTD fare media - Are SAMTD requesting a smartcard/disposable card distribution option? How many locations will there be?

Response: SAMTD does have a small number of local retail sales partners, and yes, we would like to be able to purchase cards supported by the Proposer’s system for distribution, that they would then need to somehow activate. As this is a complex matter involving integration points with large retailers, this may see SAMTD continue to just sell single use disposable passes at retail locations, which we would like the Proposer to address in their proposal.

46. Question: Could SAMTD please provide average transaction size, updated annual fare revenues, and number of products sold by fare product?

Response: Please see Exhibit A attached to this Addendum.

47. Question: Who does SAMTD use as its merchant acquiring bank and payment gateway for current credit card transactions?

Response: SAMTD does not have a payment gateway for use by the District, however our Customer Service department does use Square POS for managing credit card transactions.

48. Question: Requirement: 3.1 Fare Media- The system must support the use of student/university IDs for institutional partners who participate in the Group or Employer Pass Program. What manufacturer and format are the student/university IDs?

Response: This requirement was intended for the Proposer to identify what types of cards they support natively, not for the Proposer to design a solution unique to the District to support any specific type of card. The District does currently use mag-stripe cards for rechargeable monthly passes, and while it would be desirable to be able to only have to issue one type of card that could be used on the Genfare system or the Proposers system, it is not a requirement to do so.

49. Question: Credit Card processing is not covered in the RFP, how does SAMTD expect this to be handled?

a. Should it be part of the vendor's pricing in the RFP response?

b. Does SAMTD have any preferred merchant account providers?

c. Any requirements about funding of accounts?

d. If credit cards are allowed for transactions under $2.00, this could lead to a significant portion of the collected revenue being allocated to processing fees. Regardless of which vendor is selected, processing fees are determined at a base level by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc. We wanted to ensure this is acceptable a known quantity prior to making a specific recommendation in our response.

Response: a. Yes, any and all fees must be specified, with indication as to how those fees are charged and what they are for.

b. No. As mentioned previously, SAMTD Customer Service utilizes Square for POS, but that’s not a requirement for the FPS system under this solicitation.

c. The required customer portal should be accessible to administrators that work in our Customer Service department, and agents need to have the ability to allow someone to pay for a fare via cash or credit, which we would then manually credit to the account. Note that in the case of a credit card transaction, the agent will likely process that through our Square POS system, as they do now, and then manually apply those funds to the account.

d. Yes, this is understood and is a very useful point. We don’t expect people who routinely ride to use a credit card each day to board the bus, and even if they do, attaching their credit card or mobile payment system (Apple, Google, Android) to their account should address some of this. We will discuss as a matter of creating payment policies whether account recharge must always be a minimum number (such as $10) to minimize the impact of these transaction costs.

50. Question: Can you provide any usage numbers by ticket type for year 2019 and 2020? (data prior to and during pandemic would be helpful)

Response: Please see Exhibit A attached to this Addendum.

51. Question: Requirement: Price Sheet - The price sheet asks for pricing for 10,000 NFC based fare media. Please provide more detail / requirements for this requirement. For example, is the NFC based fare media required to be reloadable or limited use?

Response: The NFC fare media would be used for monthly passes so they need to be reloadable using the account based customer portal specified in the RFP. Similarly, the NFC fare media should be reloadable at a reload kiosk or at our customer service counter.

52. Question: Requirement: Exhibit B - The term of the contract is stated as 11/1/21 to 6/30/22 yet the Price Proposal Form asks for 5 years pricing for Software Licensing and Maintenance Support. Please define the exact term length of the contract.

Response: The resultant Contract will have multiple dates for milestone completion of tasks, software license terms, and maintenance terms. The full term of the resultant Contract will be from the date of Contract Commencement through all license and maintenance terms identified in the resultant Contract.

53. Question: Requirement: Price Sheet - In the Optional Elements the following wording is noted: "Fare Transation Integration with Existing Mobile Transit App". Should the word "Transation" be Transaction?

Response: The word should be Transaction.

54. Question: Requirement: Price Sheet - For the Unit description for Maintenance Support - Year 2, 3, 4, 5, should the Unit be YR like it is for the Software & Associated Licenses lines?

Response: Yes.

55. Question: Requirement: 3.2 Hardware - Mobile Validators - Will SAMTD be purchasing a quantity of mobile validators (hand held devices) as part of this procurement? If so what is the required quantity?

Response: No, but the costs for such units are to be specified. We currently do not use fare inspectors but may do so in the future, hence the proposed system needs to be able to support that.

56. Question: Requirement: 5. Project Requirements Compliance - Is the list of contract deliverables in this section an end-of-project requirement or do each of these items need to be included in a Proposer's response to the RFP?

Response: They do not need to be included in the Proposers response to the solicitation.

57. Question: Requirement: 12. Schedule of Proposal Procedures - Due to the extent of third party integrations required would SAMTD grant a two week extension to the proposal due date to all Proposers for additional time to work with the various third party providers?

Response: The solicitation timeline remains unchanged.

58. Question: Requirement: Section 2: Project Milestones - Please confirm that proposing firms can propose a schedule that is longer than what is estimated.

Response: SAMTD will consider all compliant proposals and estimated deliveries. The dates identified in the solicitation documents are provided as estimates to the supplier base. Final dates will be established based upon material & component availability, along with Proposer schedules, and SAMTD requirements.

59. Question: Requirement: Part 2, Section 3 Scope of Work - Please provide contact information for GMV Syncromatics so we may understand the integration requirements.

Response: SAMTD has received multiple questions from suppliers regarding the integration of the solicitation specifications with the GMV Syncromatics Intelligent Transportation System (CAD/AVL) currently being installed in the SAMTD fleet and operations. GMV Syncromatics has prepared a response that we believe addresses all questions that have been received regarding this integration. Please see the following:

Information provided by GMV Syncromatics to support integration of SAMTD’s new fare collection system with existing CAD/AVL. The primary goal of this integration will be to provide CAD/AVL trip metadata to the fare collection system to enhance fare collection system data collection and reporting.

1. J1708

• Our (GMV Syncromatics) CAD/AVL system sends three basic messages on the J1708 line that are intended for fareboxes.

• The first is a “firmware version request” which we use to validate communication. This is not strictly required for successful integration, but lets us know that the farebox is working if we get a response. Even without responding to this firmware request, the fare system may still listen for and receive the assignment.

• Sample firmware request message:

o [SAMPLE FIRMWARE REQUEST MESSAGE] 188 128 234 196 22;

MID 188 : Vehicle Logic Control Unit;

PID 128 : Component Specific Parameter Request;

Requested Parameter: 234; Firmware Version Request;

Receiver MID: 196 - Fare Collection Unit;

Component-specific request; Parameter requested: 234, MID queried: 196

• The second and third messages are the driver and route identification messages. These are not addressed specifically to fareboxes, and may be picked up by any other devices on the line:

o [SAMPLE DRIVER IDENTIFICATION

MESSAGE] 188 255 251 5 48 48 48 48 42 91;

MID 188 : Vehicle Logic Control Unit;

PID 507 : Driver Identification 0000 o [SAMPLE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION

MESSAGE] 188 255 252 15 55 49 48 42 55 49 51 5742 55 49 51 57 45

56 65;

MID 188 : Vehicle Logic Control Unit;

PID 508 : Transit Route Identification;

Assigned route: 710;

Assigned run: 7139;

Assigned block: 7139-8

• This method is fully onboard the vehicle and does not require the fare system to be connected to the server.

• Includes driver, route, run, and trip (note that the value called “block” in the J1708 message above is actually referring to the trip ID).

• This method does not include vehicle position (GPS) information, clock synchronization, or features other than the above and we do not intend to add them. Proposers can get vehicle position information from our system via the server using either of the below methods.

2. Track API

• Recommend periodic polling of (or web socket subscription to) the “Search Vehicles” endpoint, documented here:

https://syncromaticstrackapi.docs.apiary.io/#reference/customer-data/vehicles/search-vehicles

• This endpoint, when called without a search query, will return all vehicles as well as their current assignment information, including route, run, trip, and driver. It also includes vehicle position (GPS) information.

• Details on the web socket real-time connection are available here:

https://syncromaticstrackapi.docs.apiary.io/#introduction/track-real-time-api and the information returned when subscribing to VEHICLES is the same as the REST endpoint linked above.

• We do not have a Sandbox. The successful proposer will be provided access to the live data for testing during system design.

3. GTFS-RT

• Proposers can access and test this immediately here: http://live.cherriots.org/gtfs-rt/vehiclepositions

• The vehicle position feed includes the trip assignment, which can be referenced against the static file here: http://live.cherriots.org/gtfs to get the route and block information.

• This does not include driver information but it does include vehicle position (GPS) information.

https://syncromaticstrackapi.docs.apiary.io/#reference/customer-data/vehicles/search-vehicles https://syncromaticstrackapi.docs.apiary.io/#reference/customer-data/vehicles/search-vehicles https://syncromaticstrackapi.docs.apiary.io/#introduction/track-real-time-api http://live.cherriots.org/gtfs-rt/vehiclepositions http://live.cherriots.org/gtfs-rt/vehiclepositions http://live.cherriots.org/gtfs

GMV Syncromatics Contact Information:

Alex Fay Chief Commercial Officer 310-728-6997 alex@gmvsync.com

Note: SAMTD wishes to thank GMV Syncromatics for their assistance providing this information in support of our solicitation process.

60. Question: Requirement: Exhibits 13 and 14 - Does SAMTD need to have Exhibits 13 and 14 submitted as Excel files or may the Proposer submit it as an attachment to a PDF response document?

Response: Please submit responses on the forms provided. They can be submitted in an Excel file, as a PDF attachment, or inserted as part of a PDF response proposal.

61. Question: Requirement: DBE Goal - Is there a DBE Goal for Proposers?

Response: SAMTD has an overall DBE participation goal of 2.49%. While we strive to meet this goal in our procurements, there is not a specific goal tied to this solicitation.

62. Question: Requirement: Forms - Please confirm that forms can be marked as Not Applicable if there isn't a DBE being used to complete the forms.

Response: Please refer to solicitation instructions found in Part 1, Section 3.1(J) “Required Forms”. If a form does not apply to your business or Proposal, please mark the form “Not Applicable.” Sign and date each form. Some forms may require notarization. Failure to complete all forms may result in your Proposal being ruled nonresponsive. Nonresponsive Proposals will not be evaluated or awarded a contract.

63. Question: Is SAMTD using a consultant in the development of the RFP or in its evaluation?

64. Question: Requirement: 3.1 Fare Media - The system must support the use of student/university IDs for institutional partners who participate in the Group or Employer Pass Program. - Can SAMTD provide a list of universities and institutional partners who will be participating in the Group or Employer Pass Program?

Response: Not at this time. This item was intended more to have the Proposer identify how they have provided such capabilities to similar institutions in previous implementations.

65. Question: Requirement: 3.1 Fare Media - The application should electronically validate through Near Field Contact (NFC) technology or through an optical scanner. Visual validation by SAMTD staff will not be accepted as a primary means of ticket validation. –

a. Is SAMTD requesting a Host Card Emulation solution?

b. Is SAMTD requesting a closed loop smartcard credential stored in the OEM wallet?

Response: a. No.

b. Yes. The issued smart card can only be used for open fare payment on the SAMTD system, managed through the required account based customer portal, and recharged at a recharge kiosk or our customer service counter. Our fare structure is unique and thus this is a SAMTD only account system.

66. Question: Requirement: 3.2 Hardware Validators shall integrate with the existing CAD/AVL system to enable:

• Single sign-on for bus operators

• Automated capture of current route and trip information

• Appending of route and trip information to fare payment transaction records

Can SAMTD describe what data is part of trip information?

Response: Our current Genfare system codes the route, bus number and time where a day-pass was issued, so the Proposers FPS system should be able to improve upon this by also minimally including the stop, by STOP ID, where the fare was used, both of which are available from the CAD/AVL system.

67. Question: Requirement: 3.2 Hardware • Proposer shall describe the possibility for implementation on vehicles operating a Mobility on Demand service, such as TransLoc or Via. - Does SAMTD have a preference for what type of hardware is implemented in a Mobility on Demand service vehicle?

Response: No, SAMTD does not have a preference.

68. Question: Requirement: 3.6 Integrations • The system shall provide the ability to integrate with SAMTD’s current financial software, Accufund, through CSV export or other proposed solution as mutually agreed to. – Can SAMTD provide the data scheme that Accufund requires for CSV files?

Response: In consultation with our finance team they indicate that we would use an export to reconcile the revenue collected by the bank, so the nature of the feed is relatively uncomplicated. Should a schema be required SAMTD will work with the successful Proposer to identify the proper format for a CSV file.

69. Question: Requirement: 3.6 Integrations • Proposer shall describe the ability of the system to integrate with other financial / ERP software, such as Tyler Munis, particularly through APIs or other automated methods. - Can SAMTD describe the integration point for Tyler Munis ERP software?

Response: Minimally the import of fare data, preferably including transaction information (type of fare paid, amount, date). This requirement is primarily to have the Proposer identify what type of data they can provide to an ERP, or as the requirement says, the ability to provide data relevant to a financial system.

70. Question: Requirement: 3.6 Integrations • Proposer shall describe the ability of the system to use APIs to integrate with other systems or software, such as TNCs, bike share, bike lockers, etc. - Can SAMTD provide a list of other systems or software that they potentially forsee integrating with?

Response: Not at this time. If the Proposer has successfully integrated with outside service providers similar to the examples, that should be specified in the response.

71. Question: Due to the pending release of Addendum 1, we would like to formally ask for a due date extension for all final legal and technical modifications/exceptions, until at least after release of all pertinent Addenda, as this could have an impact on our modifications and/or legal exceptions.

Response: RFP timelines are unchanged at this point. If there is a need to modify timelines and extend additional time for clarifications after release of Addendum #1, SAMTD may consider an allowance for additional time. All changes to solicitation timelines will be communicated through an Addendum to the solicitation and publicly advertised.

72. Question: May we also please request clarification on how and when SAMTD will respond to legal and technical modifications/exceptions (the procurement timeline does not seem to indicate this).

Response: As identified in the solicitation instructions, SAMTD will respond to all questions, requests for clarification, and request for modification to the solicitation in an Addendum to be released on 9/2/2021.

73. Question: Part 1, Section 12 - For the responses to questions date, I believe there is a typo.

Did you mean September 2 instead of August 2?

Response: Yes, however Addendum #1 extended the Responses to Questions date to

9/7/2021 at 5:00PM Pacific Time.

74. Question: Part 2, Section 3 (GMV Syncromatics integration) - In the previous version of this procurement (RFP 20-040), as part of Addendum #4, Cherriots provided technical information from GMV Syncromatics.