RFP 22-029 Transit Signal Priority Project - Addendum 1 With Exhibits A-B-C.pdf

RFP 22-029- Addendum #1

SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP 22-029

TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY PROJECT

ADDENDUM #1

Salem Area Mass Transit District is providing information and making changes / additions / modifications / revisions as an Addendum to RFP 22-029.

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

1. Question: Is it possible to get a list of the signal controller types at each intersection?

Response: Each intersection described in Appendix A is equipped with Opticom controllers.

At current, exhibit C describes all equipment installed in the 332 series cabinets at the pilot intersections. All of the intersections currently have emergency vehicle priority using Opticom equipment, except for Hayesville, however, it will have when the new signal gets built next year.

They all use 711 detectors and attached is a list of Discriminator (Card) model used at each intersection. The proposer is supplying McCain ATC controllers (McCain ATC Controller, Model 2070LX), if their solution requires it, as part of this project, so that TSP can be provided at each of the intersections.

2. Question: Clarifying interconnected signals information: are all of these in phase connected on fiber or cellular network & connectivity to controllers?

Response: Most of the City’s intersections are on fiber circuit, with a few signals at the south end using copper interconnect.

3. Question: Regarding intersections that are network (TSP systems), can we talk directly to the intersections or do we have to go through a central system for prioritization request?

Response: The prioritization request will be sent through the McCain system that the City uses.

4. Question: Can we get information about the firmware and if they have TSP modules installed as well.

Response: A number of the intersections do have the emergency services with signal priority; otherwise refer to the response to Question 1 above.

5. Question: Can we get information regarding frequency of the CAD/AVL or GPS tackers; how frequently do they update?

Response: The current interval is 4 seconds for updates.

6. Question: In terms of deployment, is the hosting on premise or the vendors cloud for deployment?

Response: The proposer’s cloud is acceptable. The City is prepared to host an appliance that connects to the solution, through a proxy, but is adamant that they will maintain administrative control over how the software control functions.

7. Question: Verify DBE statement within the RFP; conflicting information regarding DBE’s – please clarify.

Response: SAMTD has an overall agency goal for DBE participation of 2.49%. There is not a specific contract goal for DBE participation tied to this solicitation. SAMTD encourages the use of DBE suppliers in its contracting practices.

8. Question: Authority to interact with traffic signals: what type of certification or licensing is required for vendors to engage with systems?

Response: Licenses and certification is relevant to conducting business in Oregon, not the City specifically.

9. Question: What is the update rate, in seconds, of Syncromatics GTFS-RT?

Response: See response to Question 5 above.

10. Question: Do the intersections have existing connectivity? If so, how many intersections have existing connectivity and what kind of connectivity do they have?

Response: See response to Question 2 above.

11. Question: How many of the buses utilize the IBR900 modem and how many utilize the IBR1100 modem?

Response: 26 buses use the IBR900, and 48 buses use the IBR1100.

12. Question: What are the makes/models of the traffic controllers at the intersections?

Response: See response to Question 1 above and Exhibit C.

13. Question: With an electronic submission via email, are there any file size restrictions?

Response: While file sizes are not typically a problem, best practices suggest that enclosures should not exceed 7MB.

14. Question: Will the RFP Bids and the Best and Final Offers be opened publicly?

Response: No. This is a Request For Proposals (RFP) process.

15. Question: Could you please clarify how many signals are proposed for Phase 2 and for Phase 3?

Response: Phase 1 : FY23 ‐ High Traffic Corridor(s) - 22 Intersections Phase 2 : FY25 ‐ Core - 88 Intersections Phase 3 : TBD ‐ Bordering 84 Intersections

16. Question: Could you please list the traffic signal controller types and firmware?

17. Question: Could you please list all of the project intersections that have Ethernet interconnect by type (I.e. fiber optic, radio, microwave, Ethernet over copper… etc.)?

18. Question: Page 3 of the RFP states that Cherriots has 64 local vehicles and 15 regional vehicles. The pricing template requests equipment for 68 vehicles. Which vehicle fleet(s) will TSP equipment be installed on? If it is only local vehicles, what are the extra 4 vehicles with TSP equipment intended for?

Response: The additional vehicles are forecasted Gillig Buses due in 2023.

19. Question: Does Cherriots have access to Cradlepoint NetCloud software to facilitate remote configuration of on-board routers?

Response: Yes.

20. Question: Page 11 of the RFP states "It is SAMTD’s desire to use the CAD/AVL (specifically GMV Syncromatics) technology on the buses for providing the vehicle headway on-time schedule data for TSP interface". Beyond the GTFS-RT feeds listed in Appendix B, what data feeds does GMV Syncromatics provide to indicate vehicle headway and/or on-time status in real-time?

Response: The only other data would be the RTPI-API, which is the GMV Syncromatics proprietary API for real time information.

21. Question: Could you please confirm the make, model and firmware of the traffic controllers at the intersections included in the scope for Phase 1?

22. Question: Can you please confirm that the intersections in question already possess a TSP software module / functionality on their controllers?

23. Question: Can you please confirm if the Phase 1 intersections already have network connectivity and are on the same network?

24. Question: Can you please confirm which intersections (if any) are owned and managed by

ODOT?

Response: No intersections in Phase 1 are operated by ODOT.

25. Question: Can you please elaborate on the central system(s) that are connected to the Phase 1 intersections?

Response: See response to Question 3 above.

26. Question: Will the vendor’s system be able to place NTICP commands directly to the Phase 1 controllers over your network(s) or will the requests be placed to a central system which will be responsible for relaying TSP requests to the intersections?

Response: Given that the City controls all timing for intersections and is the ultimate arbiter of all request for green light extensions, the requests should expect to be conveyed through the central system.

27. Question: Understanding that they are out of scope for Phase 1, could you please provide an estimate on the number of intersections that could be in scope for later phases?

Response: See response to Question 15 above.

28. Question: Assuming that the cloud-based TSP system is hosted on the vendor’s cloud – could you please provide guidance on if this project should be priced on an ongoing annual basis or for a predetermined length of time coinciding with the 5 year maintenance periods outlined in the RFP?

Response: Proposals should price all costs over a period of 5 years.

29. Question: What are the specifications of the signal equipment at the intersection? What cards are installed and what is their firmware rev.?

30. Question: Which intersections are already equipped with TSP for emergency services? If they are equipped, what is the revision of the Opticom gear including firmware revs.?

Response: All of the intersections currently have emergency vehicle priority using Opticom equipment, except for Hayesville, however, it will have it when the new signal gets built next year. They all use 711 detectors and attached Exhibit C is a list of Discriminator (Card) model used at each intersection.

31. The Agenda for Pre-Proposal Conference that was held on 9/9/2022 is attached as Exhibit H to this Addendum.

32. The Attendance Sheet for the Pre-Proposal Conference that was held on 9/9/2022 is attached as

Exhibit I to this Addendum.

All other specifications and terms and conditions remain unchanged.

By: Daniel M. Knauss Procurement & Contracts Manager

Salem Area Mass Transit District 555 Court Street NE, Suite 5230 Salem, Oregon 97301 September 16, 2022

TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY PROJECT

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING AGENDA

SAMTD RFP No. 22-029 Project Name: Transit Signal Priority Project (TSP)

Friday September 9th, 2022 at 10:00 AM 555 Court Street NE, #5230, Salem, OR 97301 (Mill Creek Conference Room)

A. WELCOME

1. Sign-in sheet

2. Introductions

a. Procurement Contact: Dan Knauss, Procurement & Contracts Manager

b. Project Manager: Steve Dickey, Director of Technology & Project Management

Chip Colby, Information Technology Manager

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, DELIVERY METHOD & SCHEDULE

1. Description: SAMTD is soliciting Proposals for services to provide and install a Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system. The system will be interfaced with the SAMTD Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and configured for operation on SAMTD buses. The purpose of the system is to facilitate a green light cycle to be held longer when approaching a high-transit corridor intersection, and when a bus is behind schedule, allowing an opportunity for the bus to catch-up, thus aiding its return to schedule. In certain locations, the system also will allow the bus to use right turn only lanes, with dedicated right turn only signals, to be used as bus queue-jump lanes.

The Term of a resultant contract will be a five (5) year base term with two (2) additional one (1) year option periods..

• A resultant contract will include the scope of services and specifications and all work as identified in PART 2 of this solicitation.

• Successful proposer shall be licensed by the State of Oregon to do the work required under the resultant contract.

• All items or services to be furnished under the solicitation and resultant contract shall meet all applicable state and federal requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Standard.

• Successful proposer shall obtain and maintain in current status all applicable permits and licenses.

2. Delivery Method—Project will be performed under a single Prime Contract.

3. Project Schedule and Completion Time:

a. Notice of Intent To Award: November 10, 2022 (Estimate)

b. Notice Proceed: December 1, 2022 (Estimate)

c. Service completion:

• Substantial Contract Completion on or before December 31, 2027 (Base Term Estimate)

• Final Completion on or before December 31, 2029 (If All Options Are Exercised - Estimate)

C. PROPOSAL PROCESS AND PROPOSER INSTRUCTIONS

1. Request for Proposal, Plans, Specifications, Addenda, and other related documents for this project are available on the procurement page of the ODOT OregonBuys website.

www.oregonbuys.com Notice #KS2410-00004206 & RFP 22-029

2. Important Dates:

a. Submit Questions Deadline: September 13, 2022: 4:00PM PDT

b. Issue Addendum Response to Questions: September 16, 2022: 5:00PM PDT

c. Solicitation Closes: September 30, 2022: 4:00PM PDT

SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT

Transit Signal Priority Project

Addendum #1EXHIBIT A

PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING AGENDA

SAMTD RFP No.: 22-029 Transit Signal Priority Project (TSP) Friday September 9th, at 10:00 AM 555 Court Street NE, #5230, Salem, OR 97301 (Mill Creek Conference Room)

d. Issue Notice Of Intent To Award: November 10, 2022: (Estimate)

e. Contract Award and Notice To Proceed: December 1, 2022: (Estimate)

3. Required Proposal Submittals — See required items on Salem Area Mass Transit District “Instructions For

Proposers” and “Exhibits” included in the Request For Proposal.

D. SAFETY AND SECURITY

1. Safety Requirements—Job Site Conditions

• The successful proposer shall take all necessary precautions for the safety of all personnel on the job site, and shall comply with the Contract Documents and all applicable provisions of federal, state and municipal safety laws and building codes to prevent accidents or injury to persons on, about or adjacent to the premises where the Work is being performed. The Owner's Authorized Representative has no responsibility for Work site safety. Work site safety is the responsibility of the successful proposer.

2. Site Visitation & Viewing

• Proposers may view the site areas where work is to be performed. Proposers may submit requests to view the site where work is to be performed. Viewing may take place between the hours of 9:00AM – 3:00PM, Monday – Friday. Proposer must have an appointment scheduled in advance. If a Proposer arrives to view the site without a prior appointment, SAMTD may not accommodate the request. To schedule an appointment to view the site please contact:

• Chip Colby, IT Manager / Project Manager ……………….………… 503-361-7501

E. INSURANCE

Requirements as identified in RFP 22-029 Exhibit B - Sample Contract, Special Contract Conditions, Section SP.7 “Insurance”.

F. BONDING

Requirements as identified in RFP 22-013 PART 1, Section 3 “Instructions For Proposers”. This requirement is “Reserved” for this procurement.

G. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Compliance with local requirements for the Jurisdictions where work is performed.

2. Coordination with SAMTD Security and Business Operations. SAMTD Project Manager will be liaison with these SAMTD organizations.

H. SAMTD SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS

Please review all solicitation documents thoroughly to ensure complete understanding of all supplementary conditions and instructions.

I. TOUR OF AREA WHERE WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED

Proposers may view the site areas where work is to be performed as identified in the solicitation documents under “Site Visitation & Viewing”.

J. SCOPE OVERVIEW BY SAMTD PROJECT MANAGER

K. QUESTION & ANSWER PERIOD

SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT

Transit Signal Priority Project

Addendum #1EXHIBIT B

SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT RFP 22‐029

Transit Signal Priority Project EXHIBIT C Addendum #1

262 562 752 762 764

1 1

Market

Cooley

Ward

NO CARDS PRESENTHayesville

Aumsville

Carson

Hwy 22

Sunnyview

Wolverine

Beverly

Devonshire

Silverton

Rickey

MacLeay

Durbin

State

Intersection: Card Model

Lancaster Corridor Opticom Card (Current

Cabinet Inventory)

D St.

Amber

Regal

Auburn

Center

Denver