RFP_250066_PP_gmedits.docx
DOCX document 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- OCTA Preserves Property Patrol Services
- Solicitation number
- 250066
- Issued by
- Orange County, California
About this file
This is a Procurement Plan memo from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for RFP 250066, Property Patrol Services. The RFP seeks qualified consultants to provide property patrol services for a two-year contract term. The procurement type is Request for Proposals rather than Invitation for Bid, as selection involves multiple evaluation factors beyond cost considerations. The evaluation criteria are weighted as follows: Qualifications of the Firm (30%), Staffing/Project Organization (25%), Work Plan (20%), and Cost (25%). The heavier weighting on firm qualifications ensures prior experience with similar services, while the staffing and cost criteria verify adequate personnel and competitive pricing. The work plan weighting at 20 percent ensures contractors demonstrate understanding of project requirements and scope completion capability.
The contract will be structured as a Time and Expense agreement with firms proposing hourly rates for specified services, as no detailed Scope of Work with individual tasks is provided. The total budget is $295,000 for the two-year term with funding from Measure M sources. An independent cost estimate has been received and Requisition R000434 is in place. No retention, prevailing wage, liquidated damages, or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals apply to this procurement. The suggested internal evaluation team includes Tiffany Chhan (Transportation Analyst, Project Development), Lauren Sato (Senior Transportation Analyst, Project Development), and Kameron Altar (Program Management Analyst, Security & Emergency Preparedness).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| OCTA_Preserves_Property_Patrol_Services_(Addendum_#1_Revision).pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_PP-APPROVED.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_PS.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP_250066_PP.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_250066_SOW_Exhibit_A.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_Agreement_Exhibit_C.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_Price_Summary_Sheet_Exhbit_B.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_Agreement_Exhibit_C_gmedits.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_250066_PS_gmedits.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP_250066_SOW_Exhibit_A_GMEDITS.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_250066_Public_Notice.doc | DOC document | |
| RFP_250066_Form_700.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_SOWV.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_ICE.pdf | ||
| RFP_250066_Insurance_Indemnification_Memo.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_250066_Safety_Specifications_Exhibit_D.pdf |
Show all 16
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
October 13, 2025
To: Tiffany Chhan, Transportation Analyst, Project Development
From: Michael Cardozo, Contract Administrator, CAMM
Subject: PROCUREMENT PLAN - RFP 250066, “Property Patrol Services”
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 |
| 30% |
| Staffing/Project Organization |
| 25% |
| Work Plan |
| 20% |
| Cost |
| 25% |
Justification: The standard 25 percent for each criterion was not used for this procurement. Qualifications of the firm is weighted at 30 percent to ensure firms have prior experience performing similar services. Staffing and project organization and cost are weighted at 25 percent as the firm must demonstrate it has the requisite personnel for this project and that firm-fixed rates remain competitive so OCTA receives value for the services provided. Work plan is weighted at 20 percent each as the firm must demonstrate it has the understanding associated with this project in order to complete the tasks required under the scope of work.
Contract Type: |X| Time & Expense |_| CTO-Based |_| Firm Fixed Price
Justification: (Explain the rationale for using the particular contract type):
The contract type is time-and-expense because firms are requested to propose hourly rates for the services specified in the Scope of Work. The RFP does not have a specific Scope of Work detailing individual tasks. Therefore, a firm-fixed price contract cannot be used.
| Retention: |
| |_| Yes |
| |X| 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:
Tiffany Chhan, Transportation Analyst, Project Development Lauren Sato, Senior Transportation Analyst, Project Development Kameron Altar, Program Management Analyst, Security & Emergency Preparedness
Contract Term: Two (2)-year term
Funding Source: |_| Local |X| Measure M |_| FTA |_| FHWA
Dollar Amount: |X| Term $295,000.00
Independent Cost Estimate Received: |X| Yes |_| No
Requisition Received: |X| Yes Req. R000434
DBE Goal: |_| Yes |X| No
Project Manager Concurrence:
| _________________________________________ | ______________ | |
| Tiffany Chhan, Transportation Analyst, Project Development | 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 .