To:   HONORABLE MAYOR AND                   From:   Jose Obregon

                        CITY COUNCIL                                                        James R. Helmer

 

   Subject:   SEE BELOW                                               Date:   October 15, 2003

 

 

SUBJECT:  REPORT ON RFP FOR PARKING CITATION COLLECTION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER

                                               

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Adoption of a resolution authorizing the Director of General Services to:

 

a)      Execute a one-year agreement with four, one-year options to renew with Turbo Data Systems to act as the primary representative for the City’s parking citation processing and collection services, with a total first year compensation not to exceed $500,000;  

 

b)      Approve a $50,000 contingency to cover any unanticipated increase in the volume of parking citations and related transactions; and

 

c)      Execute each of the options to renew without further City Council action other than the appropriation of necessary funding.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

The current agreement for parking citation processing and fee collection has been in effect for over five years.  In accordance with City purchasing policy, City staff prepared a request for Proposal (RFP) outlining functions and service level standards required for a citation processing/collection system, and a walk-in customer service center, located in the downtown area.

 

The citation processing function includes:

·        Issuance of citation notices

·        Collection of payments

·        Notification of past due invoices

·        Special collections

 

The minimum qualifications and requirements in order to submit a proposal include:

 

·        At least five years of proven experience in the operation of a parking citation processing and collections program for a large public agency.

·        The ability to provide a multi-lingual walk-in customer service office in compliance with City’s operational and geographic specifications.

·        The ability to provide a multi-lingual telephone response system.

·        The ability to provide a web site for on-line citation inquiry, payment and disposition. 

 

 

ANALYSIS

 

On May 13, 2003, the RFP process was initiated with key milestones and dates as demonstrated in Table 1.  The RFP was advertised on the City’s bid line and distributed to 14 companies.  The RFP required all interested companies to participate in a mandatory pre-proposal conference. Companies were allowed to meet the pre-proposal meeting requirement by attending in-person or via conference call.  Seven companies participated in the pre-proposal conference, and three companies submitted proposals by the July 21, 2003 deadline.  All of the milestone dates were met.

                                               

   Milestone

Completion Date

Requirement Advertised in City’s bid line

5/13/03

RFP Available for Distribution

5/27/03

Written Questions Due

6/13/03

Answers to Written Questions Distributed

6/23/03

Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference

6/30/03

Proposals Due

7/21/03

                                                            Table 1

 

Companies submitting proposals were:

 

·        ACS State and Local Solutions (ACS);

·        Enforcement Technology Incorporated; and

·        Turbo Data Systems, Inc. (TDS)

 

A proposal evaluation panel consisting of cross-functional representation from the Department of Transportation and the Redevelopment Agency was formed.  All panel members were briefed by Purchasing on the evaluation rules and scoring process as set forth in the Municipal Code 4.13.040 prior to receiving proposals.  In order to ensure consistency in scoring, it was mandatory that all panel members attend all discussions as well as the oral interviews with the participating bidders.

 

The general criteria, as set forth in Municipal Code 4.13.040, used to evaluate the technical proposals were:

 

·        Capability and expertise of the contractor including quality of personnel and financial stability.

·        Quality and content of the proposal, including meeting RFP criteria and overall responsiveness.

·        Adherence to applicable Council policies as specified in this document.

·        Past service and performance record of the incumbent supplier.

·        References.

·        Price.

 

The process for evaluating and scoring consisted of the following:

 

1.      A high level proposal review – conducted by Purchasing - to ensure that all required forms were included and properly executed.

2.      A technical evaluation and scoring of the proposals.  Each member of the evaluation panel independently scored each proposal.

3.      Oral interviews were held with all proposers meeting minimum requirements as set forth in the RFP, and demonstrating the capability to meet the City’s requirements.  Again, panel members were instructed to independently score the oral interview.

4.      An analysis of the cost proposals (cost proposals were submitted as separate sealed documents, and not shared with the evaluation panel until after the completion of the technical evaluation of the proposals).

 

Table 2 summarizes the evaluation results and rankings of steps 1-3 as listed above:

 

Company

High Level Review

(Pass/Fail)

Technical Evaluation Score

(100% max)

Oral Interview Score

(100% max)

ACS State and Local Solutions

Pass

93.8 %

76.5 %

Enforcement Technology Incorporated

Pass

45.6 %

N/A

Turbo Data Systems, Inc

Pass

91.8 %

73.2 %

                                                                        Table 2

 

Enforcement Technology was not invited to participate in the oral interview process because their proposal did not address several key minimum requirements of the City.  Specifically, their proposal did not address the multi-lingual telephone response requirement or the web-site for on-line citation inquiry, payment and disposition requirement and addressed the walk-in customer service center as an option instead of a requirement.

 

Both ACS and Turbo Data submittals earned very close scores, as demonstrated in Table 2.  The evaluation panel determined that both companies should be invited for oral interviews.

 

Each company was allowed a maximum of two principals and/or other senior officials to represent their company in the oral interview. All participants were asked a series of identical questions under the categories of “General,” “Training,” and “Supervision.”  The purpose of the interviews was to further validate each company’s understanding of the City’s requirements, and understand their perspective on past and future industry trends.  Members from the City evaluation panel independently scored each question that was asked.

 

Both companies did an excellent job in the oral interviews, with approximately three percentage points separating the scores of the two companies.

 

 

EVALUATION SUMMARY

 

At the conclusion of the technical evaluation and oral review process, the evaluation panel agreed that both ACS and Turbo Data have very close overall scores, with ACS having a slight advantage.

 

The panel then reviewed the pricing proposals submitted by each company. 

 

During the RFP process, the City’s actual citation information for a three-month period was provided to the proposers.  This data contained citation volume (handheld and manual), credit card volume, and special collections.  Citation processing fees proposed by ACS and Turbo Data are comprised of several factors including, a base fee for each citation processed, discounts for citations processed by automated handheld units, a surcharge for citation payments made by credit card and fees for special collections. 

 

Based on the City’s citation volume and the factors outlined above, ACS’ proposed fees resulted in an average fee of $2.33 per citation, while Turbo Data’s proposed fees resulted in an average fee of $2.02 per citation.  Therefore, ACS’ proposed pricing is approximately 15% higher, or $77,452 per year higher than Turbo Data’s.  This equates to $387,256 over the five-year term of the agreement.

 

 

Table 3 compares each Company’s proposed pricing against the City’s average of actual citation volumes for April through June 2003.


                                                                           Table 3                     

           

The final evaluation criteria that the panel considered were the past service and performance record of incumbent supplier Turbo Data Systems.  Turbo Data’s performance for the past five years has been exemplary.   As the City’s citation issuance has expanded, TDS has exceeded the City’s processing and payment requirements.  TDS has voluntarily and without additional costs to the City has implemented additional technology features and service improvements such as:

 

·        Improving services by implementing data transmissions through a virtual private network (VPN).

·        Implementing an on-line payment web-site with credit card payment capabilities.

·        Implementing a paperless on-line reporting system.

·        Provided assistance to the City by providing comparative data of other Cities for benchmarking including parking citation penalty schedules, collection rates, and numerous special reports on an as requested.

 

In conclusion, the evaluation panel agreed that both suppliers are excellent and either would be able to meet the City’s citation processing requirements.  The decisive factors in recommending Turbo Data was their track record with the City, and their lower cost.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Living Wage

This contract is subject to the City's Living Wage Policy, which includes a mandated minimum level of compensation to employees responsible for collections.  The minimum level of compensation required is $10.10 per hour if health benefits are provided or $11.35 per hour if health benefits are not provided. 

 

Local Business Preference

Turbo Data claimed status as a San Jose based supplier in accordance with Resolution 64649 of the City’s Local Preference Policy for the procurement of general services.  Turbo Data has ten full time employees in their San Jose office.

 

Managed Competition

The City does not have the collection expertise or an existing IT infrastructure to perform the

duties of this agreement. 

 

 

PUBLIC OUTREACH

 

Posted on the City’s Bidline.

 

 

COORDINATION

 

This memorandum has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office, the City Manager’s Budget Office and the Department of Public Works/Office of Equality Assurance.

 

 

COST IMPLICATIONS

 

This item is consistent with the Council approved Budget Strategy recommendation under General Principles #2, “We must focus on protecting our vital core city services,”  

 

City’s RFP required that pricing shall remain fixed for the five-year duration of the Agreement. Turbo Data proposed prices are consistent with their current rates.

 

 

BUDGET REFERENCE

 

Fund #

Appn #

Appn Name

Total

Appn.

Amt. For Contract

Proposed 2003-2004 Operating Budget

Last Budget Action, Date Ord.No.

001

2028

Parking Citation and Processing

554,219

550,000

Page 683

 

 

 

 

CEQA

 

Not a project

 

 

Jose Obregon

Director of General Services

 

James R. Helmer

Director of Transportation