HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Correspondence-RFP-09-10026 City of Miami Traffic Infraction Detector ProgramSeptember 15, 2010
Commissioner Wifredo Gort
Chairman Commissioner Marc Sornoff
Vice Chairman Commissioner Frank Carollo
Commissioner Francis Suarez
Commissioner Richard P. Dunn
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Re; RFP 09-10-026 City of Miami Traffic Infraction Detector Program
Dear Commissioners:
As the Commission is aware, the City originally awarded its Traffic Infraction Detector
Program to ACS in January 2009, However, the award was delayed nearly eight months
due to a protest by ATS. The City Manager upheld their protest and recommended
award to ATS. Subsequently, ACS protested this award decision and the Commission
upheld ACS' protest. In the end, no vendor was awarded the contract and a new RFP
was released. On August 18th, the Evaluation Committee submitted a recommendation
to the City for a selection of American Traffic Solutions, Inc (ATS). ACS submitted a
response to the above RFP for the City's Traffic Infraction Detection Program. In fact,
we were the only other bidder to submit a proposal. ACS believes we have a solid case
for a protest of this award. However, in the interest of public safety (January will mark
two years since proposals were originaliy submitted), we elected not to Formally protest
this award — this life saving project needs to move forward, not be delayed with further
protests or possible lengthy court proceedings.
The purpose of this letter is to (1) make the Commission aware of significant issues
related to ATS` proposal that should be addressed in any possible contract the City may
enter into and (2) offer an alternative contracting option to the Commission of splitting
the contract between ATS and ACS - an approach that the Miami Beach Commission
recently approved and Miami Dade County is considering. This approach would
significantly reduce the City's program risk and increase the implementation speed of
this critical public safety program.
Please be advised that if Proposers were afforded the opportunity for Oral Presentations
as part of the RFP process, the issues below would have been brought to the attention
of the Evaluation Committee for consideration. Unlike most sizable municipal
procurements in Florida and previous procurements in the City of Miami Oro[
Presentations, were not requested by the Evaluation Commission. Consequently, we
have no other option but to bring these issues to the attention of the City Commission
at the time of award,
ACS
A xerox i1 Company
Alter Shutt
Vice Pre4sdem
ACS Pubk Safety Sdubvis
AU. A Xerox Company
12414 hlileuaneCenter Or
Gei mantawn, IUD 24875
a1erLAxC@or,1reea0rn
cel 443 415.$582
rw 301 820 4254
l)
UJ
co
U -
Lu—
C)
W
W
7D
r-.
�T
LU
o� 00 _ , I T, Fra
`°MACS
,'1 xefC35{ j,� Company
SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF CONCERN WITH ATS' PROPOSAL
7s the ATS Program Manager 100% dedicated to the City of Miami on a full
time basis as required in the RFP?
The Evaluation Committee references the qualifications of ATS' proposed Project
Manager, Justin McDole, as a reason ATS was selected over ACS. Requirement 3,11
Key Personnel states "A Program Manager must be assigned to the Program on a
full time basis". ATS refers to Mr. Justin McDole as their proposed Miami Program
Manager. But no where is Mr. McDole referenced as full time to the City. Quite the
contrary, when Mr. McDole is referenced it is more of a play on words to give the
City the impression Mr- McDole is full time to the City. For example:
• Cover Letter - "Single point of contact through your dedicated Program
Manager who has been responsible for the implementation of seven Florida
programs including Coral Gables, Homestead and Collier County."
• Page 3 - "Program Management/Business Plan- the City will have a single point
of contact, the Program Manager during the implementation and operation of
the program."
• Page 3 - "Program Manager Justin McDole is currently overseeing seven
Intersection Safety Camera Programs-"
• Page 45 - "As the program Manager, Justin will manage client relations as well
as analyze client issues and implement best course of action to bring those
issues to a mutually satisfactory resolution. This involves regular
communication with the City of Miami Staff."
Page 77 - "Justin McDole is the ATS Program Manager and the City's single
point for contract throughout the contract period."
The play on words such as "dedicated", "regular communication" and "single point"
of contact with the City does not mean Mr- McDole is full time to the City- In fact, it
is clear that Mr. McDole will not be 100 % dedicated to solely the City of Miami's
project, We respectfully request that AT5 be required to deliver what was required
by the RFP and draft contract and what ACS committed and priced in our proposal
to the City —a full time, 100 % dedicated project manager whose singular
responsibility is the implementation and management of the City's up to 78 Traffic
Infraction Detector System Program, Simply put, the City Commission should ask
ATS to address where Mr. McDole currently lives, how many projects he currently
manages (and in what states), if he plans to drop his current client base, if he will be
moving to the Miami Dade area, and if he will meet the requirement of being a full
time, 100 % City of Miami -dedicated Project Manager. That is what was required
by the City and that is what ACS proposed.
ACS' clearly articulated our intent to provide a full time, 100 % City of Miami -
dedicated Program Manager to the City, Mr, Dave Waddell. As detailed on Page 6-
1 of our proposal, ACS stated that Mr. Waddell was going to relocate from Illinois to
the Miami Dade area. The ACS proposal also clearly articulated that Mr. Waddell
would be supported by our Florida Regional Program Manager, Abby Jenkins who
has strong Florida experience in support of our programs in Miami Beach,
Bradenton, Manatee County and Tallahassee. The Commission deserves a straight
forward response from ATS aswell as a 100% commitment from Mr. McDole as its
sole project manager as this was a clear requirement in the RFP and ACS lost this
procurement in part due to the qualifications of this one person.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
ACS
A 3rr`f0?t 1p; Company
WilATS match ACS' pricing proposal to the City? ACS pricing was nearly $1M
lower than ATS over five years.
ACS was the lowest qualified bidder for this project but was not selected by the
Evaluation Committee. In fact, ACS was the low bidder on this project by nearly
$1 M over Five years. ACS strongly suggests that the Commission either ask ATS to
match ACS' price proposal or consider asking all vendors to submit BAFO pricing -
Does ATS' pricing include the required cost of certified mailing in the average
$4,438 monthly camera fee?
RFP Requirement B#Z Submission of Price Proposal explicitly states -"The Price
Proposal, in addition to all direct costs and expenses, shall include all other costs
and expenses including but not limited to such costs as the Proposer's general,
administrative and overhead costs (including cost of certified mail, if required)," In
proposals recently submitted by ATS in the stote of Florida, ATS charges a separate
certified mail or a certified mail processing transaction fee of $4.00 in addition to
the flat monthly fee. No where in the Miami proposal response does ATS indicate
their price includes the $4.00 cost of certified mail_ The results of this omission is the
ATS price is significantly higher than their average pricing of $4,438 per approach
and will ultimately result in a reduction in the City's overall expected revenue. The
difference between the ACS and ATS was significantly underestimated by the
Evaluation Committee, as certified mailing costs ARE included ACS' flat monthly
fees as quoted in our price proposal.
How doesATS propose to handle the City's money collected in this project?
In a common business model utilized by ATS, all fines collected for a project (in this
case fines collected on behalf of the City of Miami) would be paid to ATS'
subcontractor (Bank of America) and would be kept in an ATS' account until the end
of the month. Effectively, ATS holds the City's money all month, earns interest on
that money during the month, and does not even have to invoice the City to get
paid — as ATS only has to remit what is owed to the City at the end of each month.
ACS's business model utilized in providing photo enforcement and parking
enforcement collection services to major cities such as Los Angeles, Boston, Denver,
San Francisco, Dallas, New Orleans, and St. Louis — and proposed to the City of
Miami - provides that all payments be deposited into City accounts within 24 hours
of receipt while web and telephone payments ore immediotely wired into City
accounts.
The Commission should ask ATS to clarify how they will handle City funds and
invoice the City for payments under this program. This should be compared to the
benefits offered by ACS' proposal.
The Commission should also check with ATS to be sure they offer what is considered
true industry standard pay -by -phone in the 21 st century- In today's market, pay -by -
phone requires offering citizens the ability to call into an Integrated Voice Response
System 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year to make payments over
the phone by dialing in account and credit card numbers over the phone without
any human intervention. ATS has historically only offered a no -tech phone payment
alternative — citizens have to talk to an ATS operator during business hours who
runs their credit card information through their system -The payment then goes into
an ATS account, not the City's.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
AC S
A xero { ii,ti Company
Our proposal to the City ensures all mail payments are deposited within 24 hours
and all web or online phone payments are immediately wired to City accounts, not
ACS accounts. Our pay -by -phone system meets the industry standard for fully
automated, 24 hour, 365 -day solution. ACS proposal calls for invoicing the City at
the end of the month as opposed to collecting float on the City's money each
month and remitting only owed balances to the City,
At a minimum, the Commission should strongly consider requiring ATS to meet
these industry standards for daily deposits and online deposits into City accounts
and delivering a state of the art pay -by -web solution. ACS offered these items AND
at a price nearly $1 M lower than ATS over five years.
What camera system will ATS install in the City of Miami and which system was
proposed?
ATS proposed the use of its TC16MP camera system for the City of Miami, The
TC16MP camera offered by ATS is described in the ATS proposal as a commercial
grade camera solution offering scientific features and benefits — features we
believe are unavailable through ATS' legacy red light camera products. It is unclear
to ACS if the commercial grade TC16MP solution offered by ATS has ever been
installed or has a proven track record of operations in the State of Florida. What we
have observed is that on multiple occasions, ATS has proposed its TC16MP camera
solution in Florida jurisdictions such as Hillsborough County, Ft. Lauderdale, Royal
Palm Beach, and Collier County only to ultimately install its older legacy solution —
(see attached photos). If the TC16MP camera is actually operational, we believe it
is in its beta, development stage as opposed to a product proven and tested
throughout Florida. We don't doubt ATS has installed many of their older legacy
systems with 16mp consumer grade cameras in Florida and across the United
States. However, we do question whether ATS's newly released TC16MP camera
system is installed or has a proven track record of operations in the State of Florida
or anywhere else. This issue is significant to ACS as we lost this procurement to ATS'
newly released TC16MP camera solution, not their old legacy camera system. ATS
should be required to deliver this system to the City as it is what they proposed and
promised to deliver. We respectfully request that the Commission ask ATS to
provide a list of Florida cities including length of time where their newly released
and proposed TC16MP camera system (not their legacy camera system with a
consumer grade 16mp camera) is installed and operational.
ACS also requests that the Commission consider implementing checks and balances
to guarantee that the commercial grade TC16MP camera system proposed by ATS
is what is actually installed in each ATS camera housing. ATS should be held
accountable to what they proposed.
ACS' proposal offers a camera system technically superior in many respects to
the TC16MP system proposed by ATS.
The ACS camera system is superior to the ATS TC16MP camera system in the
following respects:
• Camera footprint — ACS' camera system is much smaller and aesthetically
appealing than ATS' system (see attached photos). Comparing only the camera
pole only, ACS only needs a flash box and a single camera box to cover a four
lane approach with three signal phases. The ATS system utilizes a large control
box, three non invasive traffic signal video camera boxes, a video camera box, a
still camera box, and a flash box — six boxes on their camera pole (ACS only
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
r.V A C S
A Xerox p k Cc;, -many
requires two boxes to cover the same approach because it is far more
advanced).
• Camera Resolution — ACS camera offers 21 mp of resolution compared to RTS
solution which offers only 16 mp.
• Non -Invasive Signal Detection — ACS offers real time traffic signal detection
using a single video camera ATS solution requires multiple video cameras and
is not real time.
Video Camera— ACS solution uses an HD Video camera. ATS solution uses an
analog system.
The City Evaluation Committee could have been made aware of these stark
differences in quality, features, and capability- However, the RFP strictly prohibited
vendors from comparing their products to competitors. Further, ACS Formally asked
the City if we could compare specific system features of the ACS system to the
system features of other vendor's systems however the City denied the request. To
our knowledge the Evaluation Committee has never seen the feature/system
comparison outlined above because the RFP prohibited such comparison
information from appearing in proposals.
ATS did not provide the City with a firm go -live date.
Vendors were required by the RFP to provide a firm go -live implementation
timeframe from notice to proceed as part of their proposals. The City clearly
understood that its Traffic Infraction Detector Program must be implemented as
soon as possible — intersections were currently unprotected in Miami and much
needed revenue would be lost every day the program was delayed. ACS provided a
firm go live date in its proposal (120 days from notice to proceed). Conversely, ATS
did not provide a firm go -live installation date. Rather, ATS only committed to
having the first intersection installed 30 days after permit approval and power
delivery. Effectively, the City could be forced to wait another year before the first
cameras go live in Miami and there would be no way to hold ATS accountable.
THE EVALUATION PROCE55
As we mentioned earlier in this letter, our purpose here is not to protest but to move
forward with a program. ACS had concerns that the City's most recent RFP was
developed and structured in such a manner that favored a vendor that had a large
installed base in the State of Florida, but we were confident the City's process would
provide a thorough evaluation. We suspect we were not alone in our concern — no
other vendor submitted a proposal other than ACS and ATS — clearly the RI=P scared
away competition. We were encouraged by the comments made during the bidder's
conference that the City's evaluation process would be fair, the proposals would be
thoroughly evaluated and the City's process would provide the opportunity for
personal interviews of the vendors. We hoped the City would respond favorably to
our question about comparing vendor systems as we knew this was a key to
highlighting the critical differences between our solution and our competitors.
Unfortunately, this is not what occurred. On 819 the Evaluation Committee
convened and after a 2 hour meeting, ATS was selected as the highest ranking
vendor without any further interest of the committee to perform additional due
diligence or to meet with either vendor.
We found it very unusual and unfair that the City's evaluation committee consisted
of five members, one of which was a current ATS customer which we believe
resulted in an unfair evaluation (Major Scott Masington is an ATS client). If the City
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
'Ak A C S
A XeFOX RP1° Company
desired to have a member on the evaluation committee that was an experienced
red light camera user, both an ATS and ACS user should have been placed on the
committee to provide input to the committee from their experiences with the both
vendors instead of a one sided bias comparison. Having an ATS user on the
evaluation committee did not offer an unbiased evaluation of the two vendors,
The ATS user became the defacto expert on the committee. When the Evaluation
Committee had a question about both vendor's proposals and the significance of a
component in the proposal they deferred to Major Mosington for his opinion. At a
minimum, ACS should have also had a client represented at that meeting an the
committee and/or if the Committee had questions, concerns or required
clarification both ACS and ATS should have been invited to a question and answer
session before a final selection was made. Instead, an ATS user was allowed to
serve as the committee's unofficial subject matter expert, answering many critical
questions and concerns. These answers were inevitably influenced consciously or
unconsciously by Mr. Masington's in-depth knowledge of the ATS system and lack of
any first-hand knowledge of the ACS system ultimately helped shift the decision to
ATS.
Considering the City had two qualified vendors respond to the RFP (both of whom
have finished first in RFP evaluations by City formed Evaluation Committees), the
fact that both vendors' technologies were ranked comparable, and the fact that the
ACS average pricing of $4,200 was significantly lower than the ATS average pricing
of $4,438, oral presentations should have been part of the process. We understand
the City is anxious to start the Traffic Infraction Detector Program, but oral
presentations would have provided the opportunity for the Committee to ask
questions of both vendors, evaluate technology, personally meet and assess the
program manager and to evaluate all the pricing components to determine if the
selected vendor's proposal is responsive and compliant with the RFP's requirements.
ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING OPTION
ACS offers the City of Miami an alternative contracting path for this project that
significantly reduces the City's program risk, and increases the implementation
speed of this critical public safety program.
The City of Miami's contract calls for up to 78 red light cameras to be installed as
quickly as possible in the City. Today, ATS has 61 contracts in Florida with 19
contracts in Miami Dade alone. We believe ATS has a current camera installation
backlog of no less than 100 cameras in the State of Florida alone. Also, the passage
of state legislation will likely prompt ATS to reconfigure a majority of their
equipment configurations on State roads across all 61 contracts, once connections
to FDOT traffic controllers are allowed.
The passage of statewide legislation will require ATS management to focus on re-
negotiating a majority of their 61 contracts over the next few months from per
ticket paid pricing fee structures to flat monthly fee structures, as required by law.
ACS offers the City of Miami a much different path — we offer far superior/proven
technology, a much lower price, a firm implementation timeline, proven experience,
and no threat of distractions. The City of Miami would be our priority.
At the end of the day, the City received only two qualified proposals — one from ACS
and one from ATS. Both companies have won and lost this procurement now on
multiple occasions. It is obvious that the City believes both companies are capable
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
ACS
A Xerox fpm+ Company
of doing this project. As such, we respectfully request that the Commission aword
two contracts for this project - one to ACS and one to ATS. The City can split the 78
camera approaches between both companies. In this way, the City will (1) ensure
both companies have the capacity to install their required cameras systems, (2)
ensure it receives the lowest possible price as both companies would sign up to
similar pricing and contract terms, and (3) ensure the City receives the best possible
service as both companies would work to earn future business with the City. This
approach also minimizes the City's risk by eliminating the "putting oil our eggs in
one basket" strategy.
We ask that the Commission consider all of the points raised herein. In considerotion of
the procurement history of this project and relative volue of the ACS proposal versus the
ATS proposal we respectfully suggest that the interests of the City and the public are
best served by splitting this contract amongst the bidders and reducing the City's
program risk.
Feet free to cal! me with any questions at 443-415-8582.
Sincerely,
r
Allen Shutt
Vice President, ACS Public Safety Solutions
cc
Mayor Tomas P. Regalado
City Manager Carlos A. Migoya
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE -6 on 0909
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
ACS Camera Blends Into Landscaped Environment
MIJIMN Q[N4F
AT THE JACKIE GLEAM THEATEI
♦ACS
September 15, 2010
Submitted into the public
record in connection with A Xerox jj► Compony
item RE,6 on 09-16-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
01 Sol_11.09RW (a—i Highway 64 W
RA T_"IL
Sri
American Traffic Solutions (ATS) Collier County Proposed
vs. Installed
Proposed TC-16MP Installed Old Legacy System
System on Feb 2010
September 15, 2010
ACS
A XerOX ►, Company
American Traffic Solutions (ATS) Hillsborough County
Proposed vs. Installed
Proposed Installed 12.4 Old Legacy
TC -16 MP Svstem 2009
September 15, 2010
i
�+ V
Y
V
�� "�3Q.! aim—sem-• _ _ �� -. ,
Aim
A xerox `ter Company
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item RE.6 on 09-15-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Ft. Lauderdale CAD Drawings as of 71711
American Traffic Solutions installing a camera
Camera Proposed with 1 box and 5 arms for devices
�,-
rt# ,,
� ndtC cow *, s,cr
moi. s
im rr. . rt'Is �ti
li
•,kms l .arrveJ--
���t Q� aicl'� rrE��t�'
DC: �C rmr �grLrwl
�s
%LMf3 A*tU A"012E X
� yrs Xfrrmr
d�rtil: tXiAf L'•Yl�� �
�
,I,rSIi tic
AIR] MA;r
0 VAMU" tame MA
, — da'L-J, -nor
tl
ftdJsi=J
1A* MWO
t pr
.lam -• r -i OAF,
� .4ncrraafiw+l
x.
t
A
FJN6
� IIG wlaP✓L1?r_
1
Y trWiS w'� r
ti
x*
A M mr
W liTMA T F IM Ar m Y T'—!^ +Ca: 11rML W
r� ?dpi! ► f!� t�'
j IV F�r�i r r ►�.� • .r
F•�e