Board Agenda Package 09 05 12

 

 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS  ALAMEDA‐CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT 

AGENDA   

Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the   Planning and Operations Committees  AC Transit General Offices  2nd Floor Board Room  1600 Franklin Street  Oakland, CA 94612    Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.  Closed Session:  4:00 p.m. (Items 7A‐D)  Committee meetings will commence when the   Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole 

  MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS  ELSA ORTIZ, PRESIDENT (WARD 3)  JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1)  GREG HARPER (WARD 2)  MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4)  JEFF DAVIS, (WARD 5)  JOEL YOUNG (AT‐LARGE)  H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT‐LARGE)    BOARD OFFICERS  DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER  VINCENT C. EWING, GENERAL COUNSEL  LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY    STANDING COMMITTEES  MEETING DAYS*  Planning Committee  2nd Wednesday  Operations Committee  2nd Wednesday  External Affairs Committee  4th Wednesday  Finance and Audit Committee  4th Wednesday  * All Standing Committees are held in conjunction with the regular Board of Directors meeting,    To access live and archived audio of Board of Directors and Standing Committee meetings as well as agendas,  staff reports, and the schedule of future meetings please visit www.actransit.org and click on “Board Meetings”.   Dial  (510)  891‐7200  to  access  agendas  by  telephone.    For  questions,  contact  the  District  Secretary’s  Office  at  (510) 891‐7201.    1

MEETING PROCEDURES   

Public  Comment:    Members  of  the  public  wishing  to  present  comments  should  complete  a  Speaker’s  Form  and  submit it to the District Secretary.  For subjects not listed on this agenda, the public will be invited to speak under  the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" section of the agenda.  For specific agenda item(s), speakers will be invited to address  the  Board/Standing  Committee(s)  at  the  time  the  item  is  being  considered.    All  speakers  are  allowed  two  (2)  minutes to present comments.  Individuals wishing to present more detailed information are encouraged to submit  comments in writing.  Written comments are included in the record for meeting(s), and as such, are available for  public inspection and may be posted to the District’s website.   

Electronic  Devices:  All  electronic  devices  (cell  phones,  pagers  and  similar‐sounding  devices)  shall  be  placed  on  mute, vibrate or silent mode during Board and Committee meetings pursuant to District Ordinance No. 12.   

Time  of  Meetings:  Times  included  on  this  agenda  for  commencement  of  Standing  Committee  meetings  are  estimates only. Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the  Whole.   

Order of Agenda Items:  The Board or Standing Committee(s) may discuss any item listed on this agenda and in  any order.     

Agenda  Planning:    The  Agenda  Planning  portion  of  the  agenda  is  designed  to  assist  the  Board  and  staff  in  the  preparation of future Board and Committee agendas.  Concurrence by at least one Director is required in order to  place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda.   

LIVE AUDIO STREAMING OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS    Live  audio  streaming  and  an  archive  of  previously  recorded  meetings  is  available  on  the  District’s  website  at  www.actransit.org.  For technological reasons, recordings of meetings held outside of the Board Room cannot be  streamed to the web.   

AVAILABILITY OF AGENDA RELATED MATERIALS   

Written agenda related materials for all open session regular meetings are available to the public 72 hours prior to  the meeting or at the time the materials are distributed to a majority of the Board. Written materials presented at  a meeting by staff or a member of the Board will be available to the public at that time, or after the meeting if  supplied by an outside party.  Agenda related materials are available on the District’s website or by contacting the  District Secretary’s Office.   

ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC MEETINGS   

Meetings of the Board of Directors are accessible to individuals in wheelchairs.  The Board Room is equipped with  Assistive Listening Devices for individuals with a hearing impairment.  Written materials in appropriate alternative  formats, disability‐related modification/accommodation as well as sign language and foreign language interpreters  must be made 72 hours in advance of the meeting or hearing to help ensure availability. Please direct requests for  disability  related  modification  or  accommodation  and/or  interpreter  services  to  Linda  A.  Nemeroff,  District  Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612 or call (510) 891‐7201.    AC Transit’s General Offices are generally served by bus lines 1, 11, 12, 51A, 72, 72M.  The nearest accessible bus  service is provided at the intersection of Broadway and 17th Street in Oakland.  The nearest accessible BART station  is the 19th Street Station in Oakland.    District Ordinance No. 13 prohibits bringing non‐service animals to District facilities unless specifically authorized  by federal or state law.    To accommodate individuals with severe allergies and environmental illnesses, meeting participants should refrain  from wearing scented products to the meeting.     

  2

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Elsa Ortiz, President  Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.     1.  2. 

Staff Contact or  Presenter     

  ROLL CALL    PUBLIC COMMENT 

 

Any person may directly address the Board at this time on any items of interest to the  public  that  is  within  the  subject  matter  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Board.  Speakers  wishing to address a specific agenda item will be invited to address the Board at the  time the item is being considered. Two (2) minutes are allowed for each item. 

3. 

  CONSENT CALENDAR 

 

Items  listed  under  the  Consent  Calendar  are  considered  to  be  routine  and  may  be  enacted by one motion/one vote.  If discussion is desired, an item may be removed  from the Consent Calendar and will be considered individually. 

3A.  Consider  approving  the  Third  Amendment  to  the  District  Secretary’s  Employment Agreement and the necessary budgetary adjustments for  the District Secretary’s Office for FY 2012‐13 (Report 12‐232).      4.  REGULAR CALENDAR    4A.  Consider  receiving  the  Retirement  Board  minutes  of  July  16,  2012  (Report 12‐184).    4B.  Consider  receiving  semi‐annual  report  from  the  Retirement  Board  (Report 12‐165).      4C.  Consider  receiving  presentation  on  the  Actuarial  Valuation  for  2012  prepared by Buck Consultants (Report 12‐189a).      4D.  Consider  authorizing  the  General  Manager  to  negotiate  and  execute  documents  related  to  a  piggyback  arrangement  for  the  purchase  of  sixteen (16) 40‐foot commuter buses (Report 11‐010e).      4E.  Consider  an  appeal  from  Cypress  Security,  LLC  of  the  General  Manager’s  decision  to  deny  protest  under  RFP  2012‐1207,  facility  security services (Report 12‐233).   

President Ortiz 

  Hugo Wildmann  891‐4889  Hugo Wildmann  891‐4889  Lewis Clinton  891‐4752  Tom Prescott  891‐7221 

Tom Prescott  891‐7221 

 

RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)  Speakers will be invited to address a Committee at the time an item on the agenda is being considered or under  Public Comment for items not on the agenda.  Immediately following the Standing Committee Meetings, the Board  meeting will reconvene at which time the Board may take action on any of the following Committee agenda items. 

  ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY.        3

A. 

PLANNING COMMITTEE – H. E. Christian Peeples, Chairperson  Held immediately following the Board Meeting recess. 

 

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) 

 

Briefing/Action Items: 

Staff Contact or  Presenter(s)     

A‐1.  Consider  recommending  receipt  of  a  progress  report  on  the  Metropolitan  Transportation  Commission‐sponsored  Transit  Sustainability  Plan  and  the  Inner  East  Bay  Comprehensive  Operations  Analysis (Report 12‐178).     A‐2.  Consider  recommending  that  the  General  Manager  be  authorized  to  enter into an agreement with the University of California to participate  in a study of magnetically guided buses led by California PATH, and the  Federal  Transit  Administration’s  Vehicle  Automation  and  Assistance  (VAA) Program (Report 12‐214).       

Jim Pachan  891‐7215 

Dennis Butler  891‐4798 

 

Staff Contact or  Presenter(s) 

B. 

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE – Joel Young, Chairperson  Held immediately following the Planning Committee meeting. 

   

 

 

Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) 

 

 

Briefing/Action Items: 

 

B‐1.  Consider  recommending  receipt  of  the  Federal  Transit  Administration  Office  of  Civil  Rights  Compliance  Review  Final  Report  of  AC  Transit’s  Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program (Report 12‐213).      B‐2.  Consider  recommending  receipt  of  the  quarterly  operations  performance report for AC Transit fixed route services (Report 12‐182).      B‐3.  Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 12‐038 increasing  the  compensation  and  adopting  a  revised  classification  specification  and classification title for Computer Operations Supervisor (Report 12‐ 217).     B‐4.  Consider  recommending  adoption  of  Resolution  No.  12‐040  establishing  the  new  classification  specification  for  Project  Engineer/Architect (Report 12‐229).    

RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ‐ Elsa Ortiz, President   

 

 

5.   

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES 

Sherri Stokes  891‐4848 

Jim Pachan  891‐7215  Kurt DeStigter  891‐4791 

Kurt DeStigter  891‐4791 

Staff Contact or   Presenter(s)   

The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees,  including  those  items  referred  to  the  Consent  Calendar  Addenda.    If  discussion  or  comment is desired, any person may request that an item be considered individually.    4

Linda Nemeroff  891‐7284   

A.  PLANNING COMMITTEE:  A‐1.  Consider  receiving  a  progress  report  on  the  Metropolitan  Transportation  Commission‐sponsored  Transit  Sustainability  Plan  and  the  Inner  East  Bay  Comprehensive  Operations  Analysis  (Report  12‐ 178).   A‐2.  Consider authorizing the General Manager to enter into an agreement  with  the  University  of  California  to  participate  in  a  study  of  magnetically  guided  buses  led  by  California  PATH,  and  the  Federal  Transit  Administration’s  Vehicle  Automation  and  Assistance  (VAA)  Program (Report 12‐214).        B.  OPERATIONS COMMITTEE  B‐1.  Consider  receiving  the  Federal  Transit  Administration  Office  of  Civil  Rights  Compliance  Review  Final  Report  of  AC  Transit’s  Equal  Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program (Report 12‐213).    B‐2.  Consider receiving the quarterly operations performance report for AC  Transit fixed route services (Report 12‐182).    B‐3.  Consider  adoption  of  Resolution  No.  12‐038  increasing  the  compensation  and  adopting  a  revised  classification  specification  and  classification title for Computer Operations Supervisor (Report 12‐217).   B‐4.  Consider  adoption  of  Resolution  No.  12‐040  establishing  the  new  classification  specification  for  Project  Engineer/Architect  (Report  12‐ 229).       6.  CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA 

  Jim Pachan  891‐7215 

Dennis Butler  891‐4798 

Sherri Stokes  891‐4848  Jim Pachan  891‐7215  Kurt DeStigter  891‐4791  Kurt DeStigter  891‐4791 

The Board is requested to authorize as recommended from the committee meetings  above. 

7. 

  CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT  The items for consideration are listed below and will be reported on by the General  Counsel as necessary at the end of the meeting. 

  7A.  Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation 

Vincent C. Ewing  891‐7178 

 

(Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))      Collins v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG11582033, Claim No. 10‐3505‐02   Boykin v. AC Transit, Claim No.  810826, Case Nos. ADJ 2565760 (DOI 02/16/94);  ADJ 2310809 (DOI 10/05/94); ADJ 3233521 (DOI 05/15/95).   Gilmer, et al. v. AC Transit, U.S. Dist. Ct. (No.Cal.Dist.), No. C08‐05186 CW  

  7B.  Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation 

 

(Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Six Cases) 

  7C.  Conference with Labor Negotiators  

 

(Government Code Section 54957.6):   Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager  Employee Organizations: Paratransit, Local 192, ATU Local 192, AFSCME, Local 3916;  IBEW, Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees   

    5

 

7D.  Public Employee Performance Evaluation   (Government Code Section 54957)  Title:  General Manager, General Counsel, District Secretary 

8.  9.  10.  11. 

  AGENDA PLANNING     GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT         BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS   (Government Code Section 54954.2) 

  David J. Armijo  891‐4753   

ADJOURNMENT  Next Meeting:  September 19, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. 

  Alameda‐Contra Costa Transit District   

September 5, 2012 6

 

Page 6 of 6 

Report No:

TI'?-91115/T

Meeting Date:

12-232 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

BOARD REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

President Elsa Ortiz

SUBJECT:

Amendment to District Secretary's Employment Agreement

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider approving the Third Amendment to the District Secretary's Employment Agreement and the necessary budgetary adjustments for the District Secretary's Office for FY 2012-13. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Board of Directors entered into an employment agreement with the District Secretary in November 2006. Upon completion of the District Secretary's performance evaluation, the Board must take action in open session to approve amendments to the District Secretary's employment agreement. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact to salaries and wages for FY 2012-13 is approximately $24,537; and $6,050 for each fiscal year thereafter. In addition, there is an annual savings to the District in fringe benefits of approximately $1,559 in health and dental insurance premiums, a $5,000 reduction in the District-paid deferred compensation contribution per year, and the elimination of a discretionary District-paid annuity in the amount of $7,500 per year.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

On November 16, 2006, the Board of Directors entered into an employment agreement with the District Secretary. The agreement requires the Board to annually evaluate the District Secretary and determine any salary adjustments. The District Secretary's last performance review and compensation adjustment occurred in 2008. Since that time, the District Secretary has consistently contributed toward reducing District expenses by creating numerous efficiencies within her department and through a series of voluntary give-backs related to her employment agreement, which included the elimination of a District-paid vehicle (March, 2010), a reduction in deferred compensation for 2011 and 2012, and by agreeing to pay 10% of the monthly health and dental insurance premiums. The Board completed the evaluation of the District Secretary on August 15, 2012, and in consideration of her extraordinary performance as well as her professionalism, integrity and loyalty to the Board, the Board has considered, but not approved, amendments to the District 7

Report No. 12-232 Page 2 of 2 Secretary's employment agreement in closed session. It is now appropriate for the Board to take action in open session to approve said amendments provided in Attachment 1.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: There are no alternative actions associated with this report.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GC Memo No. 10-081 Approving the Second Amendment to the District Secretary's Employment Agreement.

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Draft of the Third Amendment to Employment Agreement

Reviewed

by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer

8

ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT THIRD AMENDMENT DISTRICT SECRETARY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the District Secretary's Employment Agreement is entered into this 5th day of September 2012, by and between the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (DISTRICT) and Linda A. Nemeroff (OFFICER). This Third Amendment supersedes the original Employment Agreement (the Agreement) only in the areas specified below. WHEREAS, DISTRICT and OFFICER entered into an Employment Agreement (the Agreement) on November 16, 2006, to retain the services of OFFICER as the District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT and OFFICER desire to enter into this Third Amendment to the Agreement pertaining to OFFICER's compensation. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the faithful performance of the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, the prior amendments to it, and this Third Amendment, the parties agree as follows: 1.

Section 5.A. of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read: Effective October 1, 2012, DISTRICT agrees to increase OFFICER's annual base salary to One Hundred, Twenty-Seven Thousand, Fifty Dollars ($127,050), payable bi-weekly in equal installments and paid at the same time compensation for other unrepresented employees is paid. In addition to the above compensation, OFFICER shall receive a one-time bonus in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000), which shall be paid in a sum, less appropriate taxes, on October 1, 2012.

2.

Section 5.8.1 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: DISTRICT shall annually contribute $11,000 to the DISTRICT-sponsored deferred compensation plan on OFFICER's behalf. The deferred compensation shall be invested as directed by OFFICER, in accordance with the DISTRICT's deferred compensation program. If the employment agreements for senior management employees are not amended to reflect an $11,000 per year contribution, the language in the District Secretary's original agreement shall be reinstated effective January 1, 2014.

3.

Section 5.8.2 of the Agreement regarding the annuity is deleted in its entirety.

4.

Section C.1.A of the Agreement is amended to add the following: The DISTRICT will make 90% of all necessary premium payments on behalf of OFFICER for health and dental insurance coverage. OFFICER shall,

Third Amendment to the District Secretary Employment Agreement Page 1of2 9

through payroll deduction, make 10% of all necessary premium payments for said benefits. 5.

Except as otherwise amended in this Third Amendment, the terms and conditions of OFFICER's Employment Agreement as originally entered into and subsequently amended shall remain in full force and effect.

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT is signed and executed as of the last date appearing below. ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT:

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __ Elsa Ortiz, Board President

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __ Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

OFFICER:

Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __ Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Third Amendment to the District Secretary Employment Agreement Page2of2 10

Staff Report 12-184

Approved Minutes Special Meeting of the AC TRANSIT RETIREMENT BOARD July 16, 2012

ROLLCALL

Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 9:12 AM Members Present: Lewis Clinton, Joyce Willis, Vice Chair Yvonne Williams, and Chair Jeffrey Lewis-4 Members Absent at Roll Call: John Rennels -- 1 Members Absent: None Also Present: Hugo Wildmann, Retirement System Manager; Adelle Foley, Retirement System Administrator; Russell Richeda, Legal Counsel; H.E. Christian Peeples, District Board Liaison; David Armijo, AC Transit General Manager; Carolyn Smith NEPC; Frank Barbarino, NEPC, by phone; Oscar Pulido, BlackRock, by phone; Frank Romano, PIMCO; Bob McCrory, EFI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: CLINTON/WILLIAMS to adopt the Consent Calendar. (4-0-0-1)

Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent:

Members Clinton and Willis, Vice Chair Williams, and Chair Lewis -- 4 None None Member Rennels -- 1

APPROVED A. Approval of Minutes for June 14,2012. APPROVED B. Approval of Financials for May 2012 APPROVED C. Approval oflnvoices in the Amount of$190,109.49 APPROVED D. Approval of Retirements for August 2012:

11

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012 1. Tina Konvalinka Spencer 2. Linda Sanders

#40583 #916

APPROVED (Member Rennels joined the meeting at this point.)

REGULAR CALENDAR E. Approval of Retirements for July/August 2012: I. Denise Crawford #40326 Recommendation: To approve Denise Crawford #40326, for a Service Retirement effective July 1, 2012. 2. Dennis Wells #886 Recommendation: To approve Dennis Wells, #886, for a Service Retirement effective August 1, 2012. 3. Joyce Lucchesi

#60924 Term Vested

Recommendation: To approve Joyce Lucchesi, #60924, for a Term Vested Retirement effective July 1, 2012. The Board congratulated retiree Dennis Wells on 32 years of service.

MOTION: RENNELS/WILLIAMS to approve staff recommendations for retirements I through 3 under Agenda Item E. (5-0-0-0) (Bob McCrory, EFI joined the Board for discussion of items F through H.) (District General Manager David Armijo joined the Board for discussion of items F though I.) F. Update on California Actuarial Advisory Panel Proposed Model Actuarial Funding Policies Hugo recalled that in June the Board had discussed the cost letter, the reasons for the increase in the projected pension contribution and the expected return and inflation assumption. They had requested that Bob report on the impact of using a 16-year amortization period rather than reducing the amortization period by 1 year to 15 years. Bob began by discussing the draft Model Actuarial Funding Policies and Practices for Public Pension and OPEB Plans as prepared by the California Actuarial Advisory Panel (CAAP). He told

2 12

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012 the Board that the actuaries are trying to address issues such as minimum funding, smoothing, and amortization. While their model actuary practices are currently advisory, Governor Brown or the legislature might move to make them more than that. Bob noted that the CAAP draft involves complex actuarial issues. He added that he and Graham Schmidt of EFI, who participated in the group, disagreed with some of the group's conclusions. Turning to the question of amortization period(s) Bob recalled that the Board had earlier decided to amortize half of 2008's extraordinary loss over 30 years and combine the other half with the rest of the unfunded liability. Last year the general portion was amortized over 16 years with that period to be decreased by one year annually. This has been the policy ofthe Board for several years. The Board discussed the question of amortization standards as well as the differences among retirement plans. Bob noted that the CAAP document tends to favor layered amortization, in which changes in the actuarial accrued liability are identified by source and amortized in separate layers, each with its own closed amortization period. Bob said that the Board could leave the current amortization pool as it is, and layer amendments going forward. Bob reported that there will be a discussion of adopting the CAAP conclusions as standards in September. Hugo told the Board that CAAP is asking for comments by August 6. G. Actuarial "Cost Letter" H. Actuarial Valuation for 111112 Bob recapped the process used to develop the Cost Letter. AC Transit provides data; Bob creates a liability payroll using a growth rate of 3% per year. Slower growth results in an actuarial gain (as in the current cost letter). The Board discusses the preliminary cost letter, discusses assumptions and raises questions that are then answered by Bob and after all of this is completed the cost letter is finalized and the actuarial valuation is prepared. Turning to the historical graphs, Bob told the Board that the passage of proposition 162 in 1992 amended the California State constitution and revamped management of public pension systems. Bob mentioned that prior to 1994 governance of the AC Plan was poor, there was no experience study and the sponsor controlled the plan. Under proposition 162 the Retirement Board was given plenary authority over investments, the actuarial function, and the administration of the Plan. The Plan's first actuarial experience study resulted in a new set of assumptions that increase Plan cost; the resulting increase in cost was phased in. From 1994-2000 generally favorable investment returns led to an upward trend in the funded ratio. In 2000 (and again in the following years) retirement benefits were improved. Then, in 2008 the market experienced an extraordinary loss. Bob concluded by saying that investment returns and benefits determine the Plan's long-term costs. The Cost letter shows an increase in the pension contribution from $39 to $40 million, moving from 30.8% to 31.62% of payroll and bringing the funded ratio to 63% (actuarial value) and 59% (market value)- slightly above the 53% required to cover the cost of retirees and ex-employees who will be eligible for pensions. Of the total projected cost $23 million is amortization of the unfunded liability, $16 million is normal cost (12.73% of payroll) and $0.8 million is administrative costs.

3 13

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012 Failure to match the assumed investment return of 7.5% added almost two thirds of the increase in cost for the year. The Board discussed the data and projections in the cost letter. David Armijo pointed out that even if the Plan had achieved its 7.5% return target in 2011 the pension contribution would still amount to 30% of payroll. He also doubted that there would be a 3 percent annual increase in payroll, as assumed in the actuarial calculations. Bob noted that the actual contribution is based on the monthly payroll, so it is, in part, self-correcting, and any shortfall would be reflected in the next year's calculation as an actuarial gain. Board Members voiced their understanding that the penswn contribution is a key factor in the District budget in a time of fiscal hardship. Focusing on the amortization period, Bob told that Board that if it remained at 16 years (rather declining to 15 years) the pension contribution would be $786 thousand lower. However, the difference would be postponed -- paid at a later time with interest. Bob concluded that while he preferred a 15-year amortization period, holding the amortization period at 16 years for one more year is also reasonable. Counsel Richeda stressed the need to address the fact that the Plan is underfunded. Chair Lewis agreed, but added that it is important to recognize District's financial situation as well. Chair Lewis called a recess at I 0:30 AM The meeting reconvened at I 0:34 AM MOTION: CLINTON/RENNELS to freeze the amortization period at 16 years for one year and then resume the annual reduction of one year every year. (5-0-0-0) MOTION: RENNELS/WILLIAMS to approve the cost letter with the adjustment in the amortization period approved in the previous motion. (5-0-0-0)

I. Joint Meeting Draft Agenda for September 19'h

Hugo referred to the draft agenda for the September 19, 2012joint meeting of the District Board of Directors and the Retirement Board, included in the Board Package. The presenters of agenda items will be added to the draft. The Board agreed that many of the items have been on previous agendas, but items should be repeated to accommodate new Board members or because they address important issues. David Armijo told the Board that items might be added to the agenda after the District Board retreat, scheduled for the end of August. The draft will be corrected to show a time of I PM on all pages of the agenda. (A number of agenda items were taken out of order to accommodate outside presenters.) (Carolyn Smith, NEPC, joined the Board for Agenda Items J through Q.)

4 14

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012 N. Global Tactical Asset Allocation Manager Reviews Carolyn reminded the Board that I 0% of Plan assets are invested in Global Tactical Asset Allocations. Each of the firms on the July agenda manages one third of this asset category. (Oscar Pulido, BlackRock Senior Produce Specialist, joined the Board by phone for the discussion of his firm.) I) BlackRock Oscar said that BlackRock' s Global Allocation Fund provides competitive returns with less volatility than equities. The portfolio covers a broad universe, returning a little less on the upside but protecting capital on the downside and performing well during recoveries. Equities make up 57% of the total, fixed-income about 27% and cash has increased to about 17% in order to reduce risk. The allocation to equities has declined, but according to BlackRock they should bring the best return over the next 5 years. International holdings have been reduced due to uncertainly. BlackRock is overweight in what the world needs - natural resources, health care and technology; and underweight in discretionary products and services. Examples of attractive stocks are a dialysis machine manufacturer and a data storage firm. Fixed-income holdings are positioned with an eye to liquidity. One third are in Credit, two thirds in Government bonds, concentrated in the US, UK and Australia. Oscar noted that bond dealers no longer want to hold corporate bonds, reducing the liquidity in the market. He reported that BlackRock has a cap of 35% on non-investment grade securities, but they have never exceeded 25% and their current holdings are 6%. The BlackRock fund has returned 3.6% year to date and lost 3.4 percent over the last year. By comparison, global stocks have lost 5. 7%, the Lipper peer group has lost 4. 7% and the internal reference benchmark gained 0.5% The Board thanked Oscar for his presentation. (The call with BlackRock ended at this point.) Carolyn pointed out that BlackRock's focus on liquidity provides safety during periods of market volatility. Their dynamic allocation contrasts with PIMCO's more conservative approach. (Mark Romano, PIMCO Account Manager, joined the Board for discussion of his firm.) 2) PIMCO Mark told the Board that PIMCO's All Asset Fund is a mutual fund that holds other PIMCO funds. The fund is managed by Robert Arnott using his daily allocation model. Its focus is transparency, low fees and liquidity. It responds to changes in the investment world. Currently

5 15

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16, 2012 emerging markets look very good, while Europe is characterized by high borrowing costs and currency risks stemming from balance sheet problems at European banks. US banks have increased their capitalization and reduced dividends, while US equity yields are low, and dividends are below those of other nations. Year to date (through June 30) the All Asset Fund has returned 5.5%, while the Barclays US TIPS 10 Year Index returned 2.8%. The Weighted benchmark- 60% S&P 500, 40% Barclays Aggregate- returned 6.7%. The fund is intended to dampen returns on the up side and protect from downside risk. Looking ahead Mark believes that there is a more than even chance that the Euro will break up. He sees slow growth across the world except in emerging markets and expects wages to rise in China. The Board thanked Mark for his presentation. 3) GMO This presentation was postponed until the August Board meeting. (Frank Barbarino, NEPC, joined the Board by phone for discussion of Agenda Item 0.) 0. Private Debt Asset Class Review Frank referred to NEPC's Opportunistic Credit Overview, included in the Board Package. He told the Board that his presentation would be educational, introducing an asset class that NEPC recommended as an addition to our portfolio as part of the diversification on the path to NEPC' s asset mix B. Although opportunistic credit asset class was most attractive during the credit crisis, Frank said that there are still opportunities in the 2-6 year time range. Frank explained that currently banks face balance-sheet constraints and pressure by regulators; deleveraging and dislocation are occurring in European markets; and there is a continued need for capital by middle market companies facing a relative lack of buyers. In this environment disciplined long-term investors should act as capital providers, and take advantage of dislocations and withstand short-term volatility to reap long-term success. He cited core and core plus fixed income, high-yield fixed income, global fixed income or emerging market debt and Hedge funds or private equity as examples of strategic credit investments. He also provided a list of credit-focused funds that the Board might consider. Hugo noted that these are higher-risk fixed income investments and will act more like equities when the market declines. Frank stressed that the point is the risk-adjusted return. Carolyn added that these assets would be a small portion of the fixed income portfolio. Carolyn told the Board that the next step would be to invite some managers to talk to the Board. NEPC will provide educational material. Member Rennels recommended that the Board concentrate on opportunistic strategies in the U.S.

6 16

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012

J. Investment Performance and Asset Allocation K. JP Morgan Funding L. Large Cap Growth Manager Implementation Update • Sands Capital Management • Index Fund- SSgA • State Street Transition Management Hugo mentioned that this transition was complete and the costs were well within expectations. M. Fixed Income Portfolio Implementation Hugo told the Board that the fund had gained 5.5% during the first half of 2012. The $8.2 million in funds were moved to JP Morgan from large and small cap equities early in July. P. NEPC Work Plan for 2012 Carolyn said that the Work Plan would be revised to schedule presentations by GMO and two private debt managers in August.

Q. Calendar for 20 12 Board Meetings Hugo referred to the schedule for 2012 Retirement Board Meetings, included in the Board Package. He noted that the August 20 meeting will begin at 9:30 AM. R. Financial Statements Hugo referred to the final version of the December 31,2011 and 2010 financials for the Retirement System, included in the Board Package.

MOTION: RENNELS/WILLIAMS to adopt the financial statements for December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. 5-0-0-0 S. 2012 Benefit Statements Hugo referred to the draft of the 2012 Benefit Statement, included in the Board Package. He noted that questions from employees regarding their projected benefit at age 62, when they would be eligible for Social Security benefits led staff to suggest that age 62 be added to the statements for ATU members. The Board discussed the wording of the explanation of vested benefits for employees who leave AC Transit prior to retirement. Staff and Counsel Richeda will work on the wording. T. Determination of Pension Benefit for Former Union Officer James Gardner 7 17

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012

Hugo reported that he had received responses to his question regarding the collective bargaining agreement between Local192 and the District, and bargaining history of the 2005 restatement of the Retirement Plan document. He and Counsel Richeda will follow up with meetings and bring this item to the Board in September. U. Website Hugo told the Board that Retirement Staff will have the opportunity to post information on the Intranet (the internal website). There was nothing new on the external website. V. AB 1234 Training Postponed to a future meeting. W. Retirement System Manager Report: I. Vacation Hugo will be on vacation July 25 through August 13. 2. Department Priorities and Workload The Retirement staff is very busy. 3. Article on Trustee Hotel Expenses Hugo commented that the press likes to print articles on high travel expenses. 4. ATU Educational Workshop Staff is planning to hold a workshop for ATU on a Saturday morning, including representatives from Retirement, Benefits and Deferred Compensation. The seminar will be held after the Benefit Statements are distributed. MOTION: RENNELS/WILLIAMS to approve an expenditure of up to $300 for an educational ATU seminar. 5-0-0-0

5. Report on Administrators Roundtable in San Jose on June 22"d Hugo reported that other plans are facing the same issues as our Plan. 6. Semi-Annual Report to the District Board The first report will be drafted in August to include information from the Cost Letter and the Financials. 7. IFEBP Educational Opportunities Member Willis is interested in attending the September session. The Board will approve the expenses in August. X. (CLOSED SESSION)

I) Matters Relating to Personnel: Disability Applicants' and Disability Retirees' Medical Records (Govermnent Code Section 54957; 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 412 (1982) a. Solomon Johnson - Total and Permanent Disability b. Debra Johnson- Occupational Disability

8 18

AC Transit Retirement Board July 16,2012 c. Ansar Muhammad - Occupational Disability d. Mark Naylor- Total and Permanent Disability e. Alneda Smith - Occupational Disability Y. (RESUME OPEN SESSION) I. Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items Counsel Richeda reported: a. X) I )a

Solomon Johnson -- Total and Permanent Disability

The Board unanimously approved Solomon Johnson's application for Total and Permanent Disability Retirement retroactive to February 2012.

PENDING ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

The Board will discuss the referral of an Investment Manager by a District Board member at the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS

None RETIREMENT BOARD COMMENTS

None ATTORNEYS' REPORT

None ADJOURNMENT MOTION: RENNELS/WILLIAMS to adjourn. (5-0-0-0)

The Board adjourned its meeting at I :22 P.M.

9 19

This page intentionally blank 

20

Staff Report 12-165

AC Transit Employees' Retirement System

AC Transit Board of Directors

(51 0) 891-7257 fax (510) 891-7169 [email protected]

August 2012

From:

Jeffrey Lewis - Chair, AC Transit Retirement Board

Re:

Semi-Annual Retirement Board Report

~L

This report provides an overview of the following: 1) A summary of the Plan's investment results in 2011 and so far in 2012. 2) The changes that we 1have implemented to the inve~tment portfolio during this time period. 3) The 2012 actuarial valuation. We look forward to our upcoming Joint meeting where we will discuss the information in this report along with other topics that are important to both of our Boards.

Investment Results In 2011, the Plan investments returned roughly 0%. The Plan had $428 million in assets on 12/31/11, which was a slight decline from the $430 million in assets on 12/31110. Over the last 10 years, the Plan has returned 5.2%, which is roughly 2.3% below the Plan's actuarially assumed earnings rate of7.5%. (Over that same period, the Russell 3000 Index ofU.S equities has returned an average of3.5% per year.) These figures are very similar to those of other public pension plans and are heavily impacted by the return of roughly negative 30% in 2008. Through the writing of this report, 2012 is shaping up as a good year for the U.S. equity markets with gains of almost 9%. As of the end of June, the Plan was up roughly 5.5% for the calendar year. Needless to say, almost anything can happen in the remaining months of the year. As we have often stated, the Plan is a long-term investor, and, as disconcerting as short-term gyrations in the market can be, we focus on the long term and the belief that investing in a diversified portfolio which balances investment risk and security in the long term will produce returns very close to our actuarially assumed earnings rate.

Portfolio Restructuring Our Board hired NEPC as our investment consultant effective January 1, 2010. After some initial review and discussion, NEPC outlined a course of action that would result in a restructuring of our fixed-income portfolio, a reduction in our exposure to U.S . equities, and an increase in the diversification of the plan by adding global asset allocation, emerging market equities, and real estate to the portfolio. The Board is in the process of implementing NEPC ' s recommendations. The Board has recently funded roughly $9 million in real estate investments. These investments are made in investment funds, The AC Transit Employees' Retirement System is dedicated to providing a secure and predictable source of retirement income for eligi/Jie employees, retirees and beneficiaries

1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 21

Semi Annual Report #I, August 2012

rather than individual real estate projects. The Board hopes to fund an additional $12 million in the next year. The Board is presently exploring some credit-focused strategies. These are fixed-income strategies which would provide expected returns of close to I 0%. Based on information from our investment consultant, we believe that the diversification of our portfolio into new types of investments will in the long run bring greater returns at less risk. 2012 Actuarial Valuation At its July meeting, the Board approved the annual "Cost Letter". The Cost Letter computed the District contribution for 2012-13 as $39,137,046, which is a slight increase from the District's contribution of $38,965,865 for the prior year. The funded ratio of the Plan decreased from 62.05% in 2010 to 59.33% in 2011 (determined on a market value of assets). The primary factors impacting the District's required contribution in fiscal year 2012-13 are listed below: •

More than twice as many employees terminated employment in 20 11 than the Plan's actuarial assumptions predicted. This reduced the District's required contribution by roughly $200,000.

•

The average pay of employees increased by 1.0%, 2.0% less that the rate assumed by our actuary. This decreased the District's required contribution by roughly $440,000.

•

Under the actuarial cost method that the Board is required to use, the cost of new entrants is considered an additional cost. The methodology assumes no new entrants in any given year even though we are very sure the Plan will have new hires. The cost of these "new hires" increased Plan costs by roughly $1 million.

•

Plan assets returned less than our assumed actuarial rate of return in 2011 (roughly 0% vs. 7.5%). Utilizing our 5-year smoothing methodology the net impact of our prior year gains and losses contributed to an increase in the District's contribution of almost $600,000.

•

The Retirement Board decided to delay for one year the reduction in the period used to amortize the Plan's unfunded liability. The policy of the Board has been to reduce the amortization period by one-year until a 12-year amortization was reached. The Board decided to maintain the 16-year amortization for this valuation. This reduced the District contribution by roughly $750,000.

At its July meeting, the Board spent time analyzing the District contribution and the funded ratio of the Plan under a variety of scenarios pertaining to the rate of return going forward. Our actuary will perform this analysis at the joint meeting. I look forward to our joint meeting where we will discuss this report and other matters that pertain to the Retirement Plan. Please feel free to call me, Jeffrey Lewis, at (510) 839-6824, or Hugo Wildmann (8914889) if you would like to discuss this report or request additional information. C:\H\BOARD\semiannual report\2012 Semi Annual Report#l FINAL.doc

22

~I

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-189a September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

AC Transit Board of Directors David J. Armijo, General Manager Report on the Actuarial Valuation

BRIEFING ITEM

RECOMMENDED ACTION!SI: Consider Receiving a Presentation on the Actuarial Valuation for 2012, Prepared by Buck Consultants. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District's actuary, Buck Consultants has reviewed the Actuarial Valuation prepare by EFI Actuaries, Inc. on behalf of the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan. Buck Consultants will present their views, including alternative recommendations for the District to consider. (please see Attachment 1 Alternative Views of the 2012 Valuation and Suggestions for the Future). BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this presentation. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: This presentation provides the District with an alternative view of the 2012 Actuarial Analysis. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: This report does not recommend an action. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: There are no prior relevant board actions or policies for this report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Alternative Views of the 2012 Valuation and Suggestions for the Future September 5, 2012

23

Report No. 12-189a Page 2 of 2

Approved by:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

Reviewed by:

Lewis G. Clinton, Jr., Chief Financial Officer

Prepared by:

Buck Consultants

24

UJ -1

> "TT "TT

:D

.,

m 0

:D -1

.....

1\)

.....I CD

co

buckconsultants

> > -1

:-t ..... 25

Agenda

•

Major Valuation Results- 2012 and Before

•

Why Are Contribution Rates Moving Up and Funded Ratios Moving Down?

•

Specific Issues and Recommendations •

Members on Leave of Absence

•

Changes in Amortization Schedule

•

Investment Losses

•

CAAP, Moody's, and GASB Changes

•

An Approach that Breaks with Actuarial Tradition

•

Your Questions

2

26

buckconsultants

Major 2012 Valuation Results

• Contribution amount increases from $39.0 to $39.9 million • Contribution rate increases from 30.79°/o to 31.62°/o of payroll • Payroll declined from $126.5 to $124.4 million • Funded ratio changes - From 61.90°/o to 62.87% based on actuarial assets - From 62.05°/o to 59.33% based on market assets

3

27

buckconsultants

History of Contribution Rates and Funded Ratios

• Since the 2000 valuation, the District's contribution rate has increased from 9.9% to 31.6°/o • Since the 2000 valuation, the Plan's Funded Ratio has declined from 104.35°/o to 62.87°/o • The Plan had a surplus of $11.8 million in the 2000 valuation, but a deficit of $267.8 million in the 2012 valuation • Since 1/1/2000, Plan liabilities have grown by 8.5o/o, but actuarial assets have grown by 4.0o/o

4

28

buckconsultants

Why Are Contribution Rates Moving Up and Funded Ratios Moving Down? •

Rehiring of members on leave of absence

• Changing length of amortization period •

Recognizing investment losses

5

29

buckconsultants·

Specific Issues and Recommendations

• Rehiring of members on leave of absence - Members with vested balances should be valued as deferred vested members - While on leave of absence members disappear from data - When they return, system experiences a loss - Loss added .81°/o to 2012 contribution rate

• Recommend study of data process to ensure members remain on data as members entitled to future benefit when they go on leave of absence - Effect will be to steady contribution rates somewhat - Will not increase or decrease long-range costs

6

30

buckconsultants·

Specific Issues and Recommendations

• Changing length of amortization period - Decreasing from 16 years in 2011 to 12 years in 2015 and beyond - Shortening the period increases 2012 contribution rates by .63°/o

•

Recommend a study of amortization practices - Level percentage of pay amortization will create losses when payroll increases are less than assumed rate (3%) - Payroll has not increased meaningfully in last 10 years - Half of 2008 investment loss is amortized over separate 30-year period using level percent of pay method

• Should review amortization practice in view of CAAP "model practices" and change in GASB standards

7

31

buckconsultants·

Specific Issues and Recommendations

•

Recognizing investment losses - Market assets returned -0.41 °/o during 2011 - Added .48% to 2012 contribution rate

•

Big loss in 2008 ($157,526,000) receives special treatment - Half is subject to normal smoothing process and will exert upward pressure on contribution rate for one more year - Half is not smoothed and is subject to separate 30-year amortization, using level percent of pay method • This approach calls for contribution amounts that are less than interest on the unfunded liability

•

Recommend a major overhaul of funding policies and methods

8

32

buckconsultants

CAAP, Moody's, and GASB Changes

• California Actuarial Advisory Panel has issued a draft of its proposed "model practices" regarding - Actuarial cost method - Amortization methods - Smoothing methods •

Moody's has announced that it will adjust reported pension information in performing its ratings - Investment return= rate on corporate bond index (5.5o/o) - Actuarial assets = market assets - Common amortization period - Allocate plan liabilities to employers in cost-sharing plans

9

33

buckconsultants

CAAP, Moody's, and GASB Changes

• GASB has issued new standards 67 and 68 to replace current standards 25 and 27 • New standards will: - Require entry age normal cost method - Require actuarial assets to be market assets - Require discount rate to be a blend of long-term rate and municipal bond rate, based on when plan will experience a "depletion" - Show deficit as liability on plan sponsor's balance sheet - Divorce accounting and funding for public plans • Plans with long or rolling amortization periods may have depletion dates that require use of blended discount rate

10

34

buckconsultants

CAAP, Moody's, and GASB Changes

• Currently guidance on funding public plans comes from - GASB Standards 25 and 27 - Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs)

• Because new GASB Standards will separate accounting from funding, ASOPs will become the only guidance • CMP has leaped into the breach, offering its "model practices" based on traditional actuarial methods • It is possible to adopt new funding procedures that comport with ASOPs and CMP guidance, but depart radically from traditional actuarial methods in an effort to achieve: - More stable contribution rates - Earlier recognition of effects of new tiers of benefits 11

35

buckconsultants

An Approach that Breaks with Actuarial Tradition

Suggest the following 4-step approach: 1.Perform valuation in compliance with "model practices" of CAAP 2.Perform 75-year open-group projection of valuation 3.Determine contribution amounts each year 4.Find the level contribution rate that will produce contributions that have the same present value as those determined in 3

12

36

buckconsultants·

Projection of Costs from 2011 Valuation Report

Total Cost as a Percentage of Pay 35%

30%

.......... ~~

' 25%

~~~ ............... .....~

20%

\..

~

15%

..... ~

10% 5% 0%

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

13

37

2035

2040

2045

2050

buckconsultants·

Projection of Costs with New Tier Added

Total Cost as a Percentage of Pay 35% .---------------------------------------------------------~ 300/0

,.

25% 200/0 15% 100/0 5% 0% 2010

-.

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Projection of Dist r ict costs with new tier add ed before 2015

14

38

buckconsultants·

Projection of Costs with New Tier and New Method

Total Cost as a Percentage of Pay 35% .---------------------------------------------------~-------------------.

5%

0%

2010

-

-

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Pro j ection of Dist rict costs with new tier add ed befo re 2015 Projection of District costs with new tier add ed before 2015 u nder 75-year open group met hodology

15

39

buckconsultants

Your Questions?

buckconsultants 40

Report No: Meeting Date:

11-0lOe SeptemberS, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Procurement of Sixteen (16) 40-Foot Commuter Buses

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider Authorizing the General Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Related to a Piggyback Arrangement for the Procurement of up to sixteen (16) 40-foot Commuter Buses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On June 13, 2012, Staff outlined - as part of its fleet plan -the purchase of 104 buses over the next 18 months. At that time the Board approved the funding for the purchase of an additional twenty-seven (27) 40-foot low floor urban transit-local buses (bringing the total number of this type of bus to be purchased to sixty-five (65)). In addition, the Board authorized the General Manager to negotiate and execute documents for the purchase of twenty-three (23) 60-foot articulated buses. These prior Board actions authorized the purchase of eighty-eight (88) of the 104 buses Staff identified in the current fleet plan for purchase over the next eighteen (18) months. Staff is now seeking authorization for the General Manager to negotiate and execute documents for the purchase of the final sixteen (16) buses identified in the fleet plan. These are 40-foot commuter buses manufactured by Gillig. In order to meet the District's fleet transit requirements additional buses are needed. In support of this initiative, there is SLPP funding and AB 664 funding that has been committed to the District for bus purchases. The District will use this funding to purchase the sixteen (16) 40-foot suburban commuter buses. This purchase represents the balance of the bus procurement plan outlined in Staff Report No. 11-010d. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Projected cost for the purchase of sixteen (16) commuter buses is approximately $7.9 million, with each bus costing approximately $432,325 plus tax, delivery charges and support equipment. This purchase will be funded using State and Local Partnership Program Funds (SLPP), the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account Program funds (FTMISEA) and a District match of the SLPP funding. These funds are programmed in the capital projects and grant funding plan.

41

Report No. 11-0lOe Page 2 of 3

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: In Staff Report 11-010d Staff outlined the District's current fleet plan and capital planning requirements, which included the purchase of 104 buses over the next eighteen {18) months. The breakdown is as follows: 2012/2013 Purchases Fleet Size/Type

Quantity

40 Foot Local

65

40 Foot Commuter

16

60 Foot Artics

23

Total

104

The purchase of these buses has been authorized by the Board, with the exception of the sixteen {16) 40-foot commuter buses. Staff is now seeking authorization for this final element of the fleet plan outlined above. As with the other buses approved for purchase by the Board, Staff has identified a piggyback option for the purchase of the 40-foot suburban buses with Lynx in Florida. Any piggyback contract will include all of the Buy America requirements. The piggyback process is expected to reduce the length of the procurement process and to provide buses at a competitive price. The Florida Bus Consortium includes procurements from several Transit Districts, including; Lynx Transit of Orlando, Florida. The choice of the Gillig Suburban will include two doors and will improve access on the bus. However, the color scheme and branding of the bus will remain the same. This total fleet purchase of 104 buses will reduce the District's average vehicle age of eleven years. This investment will improve our service by improving reliability of service. Strategic plans are being developed to bring additional cost savings to the operation to ensure that the District reaches satisfactory levels of service and financial sustain ability. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantages of the proposed approach are as follows: •

Improved service availability.

•

Lower overall maintenance cost.

The disadvantage is continued high maintenance cost of maintaining the fleet. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No alternative actions available at this time. 42

Report No. 11-0lOe Page 3 of 3 PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: 11-010c Consider Authorizing the General Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Related to a Piggyback Arrangement for the Procurement of up to 65 40-Foot Low Floor Urban Transit- Local Buses. 11-010d Consider approving the funding for Twenty-Seven {27) 40-Foot Low Floor Urban Transit-Local Buses previously approved by the Board on March 14, 2012 for procurement. 12-168 Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute documents for the purchase ofTwenty-three (23) Articulated Buses. ATTACHMENTS: A. Projected bus procurement costs and description. B. Diagrams of 40-foot commuter bus with AC Transit logos.

Approved by:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

Prepared by:

Tom Prescott, Attorney IV

43

This page intentionally blank 

44

Attachment A- SR 11-0lOe

AC Transit Bus Procurement Project Project Description I Scope of Work This project entails procurement of 104 buses- (23) 60' Articulated buses; (65) 40' Urban Transit buses; and (16) 40' Suburban buses. These are clean diesel buses, equipped with wheelchair access. These buses replace existing fleet of various configurations. This procurement supports a revised fleet plan transition approved by the AC Transit Board on March 14, 2012. The articulated buses will be used for local routes. The buses will be low floors and are equipped with wheelchair ramps. The buses can accommodate over 60 passengers. The low floor 40' Urban Transit buses will have 35 passenger seats, two wheelchair positions, and two passenger doors. These buses equipped with wheelchair lifts will be deployed on local. The 40' Suburban buses (over-road-coaches) seat over 30 passengers and include suburban-style amenities, including two doors for accelerated access to/from the vehicle, low floor bus type, and highback seating with cushioned seats. They will be equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps and will operate on transbay routes. As shown in the table below, the total project cost is estimated at $52.4 million. These costs include various components necessary to run service and meet federal and state regulations. If the total project costs exceed the estimation, the difference will be covered by other revenues. The labor and related fringe associated with project management and procurement for the buses are part of the overall costs.

Fleet Type

Quantity

Fleet Cost

60' Urban Articulated Buses- Local Service

23

$18,207,023

40' Urban Transit Buses- Local Service

65

$30,851,991

40' Suburban Buses- Transbay Service

16

$7,937,229

104

$56,996,243

Sub-Total

45

Technical Service Department Bus Cost Budget Bvs Base Sur;J:na-y

Total

40' Sus

$

Suburban 40' Bus

$

60' Bus

$

Incl. SIO;l Summ?.ry

404,618 425,618 643,545

Internal Resources

Bus Base Totals

Engine and Emission Compliance .Delivery Inspections Contingency & Escalation

B
Cost

Engine and Emission Compliance Delivery Inspections

Contingency & Esc:alation

60' Bus Pr ce

Adjustment

6.00%

@

Qty Qty

1

@

1

@

55.000 per/unit $ 50 per/unit 2.000 per/unit $

s

Allowance for unforeseen costs

5%

Bus Quantity

Inspections

Contingency & Escalation

3.300

so 2.000

$ 19,268 $404,618

Base ana Ad]Js•ea Values

Cost

_ _;------------s~.ooo

1

$ Qty 1 @ 50 per/unit $ ---Q;:ty;::..---:1:;----:@::--,2::-'.00:=0~p;::er":/i=un;::lt;.. $

3,300

$

20,268

Adjustment

6.00%

@

55,000 per/unit

Allowance for unforeseen costs 5% Total Cast of Suburban 40ft Bus

--

302,175 $ 1,774,500

$

303,430

SO

Cost

$600.000 1 Adjustment Qty

6.00%

@

1 1

@

55.000 per/unit

s s s

3.300 7,600 @ Qty per/unit 2.000 Allowance for unforeseen costs 5% $ 30,645 $643,545 Total Cast of 60ft Bus

7,600 2.000

per/unit

De"C' pt10n of Materrals, Sup::JI1es, or Eq •.11pment

Head Sign

Quantity

camera Systems Farebox

Quantity Quantity

1

@

Cipper Radio AMDT(AVL) APC Exterior Branding {BRn Hybrid Technology

Quantity

1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

@

Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity

Quantity

Traffic Priority Systems

Quantity

Fleetwatdl Extended Warranties Contingency & Escalation

Quantity

2.000

$425,618

Base anc AdJusted Values

Unit Base Engine and Emission Compliance Delivery

Veh1c'c Ec;u pment

-~:----------$380,000 1

Total Cost of 40ft Bus Suburban 40 Bus Pnce Unit Base Bus Quantity

$

Inclusion Totals

J.O Bus PriCe

Unit Ba.ie Bus Quantity

To:z\

Vehide Equipment Additional Packages

Quantity

1 1

@ @

@ @

2.500 10,000 10,000 5.000 8,000 22,000

@

16~000

@ @

20,000 200,000 1.500 1.000 1,500

@ @ @

Allowance for unforeseen costs

per/unft

Training Modules TooiPadcage Spare Parts Contingency & Escalation

Oe~crtpttO"

s

per/unit $ per/unit $ per/unit $ per/unit $ per/unit

$

per/unit $ per/unit per/unit

per/unit 5%

Total Cost of Vehicle Equipment Addt•ton
Cost

$ per/unit $

per/unit

s s

1.500 4,675 $ $ 302,175

of Packoge

Cost

_..;.;Ma=int;.;;ena~:':nee:::i:C:f:::asses/:7;;f.:;:B;::ust:;jO;i'pe7..:ra:t•:r::O::n:;·•:;n"tat=io'""n'-- $ 102,000 ----....,-~P~r~op7iul:::'s~ian/~:i'EI~ectr~ica~I/~Co~mi:'po':':'nen=:t=--- $ 206,000 Engine/ Transmission/ HVAC/ Suspension $ 82,000 ---==::...;;Co::mp=:o'::ne='=nt~Ro::;ll;;:in:::g-;;Sto::::::;dc~=----- S 1,300.000 -;AI:;;Iowa::::::n:::ce::;;fo:::r'::un::;foi:::::resee:=::n::costs:;:;;;"--'------5;;%;;-- S 84.500 Total Cast of Ad-nal Packaces

$1,774.500

Technkal Selllice

loll

46

1.000

$

Maintenance

· S:\TEOISERV\Cost Analysis\Bus Cost Budget.xlsx

2,500 10,000 10,000 5,000 8.000 22.000 16.000 20.000 200,000 1.500

wtonis 5/1/2012

Option A OJ

0 .-I

0I

.-I .-I

cr::

Vl

I

c:o

Gray/Black stripe is 17.5"

Side AC Transit decals are 45.5" x 12.25"

Stripes are-3.75"

Rear Transbay Express decal is 44.5" x 5" AC Transit is 24.25" x 7" Rear website is 32.5" x 3.75" Bus numbers are 4"

Transbay Express decals are 98.75" x 11.2"

1----- - - - - - - - - 279.00 - - - - - -ACTRANSIT

PAINT (Dupont)

(TBD) Low Floor, 40 foot by 102 inches Serial Numbers: TBD · Bus Numbers: TBD

Green Black Gloss Black- Hubs

Approval Layout, 7-1 7-12 Graphics, positioning and dimensions (+/- .301 are for visual representation at optimal v;ewing distance. Approx. Prod. Start: TBD

TBD N0001-EX

Front AC Transit decal is 30.34" x 8.25" -------1

DECALS

Approval & Acceptance

3M Black 3M White

Approved by: Title: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

~ Black - 3M 180C Green- 3M 680CR-77 Red- 3M 680CR-72

OWG: lll-65572-ooo

AC Transit logos are custom printed on reflective to match: Black - 3M 180C Green - 3M 680CR-77 47

For·- ----------------------Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Option 8

Gray/Black stripe is 26"

Side AC Transit decals are 45.5" x 12.25"

Stripes are-3 .75"

Rear Transbay Express decal is 44.5" x 5" AC Transit is 24.25" x 7" Rear website is 32.5" x 3 .75" Bus numbers are 4"

Transbay Express decals are 98.75" x 11 .2"

1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 279 .00 - - - - - -- - - - - - l ACTRANSIT

PAINT (Dupont)

(TBD) Low Floor, 40 foot by 102 inches Serial Numbers: TBD Bus Numbers: TBD

Green Black Gloss Black- Hubs

TBD N0001-EX

DECALS

Approval & Acceptance

3M Black 3M White

Approved by:

~ Black - 3M 180C Green - 3M 680CR-77 Red- 3M 680CR-72

Approval Layout, 7-17-12 Graphics. positioning and dimensions (+/- .30j

are lor visual representation at optimal viewing distance. Approx. Prod. Start: TBD

DWG: 10·65572·000

AC Transit logos are custom printed on reflective to match: Black - 3M 180C Green- 3M 680CR-77

48

Front AC Transit decal is 30.34" x 8.25"

Title: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ For·-------------

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-233 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Consider an appeal from Cypress Security, LLC of the General Manager's decision to deny protest under RFP No. 2012-1207, Facility Security Services

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION IS!: Vote whether to consider Cypress's appeal of the General Manager's decision to deny Cypress's protest of not awarding Cypress the contract under RFP No. 2012-1207.

1. No Vote means that the General Manager's decision will become final. 2. Yes Vote means the Board will schedule the hearing date for a future Board meeting and notify Cypress of the hearing date.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 20, 2012, Cypress Security, LLC. ("Cypress") filed a formal protest ofthe Board's decision award the contract under RFP No. 2012-1207 to Securitas Security Services. On August 10, 2012, pursuant to the District's Procurement Protest Procedures (Board Policy No. 354), the General Manager issued a written decision letter denying Cypress's protest. Under Board Policy No. 354, the protesting party may appeal the General Manager's decision of denial to the Board of Directors. On August 17, 2012, Cypress filed a timely appeal. If a majority of the Board votes against considering the appeal, the General Manager's decision will become final.

If a majority of the Board votes to consider the appeal, the Board will

schedule the hearing date for a future Board meeting and notify the protester of the hearing date. At the hearing, the protesting party will have a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Unless the Board permits otherwise, presentations are limited to oral argument and documentary evidence.

The Board may allow a question and answer period following the

presentation. Questions on the merits of the appeal must be presented at the hearing, and not at this Board meeting.

49

Report No. 12-233 Page 2 of 4

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

On May 15, 2012, AC Transit Staff evaluated 10 proposals to provide Facility Security Services for a five (5) year base period and five (5) year option. The evaluation was based on whether the proposal met the requirements under the scope of services for both technical criteria and cost. The district reserves the right to award the contract without negotiation. On July 11, 2012 the contract was awarded to Securitas for security services. The Evaluation Process considered the following based on the RFP: (1) All proposals are evaluated and ranked on technical criteria specified in the solicitation. (2) Proposals that are technically acceptable are re-evaluated with cost as a consideration. (3) Using both technical and cost criteria, proposals are ranked accordingly to a competitive range. (4) District mav negotiate with all responsible proposers in the competitive range. (5) The District, as its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussion with proposers who are in the "competitive range" or to award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no budgetary or fiscal impact. DISCUSSION:

The following analysis addresses the points raised in Cypress's appeal:

1. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The grounds for this appeal are that the decision ignores the criteria stated in the RFP, violates the process described in the RFP, violates due process legal requirements and is not in the best interest ofthe District." STAFF RESPONSE: Rather than ignoring the criteria stated in the RFP, the District, as stated in the August 10, 2012 General Manager's (GM) decision, carefully analyzed the RFP and other pertinent data that referenced in the decision, and adhered to the process described in the RFP which resulted in the protest denial. 2. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "Staff in recommending that the contract be awarded to the current Facility Security Services firm totally ignored the result of the scoring process for the RFP and determined that the contractor rated 4'h out of 4 bidders fully considered should receive the contract. The staff report recommending this improper result stated two rationales for the recommendation- continuity and cost. Neither of these rationales stands up to reasonable scrutiny." STAFF RESPONSE: Rather than ignoring the scoring process, the District incorporated the scores of 10 proposers in order to establish a competitive range, which resulted in four potential security firms from which to select. Paragraph 19.B, line five (5) of the RFP 50

Report No. 12-233 Page 3 of 4 expressly states that "the District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold

discussions with proposers who are in the competitive range or to award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal." Pursuant to this provision, the District incorporated all evaluation criteria in establishing its competitive range and within that range, and pursuant to Paragraph 19.C of the RFP, chose the firm whose proposal was deemed "most advantageous to the District". 3. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The report stated that the most obvious advantage of accepting the contract with Securitas would be of continuity for AC Transit. The current staff are familiar with and use the security equipment currently in place; they can visually recognize current employees, and they are familiar with the current Security Post Orders." STAFF RESPONSE: The process for selecting the Facility Security Services' Contract awardee is outlined in the District's response in paragraph two (2) above, not an individual employee's opinion. 4. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The second rationale is that the cost of the Securitas bid is projected to be less over a ten year period. While cost is certainly important, District staff allocated it 30% of the points in the RFP. Their recommendation, however, clearly elevated it to a much higher percentage - thereby changing the criteria in the RFP after the fact. Again, a violation of due process and state law." STAFF RESPONSE: The cost of the Securitas' proposal is projected to be less over the base period of the contract, and over a ten year period, and although not the only important evaluation criterion of the subject RFP, managing public resources is a fiduciary responsibility that the District does not take for granted. Paragraph 19.A of the RFP expressly states that cost will be evaluated for the five (5) year base period and five (5) year option which have the potential of saving the District an excess of one million dollars; i.e., resources that could be utilized for the greater good of the community in general and the District's clients in particular. 5. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The General Manager's Decision relies heavily on the language of Section 19 C. That language states: 'The District reserves the right to award the contract without negotiation. Therefore, contractors are encouraged to submit their best offer initially. The District will award to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with cost and other factors considered.' The General Manager's Decision interprets this language to say that nothing in the RFP makes any difference." STAFF RESPONSE: The General Manager's decision took into consideration all salient sections of the RFP, and that which was deemed to be in the District's best interest as stated on page one (1) of the GM's protest denial letter.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

There are no notable advantages or disadvantages. 51

Report No. 12-233 Page 4 of4

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The two options are noted at the beginning of this staff report.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR No. 12-192, Consider approving contract award to Securitas Security Services for facility security services, and authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a new five-year contract with one five-year extension (July 11, 2012). Board Policy No. 354, Procurement Protest Procedures, adopted under Resolution No. 705 on November 8, 1989 (amended November 2007).

ATTACHMENTS: 1: RFP No. 2012-1207, Facility Security Services 2: 3:

4: 5:

Cypress's Bid Protest General Manager's Decision Denying Protest Cypress's Appeal SR 12-192 -July 11, 2012 (Contract Award for Facility Security Services)

Department Head Approval:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

52

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 2012-1207 Date: MAY 15,2012

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AC TRANSIT DISTRICT Purchasing Department 10626 International Blvd. Oakland, CA 94603

TITLE: FACILITY SECURITY SERVICES

PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED at 10626 International Blvd. by 11:00 am on June 14. 2012 Sign the proposal, put it in an envelope, and write the Request For Proposal Number and Title on the Sign and return this page. Retain outside. Proposer's Duplicate copy for your files.

DO NOT INCLUDE SALES OR EXCISE TAXES in proposal prices.

ALL PROPOSERS COMPLETE THIS SECTION: ___________________________ 2012 Upon execution of a Contract Acceptance form, the undersigned agrees to furnish, subject to provisions on the reverse of this form, all articles or services within the dates specified, in the manner and at the prices stated, in accordance with the advertisement, specifications, proposal, special conditions and general conditions, all of which are made part of the contract proposal, when authorized by Purchase Order, Contract Order, or Letter of Agreement issued by the District. Name under which business is conducted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Business street address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Telephone: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

City

State

Zip Code

IF SOLE OWNER, sign here: I sign as sole owner of the business named above: Signed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Typed Name - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IF PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE, sign here: The undersigned certify that we are partners in the business Uoint venture) named above and that we sign this Request For Proposal with full authority to do so (one or more partners sign): Signed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Typed Name - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Signed--------------

Typed Name - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IF CORPORATION, sign here: The undersigned certify that they sign this contract proposal with full authority to do so: The undersigned certify that they sign this contract proposal with full authority to do so: Co~ornteName:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Signed-------------Signed--------------

Typed Name Title - - - - - Typed Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _T i t l e - - - - - -

Incorporated under the laws of the State of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fo/171 C102 May 2005

Page 1 of 22 53

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

GENERAL CONDITIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND INFORMATION FOR PROPOSERS 1. RENDITION OF SERVICES The Consultant hereby agrees to undertake, carry out and complete all work established herein In a professional and efficient manner satisfactory to District standards. The professional service or the performance of work or services required by the District cannot satisfactorily be performed by the regular employees of the District. 2. CONSULTANT'S STATUS Neither the Consultant nor any party contracting with the Consullant shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the District. The Consultant Is and shall be an Independent contractor, and the legal relationship of any person performing services for the Consultant shall be one solely between said parties. Consultant shall not subcontract any services to be performed by it under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the District, except for service firms engaged in drawing, production. typing and printing. Consultant shall be solely responsible for reimbursing any subcontractors and the District shall have no obligation to them. 3. OWNERSHIP OF WORK All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, and other materials prepared, or in the process of being prepared, for the services to be performed by Consultant shall be and are the property of the District and the District shall be entitled to access thereto, and copies thereof. during the progress of the work. In the event that the work which is the subject of this Agreement is not completed, for any reason whatsoever, all materials generated under this Agreement shall be delivered as the District may direct. 4. RECORDS The consultant shall permit the authorized representatives of the District to inspect and audit all data and records relating to performance under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain all such records for a period of three (3) years after the District makes nnal payment under this Agreement. 5. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT In the event the consultant breaches the terms or violates the conditions of this Agreement, and does not within ten (10) days of written notice from the District cure such breach or violation, the District may immediately terminate this agreement, and shall pay the Consultant only its allowable costs to the date of termination. 6. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE The District may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time for the District's convenience and without cause at any time by giving the Consultant written notice of termination. The Consultant will be paid for those services performed pursuant to this Agreement to the satisfaction of lhe District up to the date of notice of termination. The Consultant shall promptly submit its termination claim. If the Consultant has any property In Its possession belonging to the District, the Consultant will account for the same and dispose of it in the manner the District directs. 1. NON-DISCRIMINATION

In connection with the execution of any Agreement hereunder, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any applicant or employee on the grounds of race, religious creed, color. national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex or age as defined in Section 12926 Government Code. 8. INDEMNIFICATION The Consultant shall indemnify, keep and save harmless the District, its Board of Directors, officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expanse, costs (including. without limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant's performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of Its obligalions contained in the Agreement, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the District.

The District may at any time by written order make changes within the Scope of Services described in this Agreement. If such changes cause an increase In the budgeted cost of or the llme required for performance of the agreed upon work, the Consultant shall notify the District in writing of the amount of time and compensation adjustments that are required. In the event the Consultant encounters any unanticipated conditions or contingencies that may affect the scope of services and would result in an adjustment to the amount of compensation specified herein. Consultant shall so advise the District immediately upon notice of such condition or contingency. The written notice shall explain the circumstances giving rise to the unforeseen condition or contingency and shall set forth the proposed adjustment in compensation resulting therefrom. Any nottces shall be given to the District under the NOTICES clause of the Special Conditions. Any and all agreed upon pertinent changes shall be expressed as a written modincallon to this Agreement prior to implementation of such changes. 10. DISPUTE RESOLUTION In case any disagreement. difference or controversy shall arise bet'Neen the parties, with respect to any matter In relation to or arising out of or under this Agreement or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties, and the parties to the contro'Jersy cannot mutually agree thereon, then such disagreement. difference, or contro"Jersy shall be determined by binding arbitration, according to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any award made by the Arbilrator(s) shall be final, binding and conclusive upon all parties and those claiming under them. The costs and expenses of any Arbitration shall be borne and paid, as the Arbltrator(s) shall, by their award, direct. The submission to Arbitration is hereby made a condition precedent to the institution of any action at law or in equity with respect to the controversy involved; and such action at taw or in equity shall be restricted solely to the subject matter of the challenge of such award on the grounds and only in the manner permitted by taw. 11. NO ASSIGNMENT This Agreement is personal to each of the parties hereto, and neither party may assign or delegate any of its rights or obligations hereunder without first obtaining the written consent of the other. 12. PROHIBITED INTERESTS No member, ofncer, or employee of the District during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Consultant covenants that it presently has no Interest. direct or Indirect. which would connlct. in any manner or degree with the performance of the services called for under this Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement no person having any such Interest shall be employed by Consultant. The District may require Consullant to me an annual Statement of Economic Interest form pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) 13. WAIVER Failure of any party to exercise any right or option arising out of a breach of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or option with respect to any subsequent or different breach, or the continuance of any existing breach. 14. GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement, its interpretation and all work performed thereunder. shall be governed by the laws of the Slate of California. 15. INSURANCE Depending on thO nature of the services being solicited, the District may have ccrtuin minimum insumnce requirements.

9. CHANGES If any changes to the scope of services are sought by either party that would require a modification of the amount of compensation, the cllanges must be reviewed In advance of any action to Implement the change by the Project Manager and the Purchasing Department.

Page 2 of 22 54

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

16.

GENERAL INFORMATION Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District is a Special District, organized under the laws of the State of California. which provides public transit service to approximately 220,000 riders daily with a fleet of over 635 buses. The District's service area extends from western Contra Costa County to southern Alameda County. The District has approximately 1 ,944 employees and is financed through the receipt of transit fares, property taxes, state, and federal funding.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) outlines the scope of the requested services for the District, as well as information that should be included in proposals. The District's intent is to award one (1) firm-fixed type contract for five (5) years, with one (1) five (5) year priced option to a qualified contractor. Award consideration will be given to overall price, qualifications, experience, and responsiveness to the RFP. Contract services are to be governed by this RFP followed by an awarded contract. To be considered, one (1) original and three (3) copies of written proposals must be submitted no later than June 14, 2012 at 11 :DO a.m. PDT, to: Brian Jackson Purchasing Department AC Transit District 10626 International Blvd. Oakland, California 94603 51 0-577-8837 Email:[email protected] Proposals may be mailed or delivered. If mailed, proposals must be mailed in sufficient time to reach the above address before the specified time. If delivered, the proposals should be delivered to the above address. Proposals not received by the designated date/time or to the designated address will not be considered for award. Electronic or faxed proposals will "NOT" be accepted. Proposals will remain in effect for ninety (90) days from the designated date for receipt of proposals, unless mutually extended. No pre-award costs will be paid. The General Manager's signature and only his/her signature will constitute a binding award.

Page 3 of 22

55

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS This RFP does not commit the District to award a contract, to pay costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal, or to procure or contract for services. The District reserves, at its sole discretion, the right to reject any and all proposals, cancel all or part of this RFP and waive any minor irregularities or informalities. 17.

SCOPE OF WORK See Scope of Work section.

18.

MINIMUM PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Interested proposers shall submit proposals and qualifications in a brief response to this formal Request for Proposal, including a detailed statement of qualifications. Each proposal (original and three (3) copies) must be submitted in two (2) separate sealed envelopes within the proposal package. Part I will contain all responsive materials except those relating to cost. Part II will contain only information relating to cost. Specifically, proposals shall include the following information: A.

Firm name, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail and web addresses and background information, including contractor's history, size, financial capability, qualifications and the number of employees.

B.

Description of fixed post security service experience in the transportation industry, with three (3) client references, specific qualifications, and experience of key personnel.

C.

Description of interface and relationships with local law enforcement agencies.

D.

Documentation of state certifications, training, first aid and CPR certifications, of each officer assigned to this contract within 90 days after award of contract. Certifications must be maintained during the term of the contract.

E.

Qualifications imposed by contractor in selecting security officers.

F.

Description of contractor's methods of supervision of security personnel, and with the various classifications of security officers that will be assigned.

G.

Description of the proposed radio communication system.

Page 4 of 22

56

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS H.

19.

Completed Service Fee Schedule (Exhibit- 1).

EVALUATION AND AWARD A.

B.

Evaluation Criteria in relative order of importance:

1.

Cost will be evaluated for the five (5) year base period and five (5) year option. Cost will be weighted at 30% of the overall score.

2.

Technical

•

Approach to, and ability to meet requirements under Scope of Services and will be weighted at 30% of the technical score.

•

Qualifications and Experience and will be weighted at 10% of the technical score.

•

Description of interface and relationships with local law enforcement agencies and will be weighted at 15% of the technical score.

•

Description of the proposed radio communication system and will be weighted at 15% of the technical score.

Evaluation Process

:»

All proposals are evaluated and ranked on technical criteria specified in the solicitation.

:.- Proposals that are technically acceptable are re-evaluated with cost as a consideration. :.- Using both technical and cost accordingly to a competitive range.

criteria,

proposals

are

ranked

:.- District may negotiate with all responsible proposers in the competitive range. )>

The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions with proposers who are in the "competitive range" or to

Page 5 of 22

57

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal. C.

Award The District reserves the right to award the contract without negotiation. Therefore, contractors are encouraged to submit their best offer initially. The District will award to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with cost and other factors considered. After the District approval of award, unsuccessful proposers will be notified of such award in a timely manner.

20.

OPTION TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT (PRICED) At the sole discretion of the District, the contract may be extended unilaterally by the exercise of the priced option. If exercised. the District shall notify the contractor in writing of its intent to exercise the priced option at least thirty (30) days prior to the exercise of the option. The option shall be exercised in accordance with the prices proposed in the original proposal.

21.

PROTEST PROCEDURES

A.

Protest before Opening Proposal protests based upon restrictive specifications or alleged improprieties in the proposal procedure shall be filed, in writing, with the Procurement and Materials Director, ten (1 0) days prior to the proposal opening date. The protest must clearly specify the grounds on which the protest is based and include any supporting information.

B.

Protest of Award A Proposer (or other interested party as defined under the District's Protest Procedures) may file a protest with the District alleging a violation of applicable federal or state law and/or District policy or procedure relative to the seeking, evaluating and/or awarding of a procurement contract. Such protest must be filed no later than ten (1 0) days after the date of notice of award or non-award of contract by the District.

Copies of the District's Procurement Protest Procedures should be obtained from the District's Procurement and Materials Director. The Procurement Protest Procedures will be provided immediately upon request. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE DISTRICT'S Page 6 of 22

58

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

WRITTEN PROPOSAL PROTEST REJECTION OF THE PROTEST. 22.

23.

PROCEDURES

MAY

RESULT

IN

PROHIBITED INTERESTS

A.

No member, officer, or employee of the District during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest direct or indirect, in this Contract or the proceeds thereof.

B.

Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, direct or indirect, which would confiict, in any manner or degree with the performance of the services called for under this Contract. Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this Contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed by the contractor. The contractor further covenants that it receives no commissions or other payments from parties other than the District as a result of work performed hereunder.

C.

The District may require the contractor to file an annual Statement of Economic Interest form pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.)

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

It is strongly recommended that contractors confer with their respective insurance carriers and/or brokers to determine in advance of proposal submission the availability of insurance, Certificates and Endorsements as prescribed and provided herein. If a contractor fails to strictly comply with the insurance requirements, that contractor may be disqualified from award of the contract. contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages for property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the contractor, contractor's agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The District reserves the right to alter, amend, increase or otherwise modify the insurance requirements stated herein.

A.

Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1.

General Liability: Coverage is to be equal to Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Occurrence Form CG 0001.

Page 7 of 22

59

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

B.

2.

Automotive Liability: Coverage is to be equal to Insurance Services Office Business Auto Form CA 0001 (01/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).

3.

Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance.

Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:

C.

1.

General Liability: $1 ,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If an aggregate limit is used, either a separate aggregate limit shall apply to this project or the aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2.

Automobile Liability: $1 ,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3.

Workers' Compensation: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

Deductible and/or Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles and/or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the District. The District reserves the option to: 1) Require the insurer to reduce or eliminate such deductible and self-insured retention as to the District, and/or; 2) Require the Contractor to procure a bond guaranteeing the payment of any deductible or self-insured retention of losses, related investigations, claims, administration, and defense expenses.

D.

Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or are to be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. General Liability and Automotive Liability a.

The District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed on behalf of the Page 8 of 22

60

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied, or used by the Contractor; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitation on the scope of protection afforded to the District, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.

2.

b.

For any claims related to this agreement, the contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the District, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of the contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.

c.

Any failure with reporting provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the District, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.

d.

The contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the contractor for the District, except for such loss or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the District.

3.

All Coverage a.

Each policy required shall be endorsed to state that the coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverages or limits, except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the District, addressed to Risk Manager, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California 94612.

b.

Each policy is to be on an "Occurrence" form. "Claims Made" form requires prior approval by the District, as well as Page 9 of 22

61

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS contractor being required to provide acceptable evidence of the policy's retroactive date, and also will be required to maintain the coverage with the same retroactive date for a period of not less than five (5) years following termination of services under this Agreement.

4.

Acceptability of Insurance Insurance is to be placed with insurers having a current A.M. Best & Co. rating of no less than "A-: VII".

5.

Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the District with appropriate Certificates of Insurance and with original Endorsements effecting coverages required. The Certificates and Endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage. The Certificates and Endorsements are to be on forms approved by the District. The Certificates and Endorsements are to be received and approved by the District prior to the commencement of any work under the Agreement. The District reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.

6.

Other Requirements a.

Should any work under this Agreement be sublet, the contractor shall require each subcontractor of any tier to comply with all of the Agreement's insurance provisions and provide proof of such compliance to the District.

b.

These insurance requirements are not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or otherwise qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor under this Agreement; including, but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.

c.

Compliance with these insurance requirements is considered a material part of the Agreement, and breach of any such provision may, at the option of the District, be considered a material breach of the Agreement, and result in action by the District to withhold payment and/or terminate the Agreement.

Page 10 of 22

62

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 24.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/NON DISCRIMINATION

II is the policy of the district to ensure non-discrimination in the award and administration of all contracts and to create a level playing field on which minority and small/local businesses can compete for District contracts. In connection with the performance of this contract, the contractor will cooperate with the District in furthering the District's policy. 25.

SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS PROGRAM

AC Transit has established a Small Local Business Procurement Program (Board Policy 351) to ensure that small local business enterprises have a meaningful opportunity to participate in AC Transit's procurements. AC Transit believes that a Small Local Business Procurement Policy can provide support to small local businesses and enable them to more effectively compete for AC Transit procurements, especially those businesses that have been at a disadvantage in the past. Under the current Policy, a Small Local Business is a business which meets the U.S. Government's Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard and is located within AC Transit's geographical service area. Contractors doing business with AC Transit are encouraged to utilize small local businesses in their subcontracts. Contractors responding to this solicitation shall complete and submit with their response, the Small Local Business Procurement Worksheet (attached to this solicitation), which indicates whether they intend to use small local businesses in the contract to be awarded, and, if so, the percentages of contract work to be allocated to small local businesses. Contractors can contact the Contract Specialist or Buyer assigned to this procurement for information on SLBE resources. 26.

VENDOR REGISTRATION

If you are not already an AC Transit registered vendor, an online Vendor Registration is required prior to contract award. Bidders should access www.actransit.org, select: purchasing, online purchasing, and Register as an Online Purchasing User. To complete the process, include a W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification - containing original signature in proposals. If online access is not available, contact the Purchasing Department for instructions.

27.

FURTHER INFORMATION Page 11 of 22

63

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Prospective proposers may contact Mr. Brian K.

Jackson via email at

bkjackso@actransi t. org for further information.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 12 of 22

64

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SCOPE OF WORK 1.

SCOPE OF WORK

Contractor will provide trained and unarmed security officers for the location and hours as specified. Security officers to District facilities are unarmed and will be equipped by the Contractor with two-way radio communications equipment (cell phones), rain gear, and other Protective Personal Equipment (PPE) as needed. Uniformed security officers will be expected to observe and report all offenses or violations of District rules and regulations, as well as local, state and federal laws. Security officers will take action on observed offenses by removing any disruptive persons by citizen's arrest, or by calling the Alameda or Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office to report a crime, depending upon the site of the offense. Such activities will be in cooperation with local police jurisdictions within the District's service areas. The Contractor's security officers will be expected to become familiar with the District computer security system used to monitor employee access on District property. Security officers will also be expected to check site security camera views regularly and utilize the pan-tilt-zoon cameras to conduct visual patrols of District property. The Contractor's security officers will be responsible for maintaining complete incident and arrest report records and will provide the District with copies of such reports on a weekly basis. In addition, the Contractor will be required to provide monthly statistical reports. The Contractor at no cost to the District provide an Account Manager who will have the authority to supervise and oversee day-to-day operations and consult on a daily or as needed basis with the Chief of Protective Services or his designee. 2.

GUARD SHIFTS AND LOCATIONS

The following is a list of minimum guard services required in each location operated by AC Transit: Division Two -Sunday through Saturday one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x three (3) shifts = three (3) shifts per day x seven (7) seven days per week = twenty one (21) shifts per week. Division Two Location: 1177-471h Street

Emeryville, CA. 94608 Page 13 of 22

65

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 SCOPE OF WORK

Division Three- Sunday through Saturday one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day three (3) shifts per day x seven (7) seven days per week x three (3) shifts twenty one (21) shifts per week.

=

=

Division Three Location: 2016 MacDonald Avenue Richmond, CA. 94608 Division Four- Sunday through Saturday one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x three (3) shifts = three (3) shifts per day x seven (7) seven days per week = twenty one (21) shifts per week. Division Four Location: 1100 Seminary Avenue Oakland, CA. 94608 Division Six- Sunday through Saturday one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x three (3) shifts = three (3) shifts per day x seven (7) seven days per week = twenty one (21) shifts per week. Division Six Location: 1758 Sabre Avenue Hayward, CA. 94608 Central Maintenance Facility- Monday through Friday 8a.m. until 4 p.m. one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x one (1) shift= one guard per shift x five (5) days per week= five (5) shifts per week. Sunday through Saturday (3) guards eight (8) hours per day x seven (7) days per week= twenty-one (21) shifts per week. Nine (9) Holidays - three (3) shifts per day x one (1) guard per shift = twenty seven (27) Holiday shifts Central Facility Location: 10626 International Blvd. Oakland, CA. 94603 General Office- Monday through Friday 8a.m. until 4 p.m. one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x one (1) shift = one guard per shift x five (5) days per week = five (5) shifts per week.

Page 14 of 22

66

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 SCOPE OF WORK Sunday through Saturday (3) guards eight (8) hours per day x seven (7) days per week= twenty one (21) shifts per week. Nine (9) Holidays - three (3) shifts per day x one (1) guard per shift = twenty seven (27) Holiday shifts General Office Location: 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA. 94612

661h Avenue- Sunday through Saturday one (1) guard eight (8) hours per day x three (3) shifts = three (3) shifts per day x seven (7) days per week= twenty one (21) shifts per week.

661h Avenue Site (Fruitvale Business Center) 987-993 661h Avenue Oakland, CA 94621 Richmond Park and Ride Monday through Friday 5:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. one (1) guard per eight (8) hour shift x two (2) shifts = two (2) shifts per day x five (5) days per week= ten (1 0) shifts per week. Richmond Park and Ride Location: Richmond Parkway Blume Drive Richmond, CA. 94801

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 15 of 22

67

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 Attachment 1: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Certification Company Name Street/Mailing Address City/State/Zip Code TAX I.D. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

I.

PRIME CONTRACTOR

D

The Bidder/Proposer is a CaiTrans or other authorized certifying agency, certified DBE under the FTA Uniform Certification Program. Certification No. _ _ _ _ _ _ __

D

Expiration Date

The Bidder/Proposer has applied for DBE status through CaiTrans, or other authorized certifying agency, under the FTA Uniform Certification Program. Application Date _ _ _ _ __

Status of application _ _ _ _ _ __

D

The Bidder/Proposer is not a CaiTrans or other authorized certifying agency, certified DBE under the Uniform Certification Program.

II.

SUBCONTRACTOR (if proposed in bid or proposal)

Attach a separate sheet for each subcontractor to be used in the performance of services under a proposal specifying the sub-contractor DBE status as stated under section I listed above. If not already registered, sub-contractors should access www.actransit.org, and complete an online vendor registration form by selecting purchasing, online purchasing, and registering as an Online Purchasing User. A W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification is required to complete the process. Prime Contractor's are requested to explain the DBE program and encourage subcontractors to apply for certification.

Prime Signature

Position Title

Date

Page 16 of 22

68

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 Attachment 2: SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS QUESTIONAIRRE Consultants doing business with the District are encouraged to utilize small local businesses in their subcontracts. Under the current Board Policy (351), a Small Local Business is a business that meets the U.S. Government's Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard and is located within AC Transit's geographical service area. Consultants can contact the Contract Specialist or Buyer assigned to this procurement for information on SLBE resources. Consultants responding to this solicitation shall complete the following questions and include this Worksheet with their bid or proposal, indicating whether they intend to use Small Local Businesses in the contract to be awarded and, if so, the percentages of contract work to be allocated to Small Local Businesses. If there is no opportunity for SLBE utilization. please indicate on the form with "N/A".

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

Subcontractor name

SLBE

% of project work

Certification No.

[END OF SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS QUESTIONAIRRE]

Page 17 of 22

69

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 Attachment 2: SMALL LOCAL BUSINESS QUESTIONAIRRE I

To comply with the requirements of the California Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, bidder shall list the name and address of each subcontractor, including D.B.E. subcontractor to whom bidder proposes to Subcontract more than Y:z of 1 percent of the work, and description and portions of the Work or services Subcontracted. Note: If subcontractors are utilized in a contract awarded from this RFP, Contractor shall submit to the District. on a monthly basis, those payments made to all of their subcontractors. The form for reporting monthly payments to subcontractors will be supplied by the District to the successful contractor after contract award. If there is no opportunity for Sub-Contractor utilization, please indicate on the form with "N/A" and provide an explanation as to why not. A!lach add'. 'f more space 1s require d . 111ona cop1es o f Ih'IS farm 1 Name: 0

Address: Estimated dollar amount of subcontract & description of work: Is the firm a DBE? (YES/NO/PENDING) How many years has the firm been in business? What are the firm's gross annual receipts for the most recent three years?

Name: Address:

Estimated dollar amount of subcontract: & description of work: Is the firm a DBE? (YES/NO/PENDING) How many years has the firm been in business? What are the firm's gross annual receipts for the most recent three years?

[END OF DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS] Page 18 of 22

70

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE EXHIBIT -1 Base Period of Performance

Annual Cost

YEAR 1

$_ _ _ _ _ __

YEAR2

$._ _ _ _ _ __

YEAR3

$_ _ _ _ _ ____

YEAR4

$____________

YEAR 5

$_ _ _ _ _ __

Total Five (5) Year Cost

$_ _ _ _ _ __

Priced Option Period of Performance

Annual Estimated Cost

Total Five (5) Year Cost (Priced Option)

$_ _ _ _ _ __

GRAND TOTAL (Base plus Option Period)

$_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Page 19 of 22

71

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 CONTRACT day of 5, by and THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into this between the ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as "District"), a special transit district established pursuant to California Public Utilities Code, Section 24501 et seq., a n d - : : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1.

SCOPE OF WORK

2.

A. B. C.

3. Services under this Contract shall commence upon award, and continue for the five (5) year base period, with a five (5) year priced option for services to continue if unilaterally exercised at the sole discretion of the District. Contractor shall not be held liable for delays resulting from problems of scheduling on the part of the District. 4.

CONTRACT PRICE The District agrees to pay the Contractor ($__j for services performed for the five (5) year base period in accordance with their submitted proposal dated __ . The District and the Contractor must mutually agree upon any adjustments in payment. Invoices for services performed shall be submitted by the Contractor to AC Transit Accounts Payable, P.O. Box 28507, Oakland, California. 94604. Please reference the Contract Number and Purchase Order Number on all invoices. Failure to do so could delay payment.

Page 20 of 22

72

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01,2012 THROUGH JUNE 30,2017 CONTRACT 5.

NOTICES

Any notice which may be required under this Contract shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set fort below or to such other addresses which may be specified in writing by t p rties to this Contract. DISTRICT:

Procurement and Materials Director 10626 International Blvd. Oakland, California 94603

6.

:t.Oi~el~lfl~

r i r party to bring a lawsuit to o !rae , the parties agree that the court !On--ol<'mlu! sha have the authority to determine and fix a to the prevailing party.

7. If any pr of this Contract is declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.

8.

BINDING EFFECT

All of the terms, provisions, and conditions of the Contract hereunder, shall be binding upon and inure the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns, and legal representatives. 9.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

By signing this Contract, the Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services called for under this agreement. The Contractor further covenants that in the performance of this agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by the Contractor, and that the Contractor receives no commissions or other payments from parties other than the District as a result of work performed hereunder.

Page 21 of 22

73

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

2012-1207

FACILITY SECUITY SERVICES FOR THE TERM OF JULY 01, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017 CONTRACT Failure to comply with this provision serves as a basis for termination for default and the collection of any damages.

10.

GOVERNING LAW All matters arising under the contract shall be governed by California law.

11.

VENUE In the event of a dispute or breach of Contract, venue shall be in Alameda County, California.

12.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Contract represents the entire agree subject matter hereof, and all such am.el2A1 revoked and superseded by this o inducements or oral agree men s expressly set forth her · , · in t

reto are ranties, ceptas 9.._~(l;j_ft~.r\~i!·-=ements.

writing, of this

ave executed this Contract on the dates set forth below. CONTRACTOR:

David J. Armijo General Manager

Date

NAME TITLE

Approved as to Form and Content:

Vincent C. Ewing General Counsel

Date

Page 22 of 22

74

Date

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 2012-1207

FACILITY SECURITY GUARDS SERVICES Addendum No.1 dated May 31, 2012 The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District herewith issues this Addendum No.1 to the above reference Request For Proposal. Except as modified below, all other terms and conditions shall remain in effect. StFikethFe~§fl.--texts are words deleted from original RFP text and bold/italicized/underlined text are changes to original RFP text. Amendments to Request For Proposal NONE Amendments to the General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Proposers NONE Amendments to the Special Conditions

Questions regarding RFP 2012-1207 Facility Security Guard Services must be submitted in electronic format via email to QJ5jackso§i>..Jictransit.orq no later than June 04, 2012 at 11:00am. Response to all question will be answered on or before June 06, 2012 at 3:00pm in the form of an addendum and posted on AC Transit's website which Is listed In the RFP. Amendments to the Price Proposal NONE Amendments to the Sample Contract NONE Amendments to the RFP Attachments NONE Attachments to this Addendum NONE

Page 1 of 1

75

SR 12-233 Attachment 1 AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 2012-1207

FACILITY SECURITY GUARDS SERVICES Addendum No.2 dated June 4, 2012 The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District herewith issues this Addendum No.2 to the above reference Request For Proposal. Except as modified below, all other terms and conditions shall remain in effect. 8tfi*elhfG!,J§~texts are words deleted from original RFP text and bold/italicized/underlined text are changes to original RFP text. Amendments to Request For Proposal

NONE Amendments to the General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Proposers

NONE Amendments to the Special Conditions

There will one (1) non-mandatory site walk through in connection with RFP 20121207. The site walk will be conducted by the Project Manager Mr. Larrv Perea at AC Transit's Division Six location at 1758 Sabre Avenue, Havward, California 94545 on June 6. 2012 starting at 9:00am and concluding at 10:30am. This is a site walk and all questions submitted prior to the required deadline will be answered in accordance with Addendum #1 dated May 31, 2012 to this RFP posted on AC Transit's website. Amendments to the Price Proposal

NONE Amendments to the Sample Contract

NONE Amendments to the RFP Attachments

NONE Attachments to this Addendum

NONE

Page 1 of 1

76

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

FACILITY SECURITY GUARD SERVICES RFP 2012-1207 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

ADDENDUM No.3 1.

Is this contract subject to prevailing wages? Answer: No.

2.

Will the County be scheduling a pre-proposal conference? Answer: No

3.

Is there a site walk or pre-bid meeting? Answer: At this time a site walk is not scheduled. This is an RFP not a IFB so there is no pre-bid conference.

4.

Is there a deadline for questions regarding the RFP? Answer: Dead line for all questions is June 4, 2012 at 3:00pm.

5.

Would there happen to be someone we can meet with this coming Friday afternoon or next week for a brief discussion regarding the current security program? Answer: There will be no individual meetings please reply in accordance with RFP 2012-1207.

6.

Can you assist me with providing a list of Small Local Businesses? Answer: Questions is unclear, however, the District does not provide list of Small Local Businesses.

7.

Regarding Section 18, Subsection B: Is it a requirement to have experience in the transportation industry? Answer: It is not a requirement; however, it is a preference for a Security Company to have experience in the Transportation Industry because of the unique concerns related to a Transportation System.

8.

I wanted to know if there is a proposed budget for 2012-1207. Answer: Budget Information is not released by the District.

9.

Is there a wage requirement? Answer: Please refer to RFP 2012-107 and respond accordingly. Page 1 of 5

77

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

FACILITY SECURITY GUARD SERVICES RFP 2012-1207 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

10.

Are there benefit requirements such as days off, sick days, vacation, and/or retirement plan? Answer: Please refer to RFP 2012-107 and respond accordingly.

11.

What are the health care requirements? Answer: Please refer to RFP 2012-107 and respond accordingly.

12.

Is there a collective bargaining agreement? Answer: Currently guards are under a collective bargain agreement.

13.

Do you require vehicles, bicycles and/or golf carts for any location? If so, how many? Answer: Not a requirement.

14.

What type of background check do you require? Answer: Not a requirement.

15.

Do you require a site manager and/or supervisor? If so, is this a full time position requirement? Answer: Yes, at no cost to the District and please refer to the RFP.

16.

Who is the Current Provider? How long have they had the contract? Answer: Securitas, approximately ten years.

17.

What is your current billing rate? Answer: Standard $17.34 per hour and Holiday $26.01 per hour.

18.

Who is the current provider? Answer: Securitas Security Services.

19.

How long has the current provider had the contract? Answer: Approximately Ten Years.

20.

Will the current provider be submitting a bid? Page 2 of 5

78

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

FACILITY SECURITY GUARD SERVICES RFP 2012-1207 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

Answer: Current provider has the right to submit a proposal. 21.

Is the RFP due to lack of performance by the current provider? Expiration of the contract.

22.

What are the most common issues or challenges? Answer: Working in an environment with people you see regularly and not becoming complacent. Non-employees entering the property who are problematic or hostile.

23.

What was the annual cost of the contract for the past year? Answer: Approximately 1.1 million per year.

24.

Project Managers: How many? What are the hours? Project Manager Requirements? Answer: If you mean the Account Manager, there is one and we work the hours out to be flexible to ensure that person checks on the staff regularly to ensure they are taking care of business.

25.

What are the hours? Do they have to be dedicated to this project? Answer: Yes, this is a large contract and we expect the Account Manager to make regular checks on the security personnel, rotating between the various properties.

26.

Do you have any specific equipment requirements? Answer: Please refer to the RFP.

27.

Is this a Union Job? Answer: Current guards are in SEIU.

28.

Is there a Collective Bargaining Agreement to be signed? Yes.

29.

Do you have any Hourly Pay requirements? Answer: Proposer must provide that information.

Page 3 of 5

79

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

FACILITY SECURITY GUARD SERVICES RFP 2012-1207 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

30.

Is there a Living Wage Law? Answer: No.

31.

Is it the Intent lo award to one company? Answer: Yes.

32.

Are any discounts given to MBE-WBE-DMBE-DWBE? What% is given? Answer: No.

33.

Are there any Vehicles required for any location? Answer: Please refer to RFP for requirements.

34.

Are there any Golf Carts required for any location? Answer: Please refer to RFP for requirements.

35.

Are there any Bicycles required for any location? Answer: Please refer to RFP for requirements.

36.

Section 19_Evaluation and Award_2_Technical_41h Bullet_ refers to "Description of the proposed radio communications system and will be weighted at 15% of the technical score. Is it possible to know the type of radio communication system(s) in place now for AC Transit? Additionally, is it possible to know specifically how many radios, dispatch center equipment, repeaters, etc. are currently being used now by the AC Transit for the specific contracted hours per week in the RFP? Lastly, is it possible to know of any current radio communications goals the AC Transit may have or solutions you may be seeking with respect to AC Transit's overall radio communication system? Answer: Please refer to RFP for requirements any and respond.

37.

Section 25 refers to a "Small Business Program." Will the participation in a Small Local Business Program be a part of the evaluation process? Answer: Please refer to RFP for evaluation requirements on page 5 of 22.

38.

Under the "Scope of Work," Nine (9) Holidays are referenced. Are holidays to be included in the proposed hourly rate, or billed direct as incurred? Are holidays worked at each location? Answer: Please refer to RFP for requirements, furthermore it is the responsibility of the proposer to come up with the pay structure.

39.

Section 16_General Information_ refers to "The District's intent is to award one (1) firm-fixed type contract for five (5) years, with one (1) five (5) year priced Page 4 of 5

80

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

FACILITY SECURITY GUARD SERVICES RFP 2012-1207 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

option to a qualified contractor." Would it be possible for AC Transit to expand upon this language? Does this require the awarded contractor to maintain the same fixed price for potentially up to ten (1 0) years? Answer: It requires the proposer to provide a firm-fixed price for the base period of five years, and to provide a one (1) five year priced option. 40.

In order to maintain compliance with the Local SEIU security officers' union, would it be possible to receive a seniority list for keeping the officers' compensation and benefits whole by correctly grandfathering them at their current or above current wage rate and/or benefits structure? Additionally, would it be possible for the AC Transit District to provide written notice of the security officers they do not wish for us to retain? Answer: This information will be provided to the Contractor that receives the award prior to commencement of the contract.

41.

At the top of Page 15 under "Scope of Work," it is stated that, "Sunday through Saturday (3) guards eight (8) hours per day x seven (7) days per week = twenty one (21) shifts per week." Would this be three (3) officers working simultaneously on each shift for three shifts per day/seven days per week for 504 hours per week, or one (1) officer working at a time for each of the three (3) shifts per day/seven days per week for 168 hours per week? Answer: No, it takes 3 guards per day on 8 hour shifts to maintain 24 hour coverage for each day, 7 days a week. Two sites have two guards during the day shift, 8 hour shifts for 5 days a week.

(END OF QUESTIONS ANSWERS)

Page 5 of 5

81

SR 12-233 Attachment 1

AC TRANSIT DISTRICT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL No. 2012-1207

FACILITY SECURITY GUARDS SERVICES Addendum No.4 dated June 11, 2012 The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District herewith issues this Addendum No.4 to the above reference Request For Proposal. Except as modified below, all other terms and conditions shall remain in effect. gtfikettlrougi'\-texts are words deleted from original RFP text and bold/italicized/underlined text are changes to original RFP text. Amendments to Request For Proposal NONE Amendments to the General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Proposers NONE Amendments to the Special Conditions Addendum #3, question # 28, ask "Is there a Collective Bargaining Agreement to be signed". Answer: ¥es-. T/Je District has not mandated a Collective Bargaining Agreement in its RFP, Please refer to the RFP posted to AC Transit's website and all Addendums. Amendments to the Price Proposal NONE Amendments to the Sample Contract NONE Amendments to the RFP Attachments NONE Attachments to this Addendum NONE

Page 1 of 1

82

SR 12-233 Attachment 2

AC Transit Procurement Protest Form RFPnFB Number:

1\b .201a -1?..CR. Ma)'15.0l.012,

Name of Individual or Entity filing this protest

Jl±l~ ··fuci\Aty~~
C!fpcess 'B-\ycx:\:e. Se.o...~n:£7

Business Address: @'fia,o\s. O~wD. P\cxz;01 Stt 1B Oo.\s.\o,ocl CA C)'-lb1;).. C9f1(0' o..3:£}'f/'5~cne Sve& So..o"'Tb?ncisco.
c6

Telephone Number:

.LJ15 - ~ Y () · 'i 5DD

Name and Tllla of Contact Person: Kes NcxdoubQ.s

7

. Pres\ cli"nt on ct tz~

Description of Specific Procurement Contract In Issue:

Couns~

AC Tr-qas\-\:_ Dj stQd-, RT? Ng. Q?91d,-1QPT

Please provide a clear and concise statement of your protest Include identification ot a. The specific Federal or State law, District policy or procedure allegedly violated, or: b. Procedures or specifications contained In the Bid documenta (IFB) or the Request for Proposals (RFP) that were allegedly not complied with, or: c. The specific Instance of the District's failure to follow these Procurement Protest Procedures.

See

~o..c'(\fcl

G pn<3es:

8oanl PoJmy No. 354 Page7

83

SR 12-233 Attachment 2

Cypress Private Security 452 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 941 03 T 415.352.1900 F 415.352.1910

July 20, 2012

AC Transit Attention: Procurement and Materials Director 10626 International Blvd. Oakland, CA 94603 AC Transit Manager, Capital Development, Legislation, and Grants 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612

Attention: Protest Material: Requestfor Proposal (RFP) No 2012-1207 Dated May 15, 2012 Titled: Facility Security Services Dear Director and Manager: This letter is to protest the District's July 11, 2012 Award regarding the subject RFP on the basis that the District, in performing that action, 1. Failed to follow or comply with applicable federal or state law or regulation, District policy or procedure relative to developing, soliciting, evaluating, negotiating and/or awarding a procurement contract. 2. Failed to cornply with the relevant requirements and procedures contained in the solicitation.

ENTITY FILING PROTEST

Cypress Security, LLC d/b/a Cypress Private Security (Cypress Security). Cypress Security maintains offices at both 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 1B Oakland, CA and 452 Tehama Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, and submiited a proposal in response to the subject RFP All communications regarding this protest should be addressed to: Kes Narbutas Cypress Private Security 452 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94103

84

SR 12-233 Attachment 2 Protest re RFP 2012-1207

July 20, 2012 Page 2 of6

Dir: 415-240-4500 Fax: 415-352-1910 Email: [email protected]

STANDING Cypress Security, LLC d/b/a Cypress Private Security (Cypress Security) is a prospective supplier of goods or services, whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award or failure to award a contract. As the highest rated proposer under the RFP, Cypress Security is directly impacted by the District's action through lost profits and economic opportunity by the award of a contract that should have been awarded to it as the highest rated bidder.

TIMELINESS OF PROTESTS AC Transit Board Policy No. 354 states that protests based upon grounds other than the content of the solicitation in procurements other than negotiated procurements under California Public Contract Code §20217 must be filed no later than ten (10) calendar days after the District's notice of intent to award, or notice of award, or notice of non-award, which occurs first. Cypress has yet to receive any notification from the District of either the staff recommendation or the Board's decision to award the contract to Securitas, but has been made aware of the District's July 11, 2012 action. Accordingly, this protest is being filed less than ten (10) days from the Board's July 11, 2012 decision and accordingly this protest is timely.

BASIS OF PROTEST Pursuant to California Public Contract Code, Cypress Security, LLC protests the award to Securitas on the basis that Cypress was the highest rated bidder under the RFP, and in contravention of the process and evaluation criteria establish in the RFP, the District is proposing to award the contract to the 4th highest rated bidder, as determined by its own evaluation committee. California law requires a State agency to Include in any contract solicitation a clear description of how the agency will evaluate the bids It receives. Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California, 206 Cal. App. 3d 449, 456 ( 1988) Hence, the RFP provided a detailed process for how proposers would be evaluated and scored, using a weighting system that pre-determined the value of each of the criteria that would be used in making the selection. Set forth below is the relevant text from RFP which describes this process.

85

SR 12-233 Attachment 2 Protest re RFP 2012-1207 July 20, 2012 Page 3 of6

"19. EVALUATJON AND AWARD A.

Evaluation Criteria in relative order of importance: Cost I. Cost will be evaluated for the five (5) year base period and five (5) year option. Cost will be weighted at 30% of the overall score. 2. Tee/mica/ *Approach to. and ability to meet requirements under Scope of Services and will be weighted at 30% of the technical score. * Qualifications and Experience and will be weighted at I 0% of the technical score. *Description of inte1jace and relationships with local law enforcement agencies and will be weighted at I5% of the tee/mica/ score. * Description of the proposed radio communication system and will be weighted at I5% of the technical score. '"

The RFP the goes on to describe how these proposals would be evaluated using these criteria: '"B. Evaluation Process lO All proposals are evaluated and ranked on tee/mica/ criteria specified i11 the solicitation. lO Proposals that are technically acceptable are re-evaluated with cost as a consideration. lO Using both tee/mica/ and cost criteria, proposals are ranked accordingly to a competitive range. lO District may negotiate with all responsible proposers in the competitive range. The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions with proposers who are in the '"competitive range" or to award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal."

On the basis of this well articulated process, the Districts evaluation committee staff ranked the four top proposers as follows:

Ranking 1 2 3 4

Vendor Cl/oress GS4 Allied Barton Securitas

Combined Technical 64.33 68 64 55

Finally, the RFP provides that:

86

Cost Scores 20.22 15.31 17.83 21.86

Combined Score 84.55 83.61 81.83 76.86

SR 12-233 Attachment 2 Protest re RFP 2012-1207 July 20, 2012 Page 4 of6

»

District may negotiate witlr all responsible proposers in the competitive range. The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions witlr proposers who are in the "competitive range" or to award tire contract without discussion based 011 tire initial price proposal. "

Thereafter, there were no negotiations conducted, certainly not with the number 1, 2 or 3 1 ranked proposers. We must therefore assume that the staff made a determination to award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal. THE DISTRICT PROPOSES TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RATED BIDDER, RATHER THEN THE HIGHEST.

It is therefore shocking to discover that the staff, after developing such a thorough and well articulated set of criteria and a detailed process for its evaluation, chose to disregard it and reach past not just the highest rated vendor- Cypress- but past the number 2 and number 3 rated vendors to the lowest rated one, Securitas, primarily because it was the incumbent. Disregarding the District's stated evaluation criteria, and even more surprisingly, disregarding their own ranking of the proposers, the staff recommended making the award to Securitas on the basis that (i) it would create "continuity" and (ii) Securitas is the lowest cost provider. Neither of these rationales is appropriate under the circumstances for the following reasons: First, with respect to the staff's "continuity'' rationale, this is an unannounced criterion that is not mentioned in the RFP as a consideration, much less the determining factor. California law supports the setting aside of a public contract where the government agency has applied evaluation criteria not in the solicitation. For example, in Monterey Mechanical, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1391, the contracting agency awarded a public works contract based, In part, on factors not included in the bid solicitation. The Court of Appeals held that the award must be set aside on a writ of mandate because the agency had relied on criteria that were outside the solicitation: The Board's decision to reject/he plaintiff's bid was an exercise of discretion. Because the Board applied the wrong criteria in reaching its decision, it abused its discretion. /d. at 1412.

Proper procedure is to evaluate competitive proposals and make an award based solely on the factors set forth in tihe solicitation. Patriot Contract Services v. Unites States, 388 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The Inherent unfairness of adding new criteria after the proposals have been submitted Is easy to demonstrate: had the new criterion been made known to bidders, those bidders could have addressed it. In this case, addressing 1

If there were any negotiations, it would have been only with the #4 ranked proposer, which would be inherently improper on its face.

87

SR 12-233 Attachment 2 Protest re RFP 2012-1207 July 20, 2012 Page 5 of6

that concern is particularly easy: The staff describes its reasoning that "the transition would be easy since we would retain all the officers". However, since the current vendor is a signatory to the SEIU 24/7 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), as are all three of the other bidders (including Cypress), those bidders would make clear that the CBA requires each of them to offer continued employment at the same site, with seniority being transferred to the new employer, and that the wages cannot be below those officers existing wages. Further, that historically, 95% of existing security officers remain after the transition to a new vendor. To use continuity as the unannounced and decisive factor subverts the purpose of California law that requires public contracts to be rebid from time to time. It would give every current contractor an insurmountable advantage, and the government (and the public) would lose the benefit that the public contracting requirement was meant to confer- fair and open competition, leading to the award of contracts to the most qualified firm. All incumbents provide the same illusory advantage: "easy transition" because there is no transition. Why bother putting out the RFP at all if the incumbent wins on this basis? With respect to cost, the staff (and thus the District) Is attempting to elevate the importance of this factor to a "super-criteria" in contravention of their clearly stated weighting of 30% of the total score. The scores set forth in the table above have already granted to each proposer, including Securitas, the maximum weighted score available based on cost, and to use cost as a criterion to leapfrog Securitas ranking over three higher scoring other bidders is the equivalent to saying that the District has decided to give cost more than the 30% weighting it announced in the RFP. If cost was the most important criteria, the District could have given it a 70% weighting, or even 100%, but it chose not to and must abide by its own freely established rules. Here, the decision-making of the District is abusive of its discretion because the unstated criteria (continuity and a super-weighting of price) is actually contrary to the express stated criteria (a score based on predetermined weighting of cost, qualifications and experience, relationships with law enforcement, radio communication systems and overall approach. This is especially egregious when the cost differences are de min/mus. During the initial 5 years of the contract, the cost differential between Cypress and Securitas is only 2.8%, or $3,023 per month, while the scoring differential on the Technical capabilities (a much more important factor as already determined by the District by giving it a 70% weight) rates Cypress Security 17% higher than Securitas (64.33 vs. 55). This differential in cost was already taken into account in establishing Cypress's score relative to Securitas, and to arbitrarily decide to give Securitas more consideration is outside of the standards which it established at the time it issued the RFP.

88

SR 12-233 Attachment 2

Protest re RFP 2012-1207 July 20, 2012 Page 6 of 6

It is well settled that "the letting of public contracts universally receives close judicial scrutiny and contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside." MCM Construction, 66 Cai.App.4th at 369 (quoting Konica, 206 Cal. App. 3d at 456457). California law requires a public contract to be set aside where the public agency awarding the contract has abused its discretion. Monterey Mechanical, 44 Cal. App. 4th at 1412. A public agency abuses its discretion when its actions are "arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support or inconsistent with proper procedure." MCM Construction, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 66 Cal. App. 4th 359, 368 (1998). Here, the District abused its discretion by ignoring the criteria it stated would be used, and selected its own lowest rated vendor because of criteria not contained in the RFP. LACK OF DUE PROCESS

None of the proposers were notified of the staff recommendation and given an opportunity to address the Board prior to its consideration of the recommendation. RELIEF REQUESTED

For all the reasons contained in this protest, Cypress respectfully requests that the District reject the staff recommendation and reverse its prior approval of a contract with Securitas, and award the contract for security guard services under the subject RFP to Cypress Security.

Sincerely,

Ke Narbutas President and General Counsel Cypress Security, LLC

89

This page intentionally blank 

90

SR 12-233 Attachment 3

David J. Armijo, General Manager Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL & EMAIL August 10, 2012 Kes Narbutas Cypress Private Security 452 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94103 [email protected] RE:

Notice of Decision by General Manager Cypress Bid Protest to RFP No. 2012-1207, Facility Security Services

Dear Mr. Narbutas: This is in response to the Bid Protest of Cypress Security, LLC (Cypress) received by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District ("District") on July 20, 2012, regarding RFP No. 20121207, Facility Security Services. On August 2, 2012, the District notified you that a formal response would be extended to August 10 (see Attachment 1, Notice of Extension). In preparing this response, your protest, the solicitation (RFP), and the procurement file were reviewed. The findings are to DENY the protest for the reasons below.

1. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED:

"Pursuant to California Public Contract Code, Cypress Security, LLC protests the award to Securitas on the basis that Cypress was the highest rated bidder under the RFP."

DISTRICT RESPONSE: The California Public Contract Code section that you refer to is Section 10344, which by its express language applies only to "State agencies." (See also Cal. Pub. Cont. Code§ 10335, "This article shall apply to all contracts, including amendments, entered into by any state agency for services to be rendered to the state.") AlamedaContra Costa Transit District is a special transit district organized under Public Utilities Code Sections 24501 et seq., not a state agency. No applicable statute requires the District to award a contract to the highest rated bidder in a competitive solicitation. 2. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: The award to Securitas was "in contravention of the process and evaluation criteria established in the RFP."

"The District will award to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with cost and other factors considered." The District's RFP did not state that the award of a DISTRICT RESPONSE:

Paragraph 19.C on page 6 of the RFP expressly states that

contract would go to the highest rated bidder.

1600 Franklin Street- Oakland, CA 94612- TEL (510) 891-4875- FAX (510) 891-7157- www.actransit.org 91

SR 12-233 Attachment 3 Notice of Decision by General Manager Re: Cypress Protest August 10, 2012 Page 2

3. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "California law requires a State agency to include in any contract solicitation a clear description of how the agency will evaluate the bids it receives. " DISTRICT RESPONSE: agency.

See District's response in (1) above- the District is not a State

4. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "[T]he RFP provided a detailed process for how proposers would be evaluated and scored, using a weighting system that pre-determined the value of each of the criteria that would be used in making the selection." DISTRICT RESPONSE: The RFP provided a detailed process for evaluating and ranking proposals in a competitive range, and Paragraph 19.C on page 6 of the RFP expressly stated that "The District will award to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the

District, with cost and other factors considered." 5. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "[T]here were no negotiations conducted, certainly not with the number 1, 2, or 3 ranked proposers." DISTRICT RESPONSE:

No negotiations were held pertaining to this RFP.

6. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "[S]taff made a determination to award the contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal." DISTRICT RESPONSE: This statement emphasizes a key option within the District's discretion that was expressly stated in the solicitation, i.e., that "The District will award to

the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with cost and other factors considered." 7. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The District proposes to award the contract to the lowest rated bidder, rather than the highest." DISTRICT RESPONSE: This statement lacks merit. The District received ten (10) 1 proposals by the due date and time. Securitas was not the 10 h ranked firm. Securitas was deemed to be within the competitive range for consideration of contract award. 8. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "It is therefore shocking to discover that the staff, after developing such a thorough and well articulated set of criteria and a detailed process for its evaluation, chose to disregard it and reach past not just the highest rated vendor- Cypress -but past the number 2 and number 3 rated vendors to the lowest rated one, Securitas, primarily because it was the incumbent."

92

SR 12-233 Attachment 3

Notice of Decision by General Manager Re: Cypress Protest August 10, 2012 Page 3

DISTRICT RESPONSE: Contrary to Cypress' assertion, staff strictly adhered to its processes, established a competitive range of firms based on objective criteria, and recommended award to a firm that fell within this competitive range and that presented what has been deemed most advantageous to the District per the RFP. Cypress acknowledges on page 4 of 6 of its protest that the "District may negotiate with all

responsible proposers in the competitive range. The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions with proposers in the "competitive range" or to award contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal." (See RFP 2012-1207, p. 5, ~ 19. B.) The District did not stray from this provision of the RFP. 9. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: " ... the staff recommended making the award to Securitas on the basis that (i) it would create continuity and (ii) Securitas is the lowest cost provider. DISTRICT RESPONSE: The District within its discretion considered "other factors" and what was "most advantageous to the District," which included continuity. (See RFP 20121207, p. 5, ~ 19. C.) Cost is a bona fide evaluation criterion per page 5, paragraph 19 of the RFP. See also District's response to (8) above. 10. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "California law supports the setting aside of a public contract where the government agency has applied evaluation criteria not in the solicitation." DISTRICT RESPONSE: The evaluation criteria as indicated on the evaluation forms are consistent with the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP. In addition, the case cited by Cypress in support of its assertion, Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, 44 Cai.App.4th 1391 (2003) is inapplicable, because it held that California Public Contract Code Section 2000(b) contained the exclusive criteria for determining a bidder's good faith effort to comply with affirmative action requirement. No affirmative action requirement was set forth, nor was any affirmative action criteria used. See a/sa District's response to (1) above. 11. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "Proper procedure is to evaluate competitive proposals and make an award based solely on the factors set forth in the solicitation." The case cited by Cypress for this assertion, Patriot Contract Services v. United States, 388 F.Supp.2d 1010, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2005) exclusively discusses federal procurement law and the Administrative Procedures Act, neither of which apply to this District-funded procurement. In addition, that case does not state the award must be based solely on the factors set forth in the solicitation, rather a federal contract award should not be based on "factors Congress did not intend it to consider." /d. at 1019. See also District's response to (10) above. DISTRICT RESPONSE:

93

SR 12-233 Attachment 3 Notice of Decision by General Manager Re: Cypress Protest August 10, 2012 Page 4

12. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "The staff describes its reasoning that 'the transition would be easy since we would retain all the officers."' DISTRICT RESPONSE: The source of the above issue is not clear. It is neither contained in the Staff Report 12-192 or the July 11, 2012 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors Minutes. Notwithstanding, the District within its discretion considered "other factors" and what was "most advantageous to the District," which included continuity. (See RFP 2012-1207, p. 5, '1119. (.)

13. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED:

"With respect to cost, the staff (and thus the District) is attempting to elevate the importance of this factor to a 'super-criteria' in contravention of their clearly stated weighting of 30% of the total score .... to use cost as a criterion to leapfrog Securitas' ranking over three higher scoring bidders is the equivalent to saying that the District has decided to give cost more than the 30% weighting it announced in the RFP. DISTRICT RESPONSE: Cost is not the single most important factor in the District's RFP process. The District has not ignored the potential cost savings over the potential life of a contract awarded to Securitas as opposed to Cypress, which is in excess of one million dollars. Among other things, the District as a public agency has a fiduciary obligation to be exemplary stewards of the public coffers and to display the highest degree of fiscal responsibility practicable.

14. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: "[T]he District abused its discretion by ignoring the criteria it stated would be used, and selected its own lowest rated vendor because of criteria not contained in the RFP ." DISTRICT RESPONSE: See the District's response in (8) above. The District did not ignore but rather considered all criteria stated in paragraph 19.C of the RFP, specifically that the "District may negotiate with all responsible proposers in the competitive range. The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions with proposers who

are in the "competitive" range or to award controct without discussion based on the initial price proposal." 15. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: Lack of Due Process. "None of the proposers were notified of the staff recommendation and given an opportunity to address the Board prior to its consideration of the recommendation." DISTRICT RESPONSE: All Board Meetings are open to the public and announced in advance along with the agenda items. However, it is the District's practice (and within its

94

SR 12-233 Attachment 3 Notice of Decision by General Manager Re: Cypress Protest August 10, 2012 Page 5

discretion) to issue award and non-award letters at the time of contract award, which had not occurred prior to the receipt of the subject protest. 16. CYPRESS ISSUE RAISED: Relief Requested. " ... Cypress respectfully requests that the District reject the staff recommendation and reverse its prior approval of a contract with Securitas, and award the contract for security guard services under the subject RFP to Cypress Security." DISTRICT RESPONSE: The District has duly noted Cypress' request, but for the reasons stated above, primarily that "The District, at its sole discretion, will determine whether to hold discussions with proposers who are in the "competitive range" or to award contract without discussion based on the initial price proposal", the protest is denied. APPEAL RIGHTS

You may appeal this decision as follows: APPEAL OF DECISION OF GENERAL MANAGER: Protesters may appeal an adverse decision by the General Manager to the District Board of Directors by submitting an appeal, in writing, within five (5) working days after the date of issuance of the General Manager's decision. The appeal must state the grounds for disputing the decision ofthe General Manager. Appeals should be directed to the Contracts Compliance Administrator at 10626 International Boulevard. Oakland, CA 94603, and the exterior of the envelope should be marked: "Attention: Protest Material" and reflect the pertinent RFP number. BOARD OF DIRECTOR APPEAL PROCESS: 1. At the next regularly scheduled Board meeting following receipt of notice of appeal

from the decision of the General Manager, the Board will consider whether it wishes to entertain the appeal and schedule an appeal hearing to be heard by the Board of Directors at a future Board meeting. The decision whether to hear the appeal will be based on the Board's review of the following documents: the protest submitted by the protester, the decision of the General Manager denying the protest, the appeal submitted by the protester, and any additional documentation submitted by staff to the Board. If a majority of the Board of Directors votes against entertaining the appeal, the decision of the General Manager will become final.

95

SR 12-233 Attachment 3 Notice of Decision by General Manager Re: Cypress Protest August 10, 2012 Page6

2. If a majority of the Board votes to consider the appeal, the Board will notify the protester of the date of the hearing before the Board of Directors. 3. At the hearing on the appeal, the protesting party will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case. Unless otherwise permitted by the Board, presentations will be limited to oral argument and documentary evidence. The Board may allow for questions and an answer period following presentation of the appeal. 4. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Board will either render a decision or continue the matter for decision at the next regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Please contact me if you have any questions.

96

SR 12-233 Attachment 4

WENDEL . ROSEN

111 1 Broadway, 24th Floor Oakland, CA 94607-4036

T: 510-834-6600 F: 510-808-4691

WoNW .wendel.com

[email protected]

BlACK & DEAN llr

August 16,2012

BY HAND DELIVERY AC Transit District Contracts Compliance Administrator I 0626 International Boulevard Oakland, CA 94603 Attention: Protest Material re RFP 2012-1207, Facility Security Services

Re:

Appeal by Cypress Private Security

Dear Contracts Compliance Administrator: We represent Cypress Private Security ('Cypress") and we present this appeal of the Decision by the General Manager to deny the protest filed by Cypress of the decision to award the contract for Facility Security Services to Securitas instead of first ranked Cypress. The grounds for this appeal are that the decision ignores the criteria stated in the RFP, violates the process described in the RFP, violates due process legal requirements and is not in the best interest of the District Staff in recommending that the contract be awarded to the current Facility Security Services firm totally ilf,llored the result of the scoring process for the RFP and determined that the contractor rated 4 out of 4 bidders fully considered should receive the contract The staff report recommending this improper result stated two rationales for the ·recommendation- continuity and cost. Neither of these rationales stands up to reasonable scrutiny, The report stated that the "most obvious advantage of accepting the. contract with Securitas would be of continuity for AC Transit The current security staff are familiar with and use the security equipment currently in place; they can visually recognize current employees, and they are familiar with the current Security Post Orders," If familiarity with current employees, equipment and Orders were important, this should have been a part of the evaluation criteria, but it was not By choosing to use a criteria not stated in the RFP, which only benefits the current contractor, the District staff violated basic due process guidelines required by state law. See Konica Business Machines Co. v. Regents of the University of California, which states: "The purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts . · process to public bidding is to eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds; and stimulate advantageous market place competition,

017128.0001\2485946.2

97

SR 12-233 Attachment 4 WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP

August 16,2012 Page 2

misuse of public funds; and stimulate advantageous market place competition. Because of the potential for abuse arising from deviations from strict adherence to standards which promote these public benefits, the letting of public contracts universally receives close judiciai scrutiny and contracts awarded without strict compliance with bidding requirements will be set aside. This preventative approach is applied even where it is certain there was in fact no corruption or adverse effect upon the bidding process, and the deviations would save the entity money. The importance of maintaining integrity in government and the ease with which policy goals underlying the requirement for open competitive bidding may · be surreptitiously undercut, mandate strict compliance with bidding requirements.'; {citations omitted). In addition and as importantly, the "continuity" rationale is not based on real facts. The current vendor is a signatory to the SEIU Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") as is Cypress (and the other bidders). The CBA requires Cypress or any new vendor for AC Transit to offer continued employment at the same site, with seniority being transferred to the new ·employer, and that the wages under a new employer cannot be below.current wages. Historically, experience in the industry is that 95% of security officers remain after transition to · a new vendor. That may welt be why continuity factors were not included in the RFP. Indeed, if ·continuity were the highest value, there would have been no reason to do an RFP in the first place. If the intent of staff was to simply continue the existing contract, why go through the public process? The second rationale is that the cost of the Securitas bid is projected to be less over a ten · year period. While cost is certainly important, District staff allocated it 30% of the points in the ··RFP. Their recommendation, however, clearly elevated it to a much higher percentage- thereby of due process and state law. .changing the crit.eria in the RFP after the fact. Again, a violation . And again not based on real facts. The price difference between Cypress and Securitas for the first five years is less than $200,000. There is a greater difference if you include the second five year option period. However, there are two very major problems with the District staffs conclusion about price. First, unlike any of the other bidders, Securitas has kept its second five year price flat- and indeed lower than its last year of the first five year period. To believe that a contractor would be able to charge less in the last five years of a contract is simply not realistic. And, indeed, Securitas protected itself by including an exception to the standard contract that would allow them to cancel the contract at any time on 30 days notice, thereby · removing all price protection for the District for the option period, an essential term of the RFP. While we do not know whether the District has accepted that exception- or if they have not, whether Securitas has changed its approach- it does mean that the price difference retied on by District staff should not be determinative. Indeed, even if the Securitas quote is binding, the price difference is de minimus- a 2.8% difference in the bids. The difference on technical capabilities (worth 70% in the RFP) puts Cypress 17% higher than Securitas. The language of Konica and related cases makes clear that even deviations which save the entity money do ·not justify disregarding the provisions of an RFP.

017128.0001\2485946.2

98

SR 12-233

Attachment 4

WENDEL, ROSEN, BlACK & DEAN LLP

·.August 16,2012 Page 3

· The General Manager's Decision relies very heavily on the language of Section 19 C. · · That language states: "The District reserves the right to award the contract without negotiation. Therefore, contractors are encouraged to submit their best offer initially. The District will award to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the District, with cost · and other factors considered." The General Manager's Decision interprets this language to say that nothing in the RFP makes any difference. That is not the comrnon meaning of this language and that is not what is · . allowed by law, as demonstrated by the cases cited above. The District does have discretion and .it is entitled to protect its iriterest. The District does not have the right to ignore the provisions of its RFP or fair due process. The determination of what is "most advantageous" can only be made in accordance with the specified criteria contained in the RFP -the language relied on by the District General Manager does not grant the discretion to add new criteria or change the publicized weighting of factors. Finally, the award of a public contract to the number 4 rated bidder rather than the ·number I rated bidder raises a public perception that the process was not fair and that the playing field was not level. A full examination of the facts is required to reassure the community that the . integrity of the process has been maintained . . The Board should hear a full presentation on these issues. The only way to determine what is most advantageous to the District is to fully understand the reconunendations of the scoring panel and limitations of the staff reconunendation. Very truly yours,

~-----

. 017l28.0001\2485946.2

99

This page intentionally blank 

100

SR 12-233 Attachment 5

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-192 July 11, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Contract Award for Facility Security Services

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider approving contract award to Securitas Security Services for facility security services, and authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute a new five-year contact with one five-year extension. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to update the Board on the activities undertaken by District staff to secure a new contract for facility Security Services. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on May 15, 2012, and a total of 10 proposals received. For reasons stated in the report, staff recommends that the Board award a five-year contract to Securitas Security Services and that the General Manager be authorized to negotiate and execute the contract with one five-year extension. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Base five-year period = $6,364,029 Optional five-year period = $6,364,029

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: On May 15, 2012, the District issued and posted a RFP to its website for facility security services. On June 6, 2012, the Chief of Protective Services conducted a site walk-through for approximately ten interested firms. On June 14, 2012, a total of ten proposals were received by the Purchasing Department. A Technical Panel consisting of the Chief of Protective Services, the Chief Operating Officer, and Budget Manager reviewed the RFP's submitted by the following 10 firms: •

Securitas Security Services

•

Cypress Private Security

•

Allied Barton

•

G4S

101

SR 12-233 Attachment 5

Report No. 12-192 Page 2 of 3 Secure Solutions Inc. •

Universal Protection Services

•

Legion Corporation

•

Alltech Industries

•

Ani Private Security & Patrol

•

American Guard Services Inc. ABC Security Services

After a financial review of the RFP's submitted, four firms, GS4, Cypress, Allied Barton and Securitas ali placed within the competitive scoring range. The total combined technical and costs scores for the four firms were; GS4 83.61, Cypress 84.55, Allied Barton 81.83 and Securitas 76.86. Each of these firms submitted costs proposals that included a five-year option. The cost proposals (Table 1) and overal scores (Table 2) are provided below: Table 1

VENDOR

BASE 5 YEARS

OPTIONAL 5 YEARS

TOTAL

GS4

$8,558,943

$9,262,010

$17,820,953

ALLIED BARTON

$7,225,503

$8,376,338

$15,601,841

CYPRESS

$6,545,410

$7,213,429

$13,758,839

SECURITAS

$6,364,029

$6,364,029

$12,728,058

Table 2

RESULTS

GS4

ALLIED BARTON

CYPRESS

SECURITAS

68

64

64.33

55

Cost Scores

15.61

17.83

20.22

21.86

Combined Score

83.61

81.83

84.55

76.86

Combined Techn

Staff's recommendation is to accept the contract proposal submitted by Securitas, the current Security Company in place with AC Transit.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The most obvious advantage of accepting the contract with Securitas would be of continuity for AC Transit. The current security staff are familiar with and use the security equipment currently in place; they can visually recognize current employees, and they are familiar with the current Security Post Orders. Another significant advantage is Securitas was the lowest cost

102

SR 12-233 Attachment 5

Report No. 12-192 Page 3 of 3 submitted, $181,381 less than the next lowest costs submitted by Cypress for the first fiveyears, and $849,400 less than the cost submitted by Cypress for the second five-year option. There would be virtually no transition impact by staying with Securitas. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Award base five-year period only. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 350- Procurement Policy

Department Head Approval:

Larry L. Perea, Chief of Protective Services

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Larry L. Perea, Chief of Protective Services

Prepared by:

103

This page intentionally blank 

104

PLANNING COMMITTEE   

September 5, 2012 

105

This page intentionally blank 

106

~~~/T

Report No:

-~ -

Meeting Date:

SR 12-178 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM: SUBJECT:

David J. Armijo, General Manager Progress Report on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Sponsored Transit Sustainability Plan and Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider Receiving a Progress Report on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Sponsored Transit Sustainability Plan and the Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

With the adoption by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the recommendations resulting from the Transit Sustainability Plan (TSP) and Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA, AC Transit will begin refinement of the recommendations for implementation. AC Transit will further examine the service recommendations related to Transbay service and the Urban Core. In addition, AC Transit will explore potential pilots for a Joint Fare Product with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), participate in the Tri-City/Tri-Valley Transit Service Study, implement capital improvements under the Transit Performance Initiative, develop a strategic plan to meet MTC's recommended performance target, and partake in the Regional On-board Survey effort. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

There are currently no budgetary/fiscal impacts related to the Progress Report. In the future, staff will provide budgetary/fiscal impacts related to the implementation of any TSP/COA recommendations. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

With the analysis and recommendation phases of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Transit Sustainability Plan (TSP) completed and adopted by the commission on May 23, 2012, MTC has transitioned into the implementation phase with AC Transit and other Bay Area transit agencies. The TSP recommendations concentrated on three main factors:

107

Report No. 12-178 Page 2 of4 • Financial - Focused on operating costs, revenues and pricing strategies with focus being

placed on the largest seven operators (San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Agency, BART, AC Transit, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transit District) • Service Delivery and Design - Focused on service design and delivery for the regional, sub-

regional (local) and paratransit service analysis • Institutional - Focused on the "how" transit services are provided and reviewed alternative

delivery approaches In addition to the TSP, AC Transit participated in MTC's Inner East Bay Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA), which also included the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). The COA recommendations were the outcomes of analysis focused around the following goals: • Promote a seamless Inner East Bay bus and rail transit system • Build the Urban Core to allow for spontaneous bus and rail network use by customers • Match bus and rail service levels with demand, focusing on improving service productivity while increasing overall system ridership • Ensure on-going financial sustainability The TSP and COA recommendations have resulted in AC Transit's participation in planning activities that will result in the eventual implementation of service policies, route network plans, capital improvements and performance strategies that meet the overarching goal of more productive and efficient transit service. The following list includes the upcoming planning activities and their status:

•!• COA Planning Efforts - MTC has entered into a $198,427 contract with Transportation Management & Design, Inc. (TMD) to assist AC Transit with developing the following planning activities over the next six months: •

Transbay Comprehensive Service Plan (CSP) -As described in Staff Report 12-145,

the Transbay CSP will review and update all aspects of AC Transit's Transbay service, including potential integration with BART. •

Urban Core Service Plan- Under this plan, TMD will assist AC Transit in developing

service operation concepts that focus on improving the quality of service in AC Transit's urban core, particularly along the trunk lines and major corridors. •

Joint Fare Product Pilot - This concept is not included under TMD's contract for

assistance; however, it is a recommendation resulting from the COA. AC Transit is working with MTC and BART to develop one or more joint fare product pilots that would simplify travel on transit throughout the East Bay, with the goal of introducing a product that is revenue neutral compared to the current transit fare structure.

108

Report No. 12-178 Page 3 of 4 •:• Tri-City/Tri-Valley Transit Service Study- MTC is leading a study to develop cost-effective and accessible transit solutions in the Tri-City/Tri-Valley areas. The study will include participation from Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), Union City Transit (UCT), AC Transit, and the surrounding local jurisdictions. The kick-off meeting for this study is expected to occur in September where Director Joel Young will represent AC Transit .. •:• Performance and Investment Policies •

Urban Trunk Transit Performance Initiative (TPI)- MTC has allocated $30 million to the major Bay Area bus transit agencies to improve vehicle speeds along major corridors. With completion of the Line 51 Report, AC Transit was able to receive an estimated $10.5 million of the funds for capital improvements along the Line 51 Corridor. A Project Manager/Project Administrator/Project Control consultant is being identified to guide the project through completion. AC Transit's goal is to substantially complete construction of the Line 51 capital improvements by mid2014.

•

TSP Strategic Plan - Through the TSP process, MTC and the Project Steering Committee established a performance target for the Bay Area's seven largest transit operators to be achieved by FY2016-17. The target is a 5% operating cost reduction measured in either: cost/service hour, cost/passenger or cost/passenger mile. As part of the monitoring process, MTC has requested that AC Transit adopt and submit a strategic plan by January 31, 2013 that outlines the process to meet the target.

•:• Regional On-board Survey - MTC is currently in the process of surveying the Bay Area transit agencies in order to understand rider travel patterns and behavior. The survey will produce consistent responses and metrics in order to easily compare data across various transit agencies. MTC will survey AC Transit riders from September to December of this year. •:• Institutional Recommendations- The TSP and COA recommended joint ventures between BART, AC Transit and potentially other transit agencies for procurement, call centers, service change implementation dates, scheduling software, maintenance, security and periodic board meetings with the goal of increasing coordination and optimizing resources. MTC has yet to establish implementation timelines for these recommendations.

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantage of further refining MTC's TSP/COA recommendations for implementation is that the recommendations seek to improve AC Transit's service performance, while increasing efficiency. Given that the implementation of the TSP/COA recommendations is still in the planning phase, there are no disadvantages associated with this report or planning effort. As the planning

109

Report No. 12-178 Page 4 of 4 phase progresses to recommendations and implementation, staff will outline the associated disadvantages and tradeoffs at that time. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Given AC Transit's obligations to participate in the TSP and COA, there are no alternative actions associated with this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GM Memo 12-087:

Report on the Initial Recommendations of MTC's TSP and COA and Their Impact on AC Transit Introduction to the Transbay Comprehensive Service Plan Update

SR 12-145:

ATTACHMENTS:

A:

Tri-City/Tri-Valley Study Participation Letter

B:

MTC Strategic Plan Request and MTC Resolution No. 4060

Approved by

James Pachan, Chief Operation Officer

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

Prepared by:

Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development and Planning

110

Staff Report 12-178 Attachment A

'·•l ·:'

,.. June 6, 2012

'

RECEIVED

Mr. Steve Heminger Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission· 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607

' JlJN 7 - 2012

MTC, '

Subject: Tri-City and Tri-Va11ey Transit Service Study · Dear Steve: This letter is to request that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission conduct a study to investigate ways to improve transit service in south and east Alameda County. Building on the recommendations of the Transit Sustainability Project, the study should evaluate transit service plan alternatives to deliver frequent, accessible and affordable service to the people who live and work in the Tri-Cities and Tri-Valley areas, including consideration of merger and consolidation options of existing transit providers: AC Transit, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority and Union City Transit. The evaluation should inclu~e an identification of what accessible, affordable and cost effective transit service would look like, how it could be delivered and who would operate it. In these times of multiple cuts to transit services and funding cha11enges at all governmental levels, it is imperative that we do all we can do to ensure that accessible and affordable transit continues to be provided to south and east Alameda County and that seamless connections to jobs, housing and other regional destinations are improved. Dawn Argula will be contacting your office to set up a meeting to discuss how this request will move forward. Sincerely yours,

Scott Haggerty Alameda County Supervisor, District I

Mark Green Mayor, Union City Chair, Union City Transit

Don Biddle Councilmember, City of Dublin Chair, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority Chair 111

;.\<~~~~;l;i

Page2

.M;ayor Tim Sbranti, City ofDubllW'I- ''' Mayor Gus Morrison, City of Fren10nt Mayor Alan L. Nilgy., City ofNe\vark Mayor Jolm Marchand, City of Livermore MayorJennifer Hosterman, City of Pleasanton · Mayor Mark Green, City of Union City Jgnj.)'a!,tillo, City Manager, City ofDublin lire'd'biaz, City Manager, City of Fremont Jrlm, Becker, City Manager, City ofNewark Nelson Fialho, City Manager, City ofPleasanton .MfHc Roberts, ity Manager, City of Livermore Larry Cheeves, City Manager, City of Union City Arthur L. Dao, Executive Director, Alameda County Transportation Commission Beth Walukas, Deputy Director ofPlanning, Alameda County Transportation Commission Kenneth Folan, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Paul Matsuoka, Executive Director, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority Wilson Lee, Transit Manager, Union City Transit ·

'•· jl',

.

i•·

.

.-- .

.:··.•·

.'

112

Staff Report 12-178 Attachment B

Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oalcland, CA 94607-4700

TEL 510.817.5700

TTYffDD 510.817.5769 FAX 510.817.5848

EMAIL [email protected] WEB www.mtc.ca.gav

June 22,2012

Arhitllllt J. Thsirr; Cbnir San Moteo Counry

Amy Rei11 Himb, lira Cbnir CitiesofConm Crura Coo.nty

ThmAzmllhmrlo U.S. Department of Housing and Urbiln Developmonr

"JOmB11tu CitieoofA.Jamodo C:O...nty

Dnvid Cnmpos City and Countyoi'Son Frond1ro

D11ve Cotttn Sonr:aCia... C:O...nty

Bill Dorfd Nopo County ond Citiu

Dot"tllt M. Girlcopi11i U.S. Deportmmt ofTrn!Uportarlon

Ftrfnrrl D. G/ovn· Conm Cosro County

MnrkGree11 i\uooi~tion

of B~y ArH Government<

Srou Hnggmy Al•n•cdo County

Atmt W Hnlsttd Son Fc.~noi«o Boy Cons•rvotion

ond 00\·clopmont Co>nmiuion

M~l'in

Stft!e Ki11sey County ond Ci~~

Mr. David Armijo General Manager AC Transit 1600 Franklin~-et Oakr~{A 9,4 I -2800

Dt~l. Thank you for your participation on the Project Steering Committee for the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP). The Commission adopted the TSP final recommendations on May 23,2012 to continue recent service and cost control improvements recently achieved by Bay Area transit agencies. Attached is a copy of the adopted TSP, MTC Resolution No. 4060. The adopted policies include performance measures and targets, specific service and institutional recommendations and an immediate transit capital investment of roughly $30 million to improve customer travel times while reducing agency operating costs. The Commission established TSP performance measures and targets for the large seven operators to be achieved by FY20 16-17. The monitoring procedures to achieve the · targets call for agencies to adopt and submit to MTC a strategic plan to meet one or ~-~ more of the targets. I am requesting that your a enc ado t and submit this strategic plan by January 31, 20 . e WI provide your staff with strategic plan developmen and review assistance, as requested.

SmtJLimm/o CiriM of Son,. Cbr:~ County

Jnke Mnckewz.le Son om~ County•nd Cirios

After receiving TSP strategic plans from the Big 7 operators, MTC intends to reconvene the Project Steering Conm1ittee in early 2013 to continue ow· dialogue on further improving the Bay Area transit network.

Kn!iiiMIIIIIII Citie. of Son Mateo County

Bijtm Smtipi Stole Busino,., Tron•pon.,tion

ondllouoingAg<""J'

Jnttlts

I look forward to working with you to implement the TSP recommendations. Please contact me or Ann Flemer of my staff (51 0-817-5820 or [email protected]) if you have any questions.

P. Spn-i11g

So~moCounty

ond Gries

SrrmWitutr Son fmnruto M•)'OI~ Appointee

St~t Hemi11ge•· E•ecurive Dirtc"'r

Am1 Flrmn· Dcpul)' r!:>CCII!h·c Director, Policy A11d1·~

Uopu
B. Premier

Attachment: MTC Resolution No. 4060

E..'""''ri'" Dirottor,Opcrnrions

J:\PROJECT\Transit Sustainability Project\lmplementation\Agency Strategic Plans\TSP·Strategic_Pian.doc 113

Date: Referred by:

May 2:3,2012 TSP Select Committee

ABSTRACT Resolution No. 4060 This resolution approVes the recommendations oft he Trans'it Sustainability Project. Discussion of the recommendations made under this resolution is contained in the Executive Director Memorandum presented to the Select Committee on Transit Sustainability on April II, 2012.

;';

114

Date: Referred by:

May 23,2012 TSP Select Committee

Re: Transit Sustainability Project

, METROPOLITA;N TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4060

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 66500 ~ ~ .• the Metropolitan Transpotiation Commission ("MTC") is the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay Area; and

WHEREAS, MTC develops a long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), pursuant to Government Code §§ 66513 and 65080; and

WHEREAS, the last major update of the RTP, adopted in Apri\2009 (Transportation 2035 - MTC Resolution No. 3893), identified twenty-five year transit capital and operating shortfalls of $17 billion and $8 billion, respectively; and

WHEREAS, to address these shortfalls, as well as address immediate tninsit operators' service reductions and budget shortfalls, to improve transit performance for the customer, and to attract more customers to the transit system, in January 2010, the Commission created the Select Committee on Transit Sustainability to guide the Transit Sustainability Project (TSP); and

WHEREAS, the TSP focused on three project elements: financial, service performance and institutional frameworks; and

WHEREAS, to inform the TSP, a Project Steering Committee was formed, made up of transit agency, government, labor, business, environmental and equity representatives to provide executive-level input into the project; and

115

MTC Resolution No. 4060 Page2 ;'<.

•

\

WHEREAS, additio11al input and guidance was received from the MTC Policy Advisory <

-

,_,.,,-.:

Committee, aS\vell as from multiple public events and forums sponsored by interested parties; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that based

on project finding$ 'related t'o the finilnbial and service

performance of the Bay Area transit system, MTC approves .th~ perfoJAII\JlCe measures ~~ .. targets and investment recommendationS set forth in Attaclirt1ent A to this' resolution; artd;'be it .!

:·

!·

•.

"'.

'<

•

'

'

•

.,.

further RESOLVED, that based on prpjectpndings relatyd to ttw.~nancial,

s~,J;"Vice p~rf()rinance,

and instil,utional rt8.r:ftev.iork of the Bay Area transit systell!; MTC approves the policy ·•

,,·

(~·',

•-~

'

·-_.

'\'

I

;_

r,_

_

r1

,-

_.·.·

__ :

·

_, ' : · '

•

,··:•_:.,·:, -:;

, '-

.

•.

•

recommendations set forth in Attaclirt1ent Bto this resolution; and, be it further ·t:J{.

r: ,'. __1_

•

- \'_ !. , -·

RESOLVED. that MTC will conduct periodic reviews,ofpr()~ess to'iyiifd,the perfm;mance targets and policy recommendation implementation.·· ',:

{_/•

,,.._ ·-,,'.''1_ •,

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION •.[

'.1

.·

,,

'

·. ·.··~

~rs·· •....

!!'··

'·

·'··

:_r.' .. ' '·' .!

i''

;;,1 . .

•i: ··

r.·

The above resolution was approved by the Metropolitan TransPortation Cotrurii$'sion ·· at aregular'meettng ofthe coriunission held in Oakland, California, on May 23, 2012. 'I . ' ' I •

.,

;,

,.

. ..

,I

....

, ·'.'':

..,

,· .-'•· .)

•·

.'

~

\•·•

116

I

:

. ':

)i

,_,•

. '·.\'

Date: May 23,2012 Referred by: TSP Select Committee Attat:hment A ·.·Resolution No. 4060 Page I of2

·.,_

~:

Perform(uice 'Measurlis air'dTaiogets · · w. ;... '' '· · · To. monitor th~ perfoWJal)ce ,oft~~.s.even !a~g~st trans).t agmwies. in ~h.€f };lay <\rea1 ll)Y , . Commission establishes the following TSP performance target, measures, and monitoring process: Performance Target

·:S% 're'itl re: .; ,.. , .• ,., .,,, .. ,,,. ' . ;:;> . ·'· ,, ..... Performance Measures 1

•·' c6~t'Per s~rvi'ce i-ioiir* '

•

Cost Per Passenger~,_)-;,·

" '· ·· ··.· ·;;(''', . .-:,_·;~ ·

· · ·. .

• Cost Per Passenger M.ile* *As defined by the Transpottation Development Act

!(:: ''::. f "{~'' ·,

! '}' _.:

• ' ••

~-

-,

··--!: '·' '' ;: ·;-'

Monitoring Process . In FY2012-i3, agencies are·loadopt a strategic.: plan to meet one or more of the targets and . ,'· J. ·; · !• . submit to MTC.' ·. · ·. On aQ annual b~sis,'st~i1inif'in FY2.0 !3~1'4/the tral)sit agencies submit performance :• ..:.,;.; measure data on all three targets to MTC. :. In FY20 17-18, MTC will analyze agency progress in meeting target In FY20 18-19, MTC will link existing and new operating and capital funds administered by MTC to progress towards achieving the performance target. "'_,

..

·'. i

The following agencies, the largest seven transit agencies in the Bay Areli;ar.~.:s\i.bjecno: thll ·<•. performance measures and targets: AC Transit; BART, Galtratn;· Goklen:Uate:transit; SFMTA,

Sam Trans, and Santa Clara VTA.

·

i ;.-.'.-'

.~.>


· il

·,. .- ·

Transit Performance Initiative and Customer Satisfaction Survey The Commission establishes an investment, incentive and monitoring strategy to improve service performance and attract new riders to the region's transit system. The target for each agency is to increase ridership levels at or above the rate of population growth in counties/corridors in which the agency operates service. Agencies are encouraged to utilize the Transit Competitive Index tool, developed for the Bay Area as part of the TSP, to achieve this target.

117

Attachment A Resolution No. 4060 Page 2 of2 Investment . , .· As part of the OneBayArea Gra!]t program, the Commission has established an initial commitment of $30 million to (und service improvements on major bus and light rail corridors, focusing on improvements to major corridors in the AC Transit, SFMTA, SamTrans, and Santa Clara VTA seryifi'·~~~~~·.)f.susc,e.~sfvl i1,1 ,q~wpnstr~tin~ achiey~m~n\ pf operati9nal and ridership goals, similar investments would be recommended in the future. Incentive · '" · The Commission·Will reward transit agencies' that achieve ridership increases and productivity improvements and will allocate t~ahsitfunds on lhe·bailis·Of petforihante,thereby encouraging all of the region's transit operators to continuously improve their service and attract more riders. Funding sources, amounts. arid distribution forinulas'shall be established by the Cothmissioli. In establishing distribution fol1'ilulas; the Commission shall consider at least one altehiative that does iii:ifredtice the cumul!iiive cuiT~nt· fundiilg level for small operators for the fund sourees establishedhf'the Cofuinissioti forthisincerttive program: · ·· ' ''· · ' · ··' '·' • .< ,; '

' ,'

itoj

'!-'.'

-'

1\

,'•: •'

Monlfor · .. •< · ··

i;_

.·

I•

· .,..

·. ·.

Ml\ihtainirig 'and/ilr'i mprbv ing. customer·S~tisfattibn ratings l's an .important indicator bf·Whether transit is"n'ieetin'g the neeas ofthdiaveliiig public:The Comthis'sior\ Wilh:onduct a bi'ahnual regional customer satisfaction survey to provide a consistent regioh~Wide niechaiiism to measure customer satisfaction and provide information to build new ridership and improve service. Agencies Will be requited'to 'cobrdi'riat~ data'collection efforts, either through cbsi sharing·, resource sharing, or project manage'meni: .: ' • , · ·' >: •· .. , : · · t-..

.-;'

.

~

.,_

,._,_

• l ....

-,,,:;

~'

. :•_,

·).'

;

. :.:

.

''

·, l.

'. ,.-.!

'li.

,,

.i' l

,.

.

.,!

,-,,

.. :,·,

. ;,· ·;

.,

::· •·i

i'•., ;'

118

,·

.·

.... '

.·:;;·-,,

·'·"'

Date: May 23,2012 Referred by: TSP Select Committee Attachment B Resolution No. 4060 1 Page 1 of5 . 'i

':.

j·

Service, . Paflth'ansitluid lristifu'tlppal Rec'ommejidatiOiis ;,, . ,j . :' _; __,.•;·,_· :·.. ....... , ;_,,i;'' ''';: ··:.!;--·.·. ,;•·;, ·,_J(f

•.

:

Service 1. Integr:ate.bus/rails~h~(lu!ing ~Qftware to ra~ilita!e schejjule Coordinatiol) apd, Cllstome,t;. trav.el planning. Es.tablish a
i'

~I.

I .

if ; ! ')!. I

Th.e<::ommi~sion fjpd~tJw\.schedule.c 0 ordilla\ion b~tween conne<;ting agencies .will increas~.

the attractiYeness of public transit but .that cohn,e.ctirg agencies make sche,d.~le changes on different ~ales and in .some cases. u.se inco\l]patib\e ~cheduling s.oftVar.e system§ Jh~t make schedule integration difficult. This reco)llnj~ndatiol\ wo.uld aljgn the, sc~edulqljange. , .: calendar for major schedule changes among the region's operators and require all connecting operators to implement a compatible scheduling software system. Implementation woulcj be, sti\Jj ec( to. eacti.txatmil "gel)cy~s futute,sch~d.ul iljg :sy~tem Jl~(lcU~emen\.tj{\le).ii\e,, ai)or cqqtract pro.v)sjons tl)at ,•·;• ·" ·. · · ; .. govem.sclle\lll)eichal)gedates., •.,: ., .. ...: . . . . : ,. • , . ' ·, . '-; .'' -"•i : '.!; -
;·,' •

;

f \ ·

;.. · '

The Commission has historically provided federal planning funds for each transit agency to independently prepare an SRTP of the agency's 10-year operating and capital plan. This recommendation would strengthen the joint planning that has begun in the region and recommend that transit agencies in a county or .multi-agency travel corridor collaborate on a I 0-year plan. The multi-agency SRTPs should develop capital replacement priorities and schedules, consider connectivity in service planning, establish fare policy consistency, establish common performance measures, and identify opportunities for shared functions. Future funding for SRTPs will take into account coordination opportunities. 3. Support transit agency operations on major corridors by requiring local jurisdictions to consider transit operating speeds and reliability in projects affecting these corridors. Travel time savings are a key component in building customer satisfaction and attracting new passengers. Under the Commission's proposed OneBayArea Grants program, local jurisdictions are required to adopt a complete streets resolution to be eligible for regional funding. Complete streets aims to consider all road network users including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. MTC is further proposing to expand the scope of the Freeway Performance Initiative to include investments to improve transit operations on key arterial roadways.

119

Attachment B Resolution No. 4060 Page 2 of5 4. Consider fare policies focus,e!l qn the ~ustomer ~llat improv!J regionlllll9cal

~onnections.

]mple.ment the Phase III. Clipper;-equirements to revise existing operatipns and fare policies to a standardized set of business rules. Continue I\) work iowards a more consistent regional siandard for fare <,liscoJ.mt pqll~i.es' a11<,! mi11i[11i:z:etransfer penaliies so th.at pas~engers can choose the.nws! optim~l route foqheir transit trip. . . ·~

to::Mil rill, Sono~a, !lDd SplanoCounties .

S. Recommendations specifi~

The Commission is coinmitted to achieving l]lore ra.donals~r\-i.ce deliyery i~ gt
.

.

' -

.

··_

'

'

_.

-j

~

' :

!

'.

'

'

•' •.

Nfarin!Spnoma,· The.comll!enc.ell)en.t .of.& MAR,'I; s.ervig\) in M!!~i;\"l,,anqSono11)&,counti.es wi II alter tr~nsit travelpatt!lrn.s.;This Prese)lts ai).OPP'?\'!llflity ).o sirel)~hencoo(di[latipl) and ... service. planning among Marin. Hlld S9n9n'l~ tr~p&.it P.r9victers.servll)g the, 1QI ~orrictorand local ,connectio.ns,.ln C()OrdiMtion with ihe s~:rP pro,cegs, tv)'I'Cwi!L w_<;>,r~ »'ith ,tral}Si~ ·.. operators and the Marin aUd §pJ)omaQ;>,ynty.cMAs to ~.evelqp,a two,col)nly corridor tr~nsit plan for submittal and presentation to the Commission. -., i<

.-, .•

Solano: County-level SRTP work is underway in Solano County. Niic\vill provide' fu~ding to the Solano Transportation Auth.ori\y (STA) to C()mplete the l!nalysi~ to b~l!er infonn service planning throughout th\l co.un!y. STJ". and \he SOJI\nOtrat\sit o,pera,tors ~re to gse this process to identifY Service. improvements, perfo(lnl!nc~ objeqtiyes and potential s«rvice functional and instituti9na! consolidati9n opportunities. · · ., :

'

;,~ ~

>

Para transit Cost Containment and Service Strategies · The Commission •finds thattransit.agencies must consider ,wategies to c(lntain the co.st of ADA para transit service using tools th~t are available to them individually or collectively,. MTC expects individual agencies to consider the following strategies: ·.' -,1. Fixed Route Travel Training and Promotion to Seniors .. ,. ..

I

I

"'

..

Expanding fixed route t~avel training~ through mobility orientation sessions and on~·on-one individualized training -would increase mobility for-the users and help red4ce growth of ADA paratninsit deinand.ldeally,training and.outreach should be conducted before individuals apply for paratransit service or, at a minimum, should.be made available during the process of determining eligibility for these services.

120

Attachment B Resolution No. 4060 Page 3 of5 2. Preniiurii Charges for Se..Vice Beyond ADA Reqtilrelneitts Where transit agencies provideparatrarisit sei'Vicethat goes beyond what the ADA 'requires, they may charge extra for those "premium" services. For exanipl~. transitagellcies that serve an'~ntire juriSdiction (forexaniple the)lirtay serve at\ entire citydttaxing districi) carl define a "two-tiered" service area, with the first tier belngthe A'DA'required ·service area Within 'i.. · mile of the fixed route service and the second tier extending to thejurisdictionallimits. A higher fare can then be chatged forltips in that second fief. The \ransit'agencycan also adopt· differing policies for that premium second tier, such as more limited service hours, denials of service ohce capaCity is reached, arid so forth. ( -,

•

.,

: •.

!"·;

3. Enhanced AOA Paratransit Certifidltioh 'Process A roliuslce'rtification process that inchi<;Ies ih'persofl interviews as well as evaluations of applidihts'fuiictiorial mobility by tniinedprofessionals pro~i~es niore aecurate determinations ofapplicaiits'·travelskills and may resuit ill ni'ore applicants beiligrefetred to fixed route service based ontheirindividual abilities. This may result in some reduction in ADA•parl)tra~sitbosis arid also'resuit in impt6·ving the mobility• of riders due totlie increased spontanei\{affotaed by' fiXetl'rolite'thiiisit:Dejiending tih ihe iratisit·ilgency, .a v'ailable ci:ist savings rimge'from ndiie to stibslaiftl!ll. One cehtrtilized regibilal process is riot needed, but many1rarisil agencies'can ei\hance theii· pfoc~~seS'. Some sinall~r agenCies could combine this function for effiCiency 'and io :Slippoit staff with sp~c~ali~etlskills., i 4. Implement Conditional Eligibility ' .. :

·i"_:"·!>,- :-:'·-/·. ----~ ···:

';:,·.:

.•-!•:'-

.,.,

'

Coiiaitimial elisibilityfinds that some applicants can Use fixed•rbute service for at least some ofth~ir trips an'd specifies the particular' conditions under Which ·paratransit service 'is· required. While ihls require~· a more sophisti'cated eligibility certification process of conditional eligibility avoids ADA paraita'nsit costHorthose trips that ADA-eligible riders take on fixed-route service. Opportunities exist at several transit operators in combination with an enhanced eligibility'.prp~e'ss.-" ' ,· '·"'' ··• : ·· . ,. 5. Creation of sub-regional Mobility Managers (e.g.· CTSA) in one or more stib-regionill area 'to ·better coordinate' resources and service customers !

1:

National and local coordinated models exist and should be evaluated to deliver high quality and efficient paratransit services across transit agency boundaries and shared costs With social services. Several MTC programs, including Lifeline and New Freedom, have funded mobility mamigeinent efforts to ideniify best: practices and develop mobility mal)agement models for regional replication. The Commission will use the information from these efforts to recommend specific areas and agenc)~
'

121

'

Attachment B Resolution No. 4060 Page 4 of 5 .·.'

•

: '<

I~ : .

•, : '. .;i ' .

.

''

Coh.!inu~us i1J1prqyem~n~s

.!

'•' !

~

-:

;

:. '

'

.' ' ' • '

: ' j

;•

•

' ..: - •

;

; '

j I - :

.

' . '

: - .

i . -' .

to· t1,1e fixed tpute sysfem will shift .~om,e.,\l~m~nd fro)TI paratransit to ihe fixed route system. · ' ·· · ·· · · 7. Wal~abl,~ G':~H!:W'N.•iHes, C::RlfiPiet.~.l:ltreets, a.nd ~and.lJs¢,?,Ia,l),l)ipg (~,er,,~I.~~ ,~IIY .4rca) ~re t~rm :\ya,lk!l;bl~; ~qmmt~niti,e~·· refe~s !? ~o111mupi\i~,s .t~~f, !iff pe~estFiaJ1 f~ien~~~·. with stq~~~JJ
susuiinal;@ty than other.strat~;gies. ,Similarly, planni.ng efforts should, to the' •.'extent possible, " . ' '- . '-' -. ·:. ,_ ' ' "- - l' . \ - .. - ,. ' ': . ' ' --- '-'' ' " . '· ; ' - : " .. ;-. --· -'·' ens11r¢ that ~enior hp\lsing and other senioNelated fa9iliti.t;s are.siteq. il) Joql!(ion~ that, are ci~se'to fl){ed-route ~erviq~~ an~ c16secin within the c6mmu~ftY'al)d prox;iin'at~ to ~ct.ivity cent~rs featuririg~~oppi~g; frie'di9.al arid otlwr ~~rvices: ~s qppoMt.o loc~tlon~ o\ifsi4etlie .!:_- . . . . community and isolated from activity centers. The'ltltimate'lmpact of this recommended st,~~~t~g)' i,s yery ll!r~~· ev~.n t)1ou~~)his,is ·~ long-,~emMtr~\~gy i,n;Yih\ch l(~~~i~a~e;n~ies will ol)ly play asupportive role. It require.s an (~clive.;,.role front cities. ",-.'!"and cot~nt.ies.. ,. --., .. _ -_ .. ;;'_,' ,.-. -- . . , -· . ' . --

'·'··~,

l'

.,

... "

__ :

-.·

•"

- , __ .·-···

- ·--

!-- . • . • -_•• ,_ •. .~ ••

''

"1---·--

,.

'·

\

'•

• A,.r in,,l~gr~req l~n .for bt~i!~ing hq4sing near transit.~nd conqitjpn~ fu;n
lnstituti6nal

. ,. . .

.,

.

1. Complete service consolidations for Soltrans and ferry services (Vallejo, Alameda-

Oakland, and Harbor Bay).

,

...

..

, ,,

Per theSoli!nO Tr~nsit Cqnsolidation Study condiJcted btthe So)ano. TransPorta\ion Authprity ~ th¢.ci\ies qf Vall~jo and Ben,ida havefo.rmed ajoiqt.powers. autho~ity {~oltrans) to op~rate tbeir tninsit.service as a conso]\<;11)\ed sysleiTL,.SenateBilll,09.3 •l?alle.dJor the consolidatiqnpfVallejo, Alameda•Oakl&n\1, and Ha.rbor Bay ferry seryices 4nderW~TA. WETA has adopted a transition plan to guii{erty seryjpe and setto a~Slll}1e V.allejo serrige in .2,.0.,12... So!trans .has ~oti:t;pleted tbe initialsta~eri of.,\be ·co~tsolid.~tion. The Oom'mis~.lon ,willsl!pport.tljese agencies .!!nd monitor progress dufingJhe.cqnsolidatio!l process a.n.d s4pport ~ol~ito C)i;>ql)ty. to .moye forw.~rd to consider.furthercons
supported by local planning and input. Through the local planning process and, as transit agencies do coordinated planning and fare policy setting, the benefits of functional and institutional consolidaiion should be further evaluated. Work with Congestion Management Agencies and operators, focusing on

122

·'•'·

.}' 1i

Attachment B Resolution No. 4060 Page 5 of 5

Marin/Sonoma and Solano to continue to irnp~o\ie cociidinatiiln and e{."aiu~!ethe benefits •of additional functional and/or instit4tional consoli~ation Jo itpprove the fmancial stabi!ltr and :Ser'v i!S~' for the custom~·r; The ~pproprirtt~ness oftftese efforts and t'inielirie will be established based on local planning and input. ,.• · " 3. lnte~fate 'muiti"pl~traii'spo~tatldii 'fu~hions (trllnsit operating,plan'iiing; sal~s· t:ii/etc).

'th~. irlipcirta'nce of other tr~nsp6rt'it.'ii6ii dd!fsipil's, such as ro'ildwaypi:oj~disand pfic[ng;ln the succe# ~nd p'erforn\ance lit the pobtic 'iran~iHysi~ni w~s highlighted ihroug46ut M TSP. The'rdore, "o~p~rtu'ti\ti~s i~ better integrate these decis'io~-fu*irig iui(hori(ies shqiJld 'be . k'xploi~d. c·~rrehtlY, the Santa Clara VaHey Transpbrtiltiiln'Aii!horhy is the orie e~4mpleof an agency iri lhete'gion' tha(ser¥e's as' th'e saies tax iuunotity:·irm\'sit agency, and cohgestion management agency: Work \vith transit op'6raiors and Congestion tvhmagement Ageribies to identifyopotenli~l virtical iii:tegr~tio~ oppo&imiiie~ and local supp~rt tqr such integrail~n: ; . ..

!..

. '

i

··' ,:(

·

r.qi•j•

,

. ,.,., :.·

J

~

,

•• , ,

4. ExpiiHil regioh~I c~jl/tal 'pr~jec't J>iarl,hfrtg/design .to' irtdude s.hari~g existing expertise (e.g., BRT) andfac'ili'ties (e;g., mainteiiailce shops); · . ' "> ' · "· . Sev~ral'tranS'it agendies'~l)d 'coqge~tionm~ri~geip.~ht ag6h\;i€sin ihe r'egiofi'have d~lf¥\oped robush!xpehise in 6apital proje~i development and de)ivery. As h~wprojec\s or s)'St~ms ·~re developed; dpeitise should be'~h~red across' lr~nsifag~nCiesto opti\niie r~.sources:.:ysi~g Plan Bay Area project listings, MTC w\If identify 'specifiC'upcori'lirig phijeCis that may benefit from a sharing of resources a.nd convene a joint discu~sion of county CMAs and transit agencies to identify specific projects al)d terms for sharing resources. ,,;. · ·.;, e:•,/,•

~.

;.'

~'.'·,

;.':',

;."j.''

,t,,(;•

,·,<

•o\1,

,·~·~'~·.(:••,

j

•

5. Formalize joint procurement of services and equipment. Transit'agen'Cies currently have al1 informal process to monitor e.ach otht;f' s bus purchase's, allowing iigencies to ''piggy•back" orr another Bay Area or national pro'cureii\imt. This reduces iidm!hisitative'c'6sts of duplicativepiocitremerit processes and lowers''the url'ii cost of the pcit6hase: because Of the 'hlgh'er voltime order: The TSP recommends thatthese j6i'rtt procurefileP:ts be ·strengiheiied·aiid-formtiliied: . .., · · ·' · c1 • ·· .. _,.,

'·'

'·'.1'!,

'\,;:·

TheConimission will identify tYpical annual:procureJTle'iits (scope arid cost) ih ildditibn to those includi:d hi the R~gional Transit c:apitallnventory (niiijor capitiil.replacerrieiits); · convene ti'ansit agenci~s ;ideniiiy strbrtg ciirididate services ~nd t:"quiplliel)t.fot'joint: "'' procurement, and work with trfinsit opetat
to

·,

..·,

'·

.;

., ......

' .

,

,.,,

,..

·,.

';;:-

·o.,·.

,•:

,.;

123

This page intentionally blank 

124

-*~~~§vs/r

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-214 September S, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Planning Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

California PATH Vehicle Automation & Assistance Study

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider authorizing the General Manager to enter into an agreement with the University of California to participate in a study of magnetically guided buses led by California PATH, and the Federal Transit Administration's Vehicle Automation and Assistance (VAA) program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The FTA Joint Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Caltrans Office of Research and Innovation have established a program to investigate various technologies aimed at assisting drivers in lane keeping and precision docking. These offices have engaged UC Berkeley's "California PATH" researchers to develop the technologies. AC Transit, along with Lane County Transit District (Oregon), is participating in a field test of promising technologies. AC Transit's participation so far has been focused on developing a customer focus group and survey strategy, coordinating the delivery of buses to the PATH researchers and preparation of the operations and operator training elements of the study. The upcoming phase of the investigation involves evaluating a magnetic guideway technology using magnetic embedded in the roadway along with detection, steering assistance equipment and Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) equipment on the coach. This approach has been successfully tested at the California PATH proving grounds in Richmond and is now ready for real world testing and evaluation. Once engaged, the PATH system will keep the coach on track +/- 1 centimeter without driver input at the wheel. This feature promises to increase safety and speed through narrow passages like toll plazas and enable precise positioning of the coach at Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. At all times, the driver manually controls the speed of the vehicle and can assume full control of the coach by simply turning the steering wheel or manually turning the system off. If awarded, the contract would require AC Transit to: •

Provide two MCI coaches to California PATH, one at a time, for modification;

•

Train coach operators to operate the system;

125

Report No. 12-214 Page 2 of 6 •

Dispatch the coaches in revenue service; and

•

Collect and report data on the operation of the system, operators' and public perception of the system.

•

The District and Lane County Transit District (LTD), in Eugene Oregon, are participating agencies in a Field Operations Test of an automated guidance system for public transit buses. Participation by both agencies demonstrates the transit industry's interest in the technology.

•

The study is sponsored by Federal Transit Administration's Joint Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Caltrans' Office of Research and Innovation. The study is led by California PATH, a research arm of UC Berkeley.

•

The program, called Vehicle Automation and Assistance, focuses on technology to assist bus operators and improve safety through "lane keeping" and precision docking. The test will use two AC Transit coaches operating in revenue service on the M Line. The system employs magnets embedded in the roadway that are read by on-board detectors and computers which accurately position the bus in its travel lane.

•

The technology will be evaluated for its ability to improve vehicle speed, reduce accidents and vehicle damage. Operators will be queried about its effectiveness, ease of use and effect on their stress levels. A separate customer focus group and survey will also be conducted to assess public satisfaction and acceptance.

BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: Fund Source

Purpose (Account)

Budget

Expended

Remaining

UC Berkeley

Labor

20,000

0

20,000

District

Labor

61,200

0

61,200

Total

Labor

81,200

0

81,200

The District does make a financial contribution. However, that contribution consists of the staff time required to assist the researchers. UC Berkeley has funds to pay the District up to $20,000 for expenses incurred such as travel or overtime. The dedication of District Staff time and staff time at LTD is an in-kind contribution. To FTA, this demonstrates the transit industry's interest in the technology. Staff time is required to train operators, conduct public outreach and publicity and to provide data to the independent evaluator. Staff will perform tasks intermittently for the 10 months the project is underway. Below is an estimate of the amount of staff effort involved to complete the study.

126

Report No. 12-214 Page 3 of 6

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Program Overview. The District and Lane County Transit District, in Eugene Oregon, are participating agencies in a Field Operations Test of an automated guidance system for public transit buses. The VAA Field Operations Test began in September 2009 following a successful grant application by California PATH. FTA is supporting this research to create technologies that close the performance gap between buses and light rail. The lane keeping and precision docking functions are particularly viewed as key components of future BRT systems and promise the following key benefits: • Reduced right-of-way requirements and lower costs due to the ability to use narrower bus lanes • Precision docking and level boarding providing better access for those with limited mobility • Safer overall operations, reduced accidents and fewer on-board falls • Smoother ride quality • Shorter dwell times to reduce operating cost and increase ridership • Improved bus operator health outcomes such as lower stress levels and reduced incidence of musculoskeletal problems The study will evaluate the automated guidance technology under a variety of real world conditions. The District portion of the test will focus on High Occupancy Vehicle lane and toll plaza applications. By contrast, the LTD portion of the test will focus on low speed urban Bus Rapid Transit applications. Attachment 1 is an overview presented to the Bus Rapid Transit Policy Steering Committee and Attachment 2 is the most current study schedule. Study Sponsors. The study is sponsored by Federal Transit Administration's Joint Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Caltrans' Office of Research and Innovation. Description of Technology & Field Operations Test. The overall program, called Vehicle Automation and Assistance, focuses on technology to assist bus operators and improve safety through "lane keeping" and precision docking. The first phase of this study was conducted in 2008. PATH operated a university-owned bus outfitted with the technology on East 14th In San Leandro. This test produced +/- 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) accuracy over hundreds of bus runs. Attachment 3 is a UC Berkeley press release on the test. In 2009, PATH received an additional FTA grant to test the technology in revenue service and develop prototypes that could be manufactured by US companies and deployed on a variety of buses. To develop a product ready for manufacture, PATH has engaged local businesses such as Richmond's ContainerTrac and Bob McGee's Machining Company in Berkeley. The system employs magnets embedded in the roadway that are read by on-board detectors and computers which accurately position the bus in its travel lane. These inputs control a steering actuator, a small electric motor which steers the bus. The system has two separate 127

Report No. 12-214 Page 4 of 6 computer controllers for redundancy and improved safety and performance. Photographs of the equipment are shown in Attachment 1. The AC Transit effort will use two MCI coaches operating in revenue service. The District portion of the study will take place on the M line that traverses the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge. In cooperation with Caltrans District 4 (SF Bay Area), PATH has installed magnets in the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane of State Route 92 from Hesperian through the toll plaza, a distance of three miles. The system will operate at bus speeds ranging from 65 miles per hour in the HOV lane to very low speeds through the toll plaza. Negotiating the toll plaza is a challenge for operators, with only six inches clearance on either side of the mirrors. Operators currently slow down to a near stop to safely pass through the plaza. The system is intended to provide precise vehicle control through this very constricted space, potentially enabling operators to travel smoothly and consistently at the posted speed of 5 mph without stopping. PATH has completed the installation of the equipment on the two MCI coaches. In late August, PATH will finish the calibration and software updates for the equipment and conduct closedcourse testing. The District and PATH will next conduct road tests without passengers. Operators will be trained in September or October and the vehicles placed in revenue service shortly thereafter. All eight M line operators will be trained in use of the system for each signup. Only trained operators may use the system. If an untrained operator (e.g. from the extraboard) is assigned to a particular run, the system will be disabled for that run. Maintenance of the equipment will be the responsibility of PATH. The maintenance of the vehicles remains the responsibility of the District. Operators will retain responsibility for safe operation of the coach. Consequently, they will have the option of disabling the system at their discretion. In addition, the system permits the operator to disable the system in an emergency by simply taking control of the steering wheel or turning the system off. The test will last six months and include comparisons of performance on runs with the system turned on and turned off. The study will be completed in September 2013. Evaluation Plan. The technology will be evaluated for its ability to improve vehicle speed, reduce accidents and incidents of vehicle damage. The system itself will measure its accuracy and record any technical problems. The system will also collect data on speed and smoothness of travel. Operators will be queried monthly about its effectiveness, ease of use and its effect on their perception of stress level using the system verses not using it. District records of vehicle damage before and during the study will be provided to the independent evaluator. A separate customer focus group and survey will also be conducted to assess public satisfaction and acceptance. Vehicles will be clearly identified as being outfitted with the technology to assist in the customer survey. Attachment 4 is a sample decal for placement on test buses. The District-specific program is called MAGS, short for magnetic guidance.

The independent evaluation is being led by the Center for Urban Transportation Research/National Bus Rapid Transit Institute at the University of South Florida.

128

Report No. 12-214 Page 5 of 6 Staffing Plan

Jim Cunradi

Study Coordinator

12 hrs x 10 months

120 hours

Karen Lynch

Customer Outreach Passenger Survey

8 hrs x 10 months

80 hours

Tony Divito-

Liaison Operator & Maintenance Data Collection

8hrs x 7months

56 hours

Joe Tating

Operator Training & Training Development

Operator training (70 hrs) +program development (12 hrs)

84 hours

Stuart Hoffman

Technical Services/Coordination Bus Delivery

4 h rs x 10 months

40 hours

&

&

Christopher Beach

Operations Management

Bus Operators

Classroom Training

Bus Operators

On-the-Road Training

&

Track

4 hrs x 10 months 40 hrs

=

40 hours

8 operators x 5 hrs x 3 signups

120 hours

8 operators x 3 hrs x 3 sign ups

72 hours

Total staff time

612 hours (0.29 FTE)

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

May reduce damage caused by collisions at the bridge toll plaza for the duration of the test. Participation demonstrates the District's leadership in technological innovation. Success of the technology will benefit the US transit industry by giving buses more rail-like performance. For the District and the entire transit industry, the technology can provide the advantage of precision maneuvering and docking along with increased safety in traffic and a smoother ride for passengers. The technology promises to improve bus rapid transit operations by permitting reliable docking at BRT stations, increasing speeds through reduced dwell times and increased safety for passengers boarding at the platform. Finally, a successful test may position the District for receipt of funds for a future FTA-funded demonstration project for BRT or bus yard applications (e.g. washing and fueling).Staff time for District needs and study needs may be in conflict. Accommodations will need to be made by all partners. It is understood by both PATH and FTA that the District's needs will remain paramount in the allocation of staff time.

129

Report No. 12-214 Page 6 of 6

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decline to participate in the program. This would delay development of promising technologies that have the potential to increase the District's speed through toll plazas and improve the safety and precision of docking at BRT stations.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Presentation to Executive Staff (2010) 2. Schedule 3. PATH Press Release 4. Sample MAGS Decal

Department Head Approval:

Dennis W Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel Dennis W Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Jim Cunradi, Manager of Special Projects

Prepared by:

130

Staff Report 12-214 Attachment 1

Vehicle Assist & Automation Test Program Report to Executive Staff September 14, 2010

What is the Federal Vehicle Assist & Automation program? • VAA is technology that automates or assists the operator in the steering, docking, acceleration and deceleration of the bus • Pilot program to demonstrate the benefits of vehicle assist and automation (VAA) applications for full-size public transit buses

131

8/17/2012

Why are we interested vehicle assist & automation? • Improved vehicular safety in traffic • Reduced maintenance costs & vehicle damage • Better ride quality and improved passenger cabin safety • Improved fuel economy • For BRT may permit narrower dedicated bus lanes and lower long-term pavement cost • Aids level boarding and creates narrow horizontal gap at boarding pfatform to comply with ADA • May reduce operator stress and fatigue • Bus yard & transit terminal applications?

The Research Team • California-Oregon Vehicle Assist & Automation (VAA) Team • USDOT Federal Transit Administration and Research and Innovation Administration • Caltrans • AC Transit • Lane Transit District- LTD (Eugene-Springfield) • Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) • Local Bay Area Industrial partners • - ContainerTrac • - Integrated Motion Inc. • - Bob McGee's Machine Co.

2 132

8/17/2012

The California-Oregon VAA Project • 2003 - Automated Bus demonstration • Three-bus platoon with fully automated functions

• 2005 - Intelligent Transportation Systems World Congress, San Francisco • Demonstration of Lane Assist and Precision Docking Systems

California-Oregon VAA Project (cont.) 2008 - Field Tests and Demonstration East 14th Street, San Leandro First real world test . urban setting, uneven street crowns, potholes and obstacles, mixed with city traffic Test demonstrated system's accuracy and reliability • 1/4 inch tolerance Lessons learned will benefit future development and future deployment Demonstrated strong inter-agency partnerships Positive response from transit agencies AC Transit as supporting partner

3 133

8/17/2012

•

Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration's Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office

• California/Oregon team selects magnetic guidance as the primary technology •

Other technologies will also be evaluated for accuracy

• Project Goals • • •

Demonstrate the technical merits and feasibility of VAA technology in revenue service Assess benefits and costs Evaluate attitudes of transit agencies, passengers and bus operators

• Budget •

$1.9 million in federal funds (FTA) + $500k California funds (Caltrans)

• AC Transit Role • Active partnership & cooperation

Research Project Purpose • Address deployment issues • Assess benefits and costs in revenueservice operations • Document public perceptions • Study a full range of VAA applications Highway (ACT) and urban BRT application (LTD) • Precision docking and guidance • Very low speeds to highway speeds (65 mph) • Varying degrees of operator assistance

4 134

8/17/2012

VAA Project • LTD, Eugene Oregon • • •

2.5 miles of single/double dedicated ROW One 60ft New Flyer BRT bus Functions to be tested: • •

Lane guidance for on dedicated BRT lane Precision docking

• ACTransit •

• •

A 3 mile section of HOV lane, on the California State Route 92 freeway from Hesperian Blvd. to the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge toll plaza Two MCI motor coaches Functions to be tested: • •

Lane guidance on HOV lane Guidance through toll plaza

Research Project Schedule • Major Activities • • • • • • • •

March 2010 - System Design April 2010 - Component Development August 2010 - District kickoff meeting September 2010- Bus Component Integration into LTD bus September 2010 - Richmond Field Station Track Preparation November 2010- Software Development and Integration March 2011 - Begin AC Transit Performance test and Evaluation September 2011 - Complete Operational Test and Data Collection

• Independent evaluation to be conducted by Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) -University of South Florida

5 135

8/17/2012

• PATH syste"};,he

Technology

• Magnetic markers in pavement + sensors on the bus + Differential GPS + Inertial Navigation Systems + hardware & computers to steer bus • Redundancy to ensure performance & safety

'

1._

:::L -:.~

~ 1873,.

Differential GPS Unit

Magnets in Pavement + Sensors, Hardware & Computers on Bus • 1 x 4 inch magnets are placed in the roadway pavement every 3 feet • Magnets are minimally subject to interference • Missing magnets • Unwanted magnets

Not compatible with heavily damaged asphalt Installation costs of $10-20k per lane mile No maintenance needed after installation

6 136

8/17/2012

Hardware: Sensors on the Bus

'~'\:

'

~~.~ ~~

.

-. _;

.. ~61

Hardware: Steering Actuator

7 137

8/17/2012

Hardware: Computer Processors

Hardware: GPS/INS System

8 138

8/17/2012

Line M: Route Selection Factors • Highway speeds combined with physical constraints • Large over-the-road coach • Yard close to TEC • Tech-savvy riders for ease of surveying • Operates on portions of California State Highway system • Limited vehicle and driver pool for quality control and ease of implementation by the District

AC Transit's VAA Study Interests • Betterspeeds • Improved safety • Reduced vehicle damage & lower maintenance costs • Improved fuel economy • Improved customer satisfaction • Improved productivity • Reduced operator stress & fatigue

9 139

8/17/2012

AC Transit Role & Tasks Routine Duties • • • •

Provide vehicles Schedule buses and operators Perform regular maintenance (PATH maintains system) Operate buses & serve our customers

New Duties • Train our operators to use the system • Provide currently available or collect new data for researchers • Survey operators • Survey bus riders via email • Publicize the program via email, press, decals • Support PATH researchers in the little things

Research Project Next Steps • • • • • • • • •

Bench testing of equipment (complete) Install equipment on LTD bus Test on closed track at Richmond Field Station Transplant equipment onto AC Transit bus Test on the closed track Test on Line M and TEC without passengers Test on Line M with passengers Provide data & conduct surveys Complete evaluation

10 140

Attachment 2: VAA Demo Test Schedule

Task

V> ~

0>

~ )>::0

"'

~ ~-c

., 0 n , ::r ~

3

"'

:::l

~

I-'

~ N

......

N-1'>

141

This page intentionally blank 

142

Staff Report 12-214 Attachment 3

Researchers showcase automated bus that uses magnets to steer through city streets By Sarah Yang, Media Relations

I OS September 2008

BERKELEY- The thought of a bus moving along city streets while its driver has both hands off the wheel is alarming. But a special bus introduced today (Friday, Sept. 5), steered not by a driver, but by a magnetic guidance system developed by engineers at the University of California, Berkeley, performed with remarkable precision.

The 60-foot research bus was demonstrated along a one-mile stretch of E. 14th Street in San Leandro that was embedded with a series of magnets. Special sensors and processors on board the bus detected the magnets in the pavement and controlled the steering based upon the information it received. The driver maintained control of braking and acceleration, but the steering was completely automated, allowing the bus to pull into stops to within a lateral accuracy of 1 centimeter, or about the width of an adult pinky finger.

i braking speed, while magnets guided steering as this bus made a demonstration run

along a San Leandro street. (Bill Stone/California PATH, UC Berkeley photo)

Researchers say such precision docking would help shave precious seconds off of the time to load and unload passengers at each stop, adding up to a significant increase in reliability and efficiency over the course of an entire bus route. For example, precision docking could potentially negate the need to deploy wheelchair ramps and make passenger queuing more efficient. Moreover, the ability to more precisely control the movement of the bus reduces the width of the lane required for travel from 12 feet - the current standard - to 10 feet, researchers say. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has provided $320,000 to fund this Automated Bus Guidance System demonstration project, conducted by the California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) program based at UC Berkeley. "Today's demonstration marks a significant step in taking the technology off of the test track at UC Berkeley's Richmond Field Station towards deployment onto real city streets," said Wei-Bin Zhang, PATH transit research program leader at UC Berkeley. "We have seen increasing interest among transit agencies in this technology because of its potential to bring the efficiency of public bus service to a level approaching that of light rail systems, but at a much lower overall cost." California PATH researchers have been studying magnetic guidance systems as a means of controlling vehicle movement for nearly 20 years with significant funding from Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation. They have showcased how the technology can control a platoon of passenger cars speeding along high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in Southern California, as well as industrial vehicles such as snowplows and tractor trailers in Northern California and Arizona. Today's test run

143

along E. 14th Street marks the first application of magnetic guidance technology for use in transit buses on a public road.

"It is our mission to improve mobility across California, and maximizing transportation system performance and accessibility through this technology helps us to achieve our mission," said Larry Orcutt, chief of the Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation. "The rising cost of fuel has created greater interest in public transit. This technology could convince more people to get out of their cars and onto buses, and as a result, reduce congestion." In the system demonstrated today, sensors mounted under the bus measured the magnetic fields created from the roadway magnets, which were placed beneath the pavement surface 1 meter apart along the center of the lane. The information was translated into the bus's lateral and longitudinal position by an on-board computer, which then directed the vehicle to move accordingly. For a vehicle traveling 60 miles per hour, data from 27 meters (88 feet) of roadway can be read and processed in 1 second. Zhang added that the system is robust enough to withstand a wide range of operating conditions, including rain or snow, a significant improvement to other vehicle guidance systems based upon optics. Researchers also pointed out that magnetic guidance technology allows for a bus to safely follow closely behind another. Extra vehicles, much like extra cars on light rail trains, could thus be added during peak commute times. In the E. 14th Street demonstration, the magnetic guidance system was only used to control the steering for the bus, but on test tracks it has been used for full vehicle control - including braking and accelerating - creating a true "auto-pilot" system for the bus. At any time, the driver can resume manual control of the bus. Potential applications for the system include automating bus passage through narrow tollbooths and vehicle routing in bus maintenance yards. The system could be integrated into traditional bus routes, as shown on E. 14th Street, or used as part of more advanced bus rapid transit (BRT) systems that could include a dedicated traffic lane. Many cities throughout the world, including 20 in the United States, have deployed some form of BRT, although only a few include dedicated bus-only lanes. Today's demonstration included a special industry presentation attended by dozens of representatives from California transit agencies interested in whether PATH's magnetic guidance technology might fit with their own BRT plans. On some routes in the Bay Area, AC Transit currently operates a version of bus rapid transit that includes electronic signs informing riders of when to expect the next bus. However, the transit agency is currently in the midst of preparing an Environmental Impact Report for a proposed BRT project that could include bus-only lanes along an 18-mile stretch from downtown Berkeley near the UC Berkeley campus south to San Leandro's Bay Fair BART station. "AC Transit is a leader promoting advanced technologies for transit buses. As such, we are continually investigating new technologies to improve the performance, safety and comfort of buses," said Chris Peeples, president of AC Transit's board of directors. "The magnetic guidance system developed at UC Berkeley can both improve safety and provide a smoother ride for our passengers. The system has the potential to make bus rapid transit routes - particularly those that involve bus-only lanes - as efficient as light

144

rail lines, which in turn will make buses more effective in getting people out of their cars."

AC Transit puts the cost of its BRT proposal at $273 million, while a comparable light rail system would cost around $2 billion. Zhang said that adding the magnetic guidance technology to AC Transit's proposed BRT project would help it run more like a light rail system for an additional $5 million. The Valley Transportation Agency has also compared the costs of BRT and light rail systems for its planned Santa Clara Alum Rock Transit Improvement Project. The estimated cost for BRT came in at $128 million, compared with $393 million for light rail. AC Transit is joining Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation in funding the next stage of the Automated Bus Guidance System project as it becomes part of the federal Vehicle Assist and Automation Program. The project will expand to AC Transit routes along Interstate 880 and the San Mateo Bridge, and to a dedicated BRT route in Eugene, Ore. "Ultimately, it's up to the community to decide which transit option is best for its members," said Zhang. "Our job is to develop the technology that can help improve whatever form of transportation is used."

145

This page intentionally blank 

146

Staff Report 12-214 Attachment 4

AC Transit

PATH

Caltrans

FTA

RITA

Magnetic Guidance System Technology Installed on this Bus

147

This page intentionally blank 

148

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE   

September 5, 2012 

149

This page intentionally blank 

150

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-213 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF

REPORT

TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Receipt of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Civil Rights Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Review Final Report April 2012

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider receiving the FTA/Office of Civil Rights Compliance Review Final Report of AC Transit's Equal Employment Opportunity Program, dated, April 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)/Office of Civil Rights conducted a comprehensive evaluation of AC Transit's compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program guidelines for grant recipients. The review covers three fiscal years of activity and is an assessment of AC Transit EEO management practices and program implementation. Once the compliance review is completed, FTA produces a final report identifying areas of deficiency; recommendations for improvement; and required actions and time lines for implementation. BUDGETARY /FISCAL IMPACT: Although there are no budgetary or fiscal impacts directly associated with this report, the FTA review and report closure ensures the continued flow of available Federal Funding.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The FTA/EEO Compliance Review, covering the period of July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011, is completed. The compliance review covered eight (8} areas, of which all had record keeping and system deficiencies. From the on-site visit in December 2011, a preliminary report identified the deficiencies with recommendations for corrective actions in compliance with FTA Circular 4704.1. The areas identified as deficient were program submission; statement of policy; dissemination; designation of personnel responsibility; utilization analysis; goals & timetables; assessment of employment practices; and monitoring & reporting systems.

151

Report No. 12-213 Page 2 of 3 March 2, 2011 FTA/Office of Civil Rights implemented new administrative expectation for the submission of all civil rights program updates into the Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM) database. In addition, on March 24, 2011 FTA/Office of Civil Rights also provided notice of enforcing the requirement of Transportation-assisted grant funded programs. During the month of June, 2011 in preparation for the 2011 FTA/Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance plan and program submission Human Resources and EEO staff recognized that the upgraded PeopleSoft system did not meet the reporting standards for compliance. Human Resources/Human Resources Information System (HRIS), Information Technology and EEO staff began auditing AC Transit's integrated system and realized that the information to feed EEO reports were not customized. EEO was taking a coordinated approach with Information Systems and Human Resources to address recordkeeping and system concerns. In addition, start working with Planning and Procurement/Contracts to meet FTA/Office of Civil Rights enhanced administrative compliance expectations of monitoring and reporting of sub-recipients/contractors that met the threshold. November 2011 FTA/Office of Civil Rights notified AC Transit of being selected for a Compliance Review. FTA/Office of Civil Rights has received increased funding in the area of compliance review. Based upon FTA's website compliance review section this activity started in 2007 with one (1) transportation agency and now in 2011 seven (7) have been completed. The compliance review team concurred with Human Resource and EEO staff about the recordkeeping and system deficiencies affecting all eight (8) areas. Since then EEO staff is coordinating with other organizational areas to ensure quarterly reviews and annual updates. According to FTA - TEAM the final EEO Compliance Program/Plan submission was approved with no deficiencies on May 16, 2011. A letter dated May 21, 2012 from Acting Director, Office of Civil Rights, Linda Ford states "It appears that AC Transit has taken positive steps to improve its EEO program by correcting the deficiencies. There are no outstanding deficiencies."

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

This report does not recommend an action.

152

Report No. 12-213 Page 3 of 3

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: AC Transit Board Policy# 202 - Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy, adopted 3/28/90 AC Transit Board Policy and General Manager Administrative Regulations# 204- Prohibiting All Forms of Unlawful Employment Discrimination, Including Sexual or Other Forms of Harassment, Adopted 8/12/98

ATTACHMENTS: 1: FTA/Office of Civil Rights EEO Compliance Review Transmittal letter and Final Report.

Department Head Approval:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

by: Prepared by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

Reviewed

Sherri A. Stokes, EEO Compliance Program Manager

153

This page intentionally blank 

154

Attachment 1 SR 12-213

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20590

Federal Transit Administration May21, 2012 Mr. David Armijo General Manager Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612-2800

Re:

EEO Compliance Review of AC Transit- Final Report

Dear Mr. Armijo: Thank you for your response to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) letter and preliminary report of findings of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance Review conducted from December 13-15, 2011 of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). Enclosed is the final report that incorporates AC Transit's official response, submitted on April 6, 2012. We are pleased with the progress you have made in responding to the findings of the Review as presented in your submissions to FTA and the Review team prior to the issuance of this report. It appears that AC Transit has taken positive steps to improve its EEO program by correcting the deficiencies. There are no outstanding deficiencies. Should you have any questions about the enclosed report, please contact Ms. Anita Heard at (202) 493-0318 or at her email address, [email protected]. Sincerely,

Acting Director, Office of Civil Rights

155

This page intentionally blank 

156

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Review Final Report April 2012 FTA Report No. 0000 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY .

The DMP Group, LLC Washington, DC

-

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

157

Table of Contents I.

GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 1

II.

JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................ 2

III.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 3

IV.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................ 6

V.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................. l3

VI.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. l9

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Program Submission ...................................................................................... 19 Statement of Policy ....................................................................................... 21 Dissemination ................................................................................................ 24 Designation of Personnel Responsibility ...................................................... 27 Utilization Analysis ....................................................................................... 32 Goals and Timetables .................................................................................... 34 Assessment of Employment Practices .......................................................... 39 Monitoring and Reporting System ............................................................... .43

VII.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................... .46

VIII. ATTENDEES ............................................................................................... 49

158

I.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Grant Recipient:

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)

City /State:

Oakland, CA

Grantee Number:

1632

Executive Official:

Mr. David Armijo General Manager Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612-2800

On Site Liaison:

Sherri Stokes Senior Human Resources Administrator

Report Prepared by:

The DMP Group, LLC 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 405 Washington, DC 20007

Site Visit Dates:

December 13-15,2011

Compliance Review Team:

Maxine Marshall, Lead Reviewer Danielle Potts, Reviewer Gregory Campbell, Reviewer Khalique Davis, Reviewer

1 159

II.

JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITIES

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Civil Rights is authorized by the Secretary of Transportation to conduct Civil Rights Compliance Reviews. The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Reviews are undertaken to ensure compliance of applicants, recipients, and subrecipients with 49 U.S.C. Section 5332, "Non-Discrimination" and the program guidelines ofFTA Circular 4704.1, "Equal Employment Opportunity Guidelines for Grant Recipients." Further, FTA recipients are required to comply with 49 CFR Part 27, "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance."

The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) is a recipient ofFTA funding assistance and is therefore subject to the EEO compliance conditions associated with the use of these funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 5332, FTA Circular 4704.1 and 49 CFR Part 27. These regulations define the components that · must be addressed and incorporated in AC Transit's EEO program and were the basis for the selection of compliance elements that were reviewed in this document.

2 160

III.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

PURPOSE The FTA Office of Civil Rights periodically conducts EEO Compliance Reviews of grant recipients and subrecipients to determine whether they are honoring their commitment, as represented by certification to FTA, that they are complying with their responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. Section 5332, FT A Circular 4704.1, and 49 CFR Part 27. In keeping with its regulations and guidelines, FTA determined that a Compliance Review of AC Transit's "Equal Employment Opportunity Program" was necessary.

The Office of Civil Rights authorized The DMP Group, LLC to conduct this EEO Compliance Review of AC Transit. The primary purpose of the EEO Compliance Review was to determine the extent to which AC Transit has met its EEO program goals and objectives, as represented toFTA, in its EEO Program Plan. This Compliance Review was intended to be a fact-finding process to: (I) examine AC Transit's EEO Program Plan and its implementation, (2) provide technical assistance, and (3) make recommendations regarding corrective actions deemed necessary and appropriate.

This Compliance Review did not directly investigate any individual complaints of discrimination in employment activities by the grant recipient or its subrecipients, nor did it adjudicate these issues on behalf of any party.

3 161

OBJECTIVES

The objectives ofFTA's EEO regulations, as specified in FTA Circular 4704.1, are:

• To ensure that FTA applicants, recipients, subrecipients, contractors and/or subcontractors will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability; • To ensure that FTA applicants, recipients, subrecipients, contractors and/or subcontractors will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age or disability. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, hiring, promotion or upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, disciplinary actions, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. It shall also include a written affirmative action plan designed to achieve full utilization of minorities and women in all parts of the work force; and • To ensure that FTA applicants, recipients, subrecipients, contractors and/or subcontractors will post in conspicuous places and make available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the recipient's EEO policy. In addition, applicants/employees will be notified of the recipient's procedures for filing complaints of discrimination internally, as well as externally with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the local human rights commission, and/or the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The objectives of this EEO Compliance Review were: • To determine whether AC Transit is honoring its commitment represented by the certification to FTA that it is complying with its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. Section 5332, "Non-Discrimination." • To examine the required components of AC Transit's EEO Program Plan against the compliance standards set forth in the regulations and to document the compliance status of each component.

4 162

• To gather information and data regarding all aspects of AC Transit's employment practices, including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, compensation, retention, and discipline from a variety of sources: Human Resources Department staff and other AC Transit management and staff.

5 163

IV.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Voters created the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) in 1956 and subsequently approved a $16,500,000 bond issue in 1959 enabling the District to buy out the privately owned Key System Transit Lines. In October 1960, AC Transit's service began. ACTransit is constituted as a special district under California law. It is not a part of or under the control of the Counties of Alameda or Contra Costa or any local jurisdictions. The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District is the third-largest public bus system in California. AC Transit operates all service in-house, with the exception ofparatransit. AC Transit contributes to a Bay Area consortium created to provide paratransit services mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The population of its service area is approximately 1,500,000.

AC Transit is an Oakland-based regional public transit agency serving the western half of Alameda County and parts of western Contra Costa County in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is governed by seven elected members (five from geographic wards and two at-large.) AC Transit's service area is 364 square miles. The service area encompasses the following 13 cities and eight unincorporated areas:

Cities

• • • • • • •

• • • • • •

Alameda Berkeley Emeryville Hayward Oakland Richmond San Pablo

6 164

Albany El Cerrito Fremont Newark Piedmont San Leandro

Unincorporated Areas • • • •

Ashland Chen-yland Fairview North Richmond

• Castro Valley • El Sobrante • Kensington • San Lorenzo

AC Transit's bus lines also serve parts of some other East Bay communities, including Milpitas, Pinole, and Union City.

There are approximately 6,500 bus stops along 111 bus lines. In addition, AC Transit operates "transbay" routes across the San Francisco Bay to San Francisco and selected areas in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

Buses operate out of three operating divisions: Emeryville, East Oakland, and Hayward. Central Dispatch is located in Emeryville and Central Maintenance is located in East Oakland. AC Transit's Administrative Offices are located on Franklin Street in downtown Oakland. AC Transit's mission is to provide safe, convenient, courteous, and reliable transit service.

According to AC Transit's most recent workforce statistics, dated June 30, 2011, AC Transit had 1,936 employees and minorities represented 85.2 percent of the total workforce, as follows: • Blacks- 64.7 percent • Hispanics- 10.4 percent • Asians- 10.1 percent •

American Indians - Less than one percent

7 165

Females represented 37.6 percent of the workforce. Over 90 percent of AC Transit's workforce was represented by one of three unions, the Amalgamated Transit Union; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Union; and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union. Approximately 50 management employees are not represented by a union.

The Board of Directors was ultimately responsible for ensuring that Equal Employment Opportunity has the highest priority at AC Transit. The General Manager was responsible for seeing that the Board's policies on Equal Employment Opportunity are implemented. AC Transit had an Executive EEO Officer and an EEO Officer. The Chief Human Resources Officer was the Executive EEO Officer, with a direct reporting relationship to the General Manager. A Senior Human Resources Administrator was the EEO Officer with day-to-day responsibility for the EEO program functions. The EEO Officer directly reported to a Human Resources Manager who reported to the Chief Human Resources Officer. At the time of the Compliance Review and according to AC Transit's most recent Organization Chart, AC Transit was organized under the following management structure that reported directly to an Interim General Manager:

• Chief Operations Officer •

ChiefFinancial Officer

• Chief Human Resources Officer • General Manager of Communications and External Affairs • Director of Capital Projects • Director of Information Services • Director of Service Development and Planning

8 166

AC Transit also had a General Counsel and a District Secretary that reported directly to the Board of Directors.

On April 6, 2012, AC Transit submitted additional documentation related to a reorganization of the EEO function, following the appointment of a permanent General Manager. Included in AC Transit's submission was a position description of a newly created position of Assistant General Manager, who would function as the Executive EEO Officer. AC Transit's submission stated the following regarding the Assistant General Manager: This Senior Executive staff member has overall responsibility for A C Transit's AAIEEO Programs and has the full support ofthe General Manager. Responsibilities include: carrying out the policies and General Manager's Administrative Regulations, as well as accomplishing goals and objectives for the implementation ofthe Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Program in compliance with the Federal Transit Administration/Civil Rights Office.

In its submission to FTA, AC Transit provided a copy of an email to AC Transit Employees from the General Manager dated March 15, 2012. The following excerpts are from this email, entitled Organizational Changes: The Internal Audit and EEO functional units will be moved under an as yet to be filled Assistant to the General Manager position. These units will also have direct access to the General Manager and, when appropriate, the Board of Directors. this revised structure supports the independence of the EEO function. As a best practice, and to ensure transparency, this function should report at the highest level within the organization. 00 00

The following tables (Table 1 -Table 3) represent a demographic profile of the AC Transit service area using data from the 2000 and the 2010 Census. The table shows the 2000 and 2010 population by racial/ethnic group, the increase (or decrease) in

9 167

population from 2000 to 2010 and the percentage of the racial/ethnic group population to the total population in both 2000 and 2010.

From 2000 to 2010, the total population ofthe AC Transit service area increased seven percent. The White population decreased 4.7 percent, while the Black population decreased 5.5 percent, the Hispanic population increased 34.8 percent, the Asian population increased 36.8 percent, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander population increased 40 percent, and the American Indian/Alaskan Native increased 6.3 percent. In 2010, 49.4 percent of the total population was White (a decrease of six percent from 2000), 11.2 percent was Black (a decrease of 1.5 percent), 23.3 percent was Hispanic (an increase of 4.8 percent), 21.3 percent was Asian (an increase of 4.6 percent), 0.7 percent was Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (a negligible increase), and 0.6 percent was American Indian/Alaskan Native (a negligible increase).

10 168

Racial/ Ethnic Group

White Black American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Hispanic Origin' Total

Racial! Ethnic Group

White Black American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Hispanic Origin" Total

Table 1- Demographics of the Alameda County Area Racial/ Ethnic Breakdown - Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Alameda County Change in Alameda County Alameda County 2010 2000 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent change change ethnic total 2roup population (55,212) (7.8%) 704,334 48.8% 649,122 43.0% (5.8%) (2.3%) (11.7%) 215,598 14.9% 190,451 12.6% (25,147) 9,146 295,218

0.6% 20.4%

9799 394,560

0.6% 26.1%

653 99,342

7.1% 33.7%

0.0% 5.7%

9142 129,079 81,224 273,910

0.6% 8.9% 5.6% 19.0%

12802 162,540 90,997 339,889

0.8% 10.8% 6.0% 22.5%

3,660 33,461 9,773 65,979

40.0% 25.9% 12.0% 24.1%

0.2% 1.8% 0.4% 3.5%

1443 741

100%

1 510 271

100%

66 530

4.6%

0.0%

Table 2- Demographics of the Contra Costa County Area Racial/ Ethnic Breakdown- Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census Change in Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 2010 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Percent Percent Number change change ethnic total group population (6,979) (1.1%) 621,491 65.5% 614,512 58.6% (6.9%) 88,813 9.4% 97,161 9.3% 8,348 9.4% (0.1 %) 5,830 I 03,993

0.6% 11.0%

6122 151,469

0.6% 14.4%

292 47,476

5.0% 45.7%

0.0% 3.5%

3466 76,510 48,714 167,776

0.4% 8.1% 5.1% 17.7%

4845 112,691 62,225 255,560

0.5% 10.7% 5.9% 24.4%

1,379 36,181 13,511 87,784

39.8% 47.3% 27.7% 52.3%

0.1% 2.7% 0.8% 6.7%

948 817

100%

1 049 025

100%

100 208

10.6%

0.0%

1

Per the 2000 and the 20 10 Census, people of Hispanic origin can be, and in most cases are, counted in two or more race categories. 2 Per the 2000 and the 2010 Census, people of Hispanic origin can be, and in most cases are, counted in two or more race categories.

11 169

Racial/ Ethnic Group

White Black American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Hispanic Origin' Total

Table 3 -Demographics of the Entire AC Transit Area Served c om ~anson fior 2000 to 2010 AC Transit Total Change in AC Transit's Service AC Transit Total Area Service Area 2000 Service Area 2010 Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent change change ethnic total !(roup population -4.7% 1,325,825 55.4% 1,263,634 49.4% -62,191 -6.0% 304,411 12.7% 287,612 11.2% -16,799 -5.5% -1.5% 14,976 399,211

0.6% 16.7%

15,921 546,029

0.6% 21.3%

945 146,818

6.3% 36.8%

0.0% 4.6%

12,608 205,589 129,938 441,686

0.5% 8.6% 5.4% 18.5%

17,647 275,231 153,222 595,449

0.7% 10.8% 6.0% 23.3%

5,039 69,642 23,284 153,763

40.0% 33.9% 17.9% 34.8%

0.2% 2.2% 0.6% 4.8%

2 392 558

100%

2 559 296

100%

166 738

7.0%

0.0%

3

Per the 2000 and the 20 I 0 Census, people of Hispanic origin can be, and in most cases are, counted in two or more race categories.

12 170

V.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The following required EEO program components specified by the FTA are reviewed in this report: 1. Program Submission- A formal EEO program is required of any recipient that both employs 50 or more transit-related employees (including temporary, full-time or part-time employees either directly employed and/or through contractors) and received in excess of$1 million in capital or operating assistance or in excess of$250,000 in planning assistance in the previous federal fiscal year. Program updates are required every three years. 2. Statement of Policy- An EEO Program must include a statement issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) regarding EEO policy affecting all employment practices, including recruitment, selection, promotions, terminations, transfers, layoffs, compensation, training, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. 3. Dissemination- Formal communication mechanisms should be established to publicize and disseminate the recipient's EEO policy, as well as appropriate elements of the program, to its employees, applicants and the general public. 4. Designation of Personnel Responsibility- The importance of an EEO program is indicated by the individual the agency has named to manage the program and the authority this individual possesses. An executive should be appointed as Manager/Director ofEEO who reports and is directly responsible to the agency's CEO. 5. Utilization Analysis- The purpose of the utilization analysis is to identify those job categories where there is an underutilization and/or concentration of minorities and women in relation to their availability in the relevant labor market. 6. Goals and Timetables - Goals and timetables are an excellent management tool to assist in the optimum utilization of human resources. 13 171

7. Assessment of Employment Practices- Recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors must conduct a detailed assessment of present employment practices to identify those practices that operate as employment barriers and unjustifiably contribute to underutilization. 8. Monitoring and Reporting System- An important part of any successful EEO program is the establishment of an effective and workable intemal monitoring and reporting system.

14 172

METHODOLOGY The initial step of this EEO Compliance Review consisted of consultation with the FTA Region 9 Civil Rights Officer and Civil Rights Headquarters staff regarding the decision to conduct a Compliance Review of AC Transit. Relevant documents from FTA's files were reviewed as background. Next, an agenda letter was prepared and sent to AC Transit by FTA's Office of Civil Rights. The agenda letter notified AC Transit of the planned Compliance Review, requested preliminary documents, and informed AC Transit of additional documents needed and areas that would be covered during the on-site portion of the Review. It also informed AC Transit of the staff and other organizations and individuals that would be interviewed. The following documents were requested: FTA Circular 4704.1 Requirement/ Documentation to Be Provided in Advance of Site Visit 0. Background a) Description of AC Transit's Services and Organization b) Summary Listing of EEO Complaints and Lawsuits against AC Transit during the last three years (October I, 2008- September 30, 2011) alleging discrimination towards an employee or job applicant. The summary shall indicate the date of the complaint, if the complaint was filed internally or externally, the basis for discrimination, the date the complaint was resolved or if the complaint is still open. c) Collective Bargaining Agreements covering the past three years for each bargaining unit, if applicable. l. Program Submission (FTA C. 4704.1.11, 5.) No documents requested, based on August 2011 submissions 2. Statement of Policy (FTA C. 4704.1.111, 2.a.) No documents requested, based on August 2011 submissions 3. Dissemination (FTA C. 4704.1.111, 2.b.) a) Documentation of Internal Dissemination of EEO Policy b) Documentation of External Dissemination of EEO Policy 4. Designation of Personnel Responsibility for EEO (FTA C. 4704.1.111, 2.c.) a) Copy of Position/Job Description for EEO Officer and EEO Staff b) Organization Chart showing EEO Officer Reporting Relationship

15 173

FTA Circular 4704.1 Requirement{ Documentation to Be Provided in Advance of Site Visit 5. Utilization Analysis (FTA C. 4704.1.III, 2.d.) a) Utilization Analysis for the past two years prepared in accordance with FTA Circular 4 704.1 Chapter Ill 2.d. 6. Goals and Timetables (FTA C. 4704.1.III, 2.e.) a) Goals and Timetables for the past two years prepared in accordance with FTA Circular 4 704.1 Chapter Ill 2.e. 7. Assessment of Employment Practices (FTA C. 4704.1.III, 2.f.) a) A copy of personnel policy guides, handbooks, regulations, or other material that govern employment practices. b) A list of all recruitment sources used during the last year, including the name and telephone numbers of contact persons. c) A listing of all job titles for which written examinations are conducted. d) A listing of all job titles for which medical or physical examinations are conducted. e) A copy of any analysis of employment practices performed by AC Transit in the past three years. t) Data on new hires for the past three years for each job title or job group. Provide the total number of applicants and the total number of hires, by job title, as well as the number of minority group and female applicants and hires, for the past three years. g) Data on competitive promotions for the past three years for each job title or job group. Provide the total number of promotions, as well as the number of minority group and female employee promotions. Indicate the departments from which and to which the employ~es were promoted. h) Data on average salaries or wages paid, during the past three years, by job title or job group, to all employees, as well as the average salaries or wages paid to minority and female employees. i) Data on employer sponsored training offered during the past three years. Provide the total number of employees participating in each training course, as well as the number of minority group and female participants. Indicate if training was mandatory, or if supervisors authorized employee participation on a case-by-case basis. j) Data on terminations for the past three years for each job title or job group. Provide the total number of employee tenninations, as well as the number of minority group and female employee terminations. Indicate if the terminations were voluntary or involuntary. k) Data on all demotions, suspensions, and disciplinary actions above the level of oral warning for the past three years for each job title or job group. Provide the total number of demotions, suspensions, and disciplinary actions, as well as the number of minority group and female employee demotions, suspensions, and disciplinary actions. Indicate the departments in which these employees worked when they were demoted, suspended or disciplined. 8. Monitoring and Reporting (FTA C. 4704.1.III, 2.g.) a) Procedures describing AC Transit's EEO Monitoring and Reporting System. b) Copies of the quarterly and annual EEO reports presented to the GM and Board for the past three years, per AC Transit's 2011 AA Plan Submission. c) A description of the procedures and criteria used by AC Transit to monitor its subrecipients and contractors to determine compliance with FTA EEO requirements. d) Copies ofEEO Programs from subrecipients and contractors that employ 50 or more transitrelated employees.

16 174

AC Transit assembled most of the documents prior to the site visit and provided them to the Compliance Review team for advance review. Other documents were provided during the site visit.

AC Transit's site visit occurred December 13- 15, 2011. The Entrance Conference was conducted at the beginning of the Compliance Review with AC Transit's Human Resources management staff, the FT A Region 9 Regional Civil Rights Officer, and the contractor Review team. During the Entrance Conference, the Review team explained the goals of the Review and the needed cooperation of staff members. The detailed schedule for conducting the on-site visit was discussed.

Following the Entrance Conference, the Review team conducted a detailed examination of documents submitted by AC Transit's EEO Officer. The Review team also held discussions with AC Transit's EEO Officer, regarding the implementation of the EEO Policy/Program.

The next day, a group interview was conducted with members of AC Transit's Human Resources staff to learn about AC Transit's employment practices, including recruitment, testing, hiring, promotions, transfers, disciplines, and terminations. Files and records of employment actions, such as new hires, promotions, demotions, and terminations, were requested and reviewed.

Throughout the three-day site visit, interviews were also conducted with selected employees and managers.

Following the site visit, AC Transit provided additional documents to the Review team that was used to complete this Compliance Review report. 17 175

Staff Interviews

Fifteen staff members employed by AC Transit were independently selected by the Review team for interviews. The staff members selected were an ethnically diverse group and included both men and females from administration and operations. Staff members' tenure with AC Transit ranged from between three years to 25 years. Many staff members said that AC Transit was a diverse organization. Several individuals felt that there were barriers that kept females from being promoted into senior management positions. It was stated by some that the agency was more inclined to hire and bring in new persons rather than promote qualified individuals within the agency. A few others expressed a concern that AC Transit, in an effort to increase diversity, would on occasion hire or promote less qualified candidates because they were minorities. The general consensus was that there was little awareness of who the EEO Officer was, but there was familiarity with one or two members of the Human Resources staff who had performed EEO investigations. Most had not seen AC Transit's EEO Statement of Policy. Most of the staff reported that they had not attended AC Transit sponsored EEO training (e.g., sexual harassment training) in the past three years.

Only a few staffrnernbers, including some at the supervisory level, were aware of any internal complaints filed with the EEO Officer. It was expressed that concerns raised by the EEO Officer could and would be dismissed at the discretion of higher level management. A few of the staff thought that a little more could be done to enhance AC Transit's EEO program, including increasing exposure to and awareness of the EEO Officer, having biannual EEO presentations, and giving the EEO Officer greater influence to help better resolve issues and complaints filed. 18 176

VI.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The EEO Compliance Review focused on AC Transit's compliance with eight specific requirements ofFTA Circular 4704.1. This section describes the requirements and findings at the time of the Compliance Review site visit. Deficiencies were identified in the following eight areas: Program Submission,

Statement of Policy, Dissemination, Designation of Personnel Responsibility, Utilization Analysis, Goals and Timetables, Assessment of Employment Practices, and Monitoring and Reporting System.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted a revised EEO Program Plan submission, entitled Affirmative Action, Equal Employment

Opportunity and Diversity (EEOP) to address some of the deficiencies noted during the visit. On April6, 2012, AC Transit provided further additional information to address deficiencies. These submittals provided adequate documentation to close the deficiencies in the following three areas: Dissemination, Utilization Analysis,

and Goals and Timetables.

1. Program Submission Requirement: A formal EEO program is required of any recipient that both employs 50 or more transit-related employees (including temporary, full-time or part-time employees either directly employed and/or through contractors) and received in excess of $1 million in capital or operating assistance or in excess of $250,000 in planning assistance in the previous federal fiscal year. Program updates are required every three years.

19 177

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found

with FTA requirements for Program Submission. Prior to the site visit, AC Transit provided its most recent EEO Program Plan submission, entitled Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity Program (EEOP). In a letter dated April 19, 2011, FTA determined that" ... the EEO Program was missing or did not adequately address critical elements as identified in FTA's EEO Circular. If we do not receive an updated program that adequately addresses these items, AC Transit's conditional approval status [would] expire and this could result in delays in processing grants or draw-down restrictions for AC Transit." AC Transit was asked to address the items by June 19, 2011. The table below summarizes the missing elements of the EEO Program required per FTA C. 4704.1 found in AC Transit's EEOP:

FTA EEO Program Required Elements:

Adequately addressed in AC Transit's EEO Pro2ram?

Policy Statement Dissemination Designation of Personnel Utilization Analysis Goals and Timetables Assessment of Employment Practices Monitoring and Reporting

No No No Yes No No No

AC Transit submitted another version of the EEOP on June 17, 2011, but it was still insufficient and did not adequately address any of the elements that were identified in FTA's April 19, 2011 letter. AC Transit also used employee data from 2008 that was inaccurate and did not reflect the actual number of employees.

During the site visit, the Review team also found that many of the procedures described in the EEOP did not reflect current practices. The Review team provided 20 178

technical assistance to AC Transit staff so that it could address all critical elements that were not included in its EEOP. During the site visit, AC Transit provided another revised EEOP update in December 2011. The revision was incomplete and had not been distributed outside of AC Transit.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted another revised EEO Program Plan submission, dated February 2, 2012, entitled Affirmative Action,

Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity (EEOP) to address some of the deficiencies noted during the site visit. In addition, on April 6, 2012, AC Transit provided further additional information to address deficiencies within its EEO Program, and noted that it was in the process of revising its February 2, 2012 EEOP to incorporate the changes.

Corrective Action and Schedule: Within 60 days of the issuance of the Final Report, AC Transit must submit to the FT A Office of Civil Rights an EEOP that includes revised sections to address all of the deficiencies identified in this Compliance Review.

2. Statement of Policy Requirement: An EEO Program must include a statement issued by the CEO regarding EEO policy affecting all employment practices, including recruitment, selection, promotions, terminations, transfers, layoffs, compensation, training, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with FT A requirements for Statement of Policy. Prior to the site visit, AC Transit 21 179

provided the Review team with a copy of its EEO Policy Statement issued by the Interim General Manager. The EEO Policy statement was not posted on AC Transit's website or on bulletin boards throughout its facilities. The EEO Policy Statement contained only five of the required elements of a Statement of Policy as described in FT A Circular 4704.1, as indicated in the table below.

FTA C. 4704.1 Policy Statement Requirements

AC Transit August 2011 EEO Policy Statement

AC Transit Apri12012 EEO Policy Statement

Issued by CEO Commitment to EEO Undertake an Affirmative Action Program EEO Program Assignment to Agency Executive Management Personnel Share Responsibility Applicants/Employees Right to File Complaints Performance by Managers/Supervisors Evaluated Successful Achievement Provides Benefits

Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

AC Transit's EEO Policy Statement did not include a commitment to undertake affirmative action to achieve goals, it did not indicate that applicants and employees have the right to file complaints if they feel they have experienced some form of discrimination, and it did not describe that management and supervisors would be evaluated on their accomplishment ofEEO goals.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted its revised EEO Policy Statement. The revised statement did include the following: • A commitment to undertake affirmative action to achieve goals; • A comment that applicants and employees have the right to file complaints if they feel they have experienced some form of discrimination; and • A comment that management and supervisors would be evaluated on their accomplishment ofEEO goals. 22 180

However, the revised EEO Policy Statement was not signed or initialed to indicate that it was the final Policy Statement. In addition, it revised the individual responsible for overseeing and carrying out the development and implementation of the FTA- EEO/Workplace Mediation and Diversity Program as the Senior Human Resources Administrator, which is a conflict of interest. Furthermore, while the EEO Policy Statement did include a comment that applicants and employees have the right to file complaints if they feel they have experienced some form of discrimination, there was no address, email address, website, or telephone number provided to indicate where a complaint could be filed.

On April6, 2012, AC Transit submitted another revised EEO Policy Statement. The revised Policy Statement did include an email address and a telephone number to indicate where a complaint could be filed. However, it still identified the Senior Human Resources Administrator, not an Agency Executive, as the individual responsible for overseeing and carrying out the development and implementation of the FTA- EEO Compliance Program. Also, as previously stated, EEO must be separate from the Human Resources function.

Corrective Action and Schedule: Within 60 days of the issuance of the Final

report, AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights an EEO Policy Statement that is signed and dated by the CEO and that identifies an agency executive as the individual responsible for EEO. Upon approval from FTA, AC Transit must post the new EEO Policy Statement on its public website, on its intranet, and on AC Transit's bulletin boards throughout its facilities.

23 181

3. Dissemination Requirement: Formal communication mechanisms should be established to

publicize and disseminate the agency's EEO policy as well as appropriate elements of the program, to its employees, applicants and the general public.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found

with FTA requirements for Dissemination. According to AC Transit's EEOP, AC Transit used the following methods to disseminate its EEO Policy Statement internally and externally:

Internal Communications • EEO Policy Statement is distributed to all employees as part of the new employee's orientation. • EEO/Workforce Mediation and Diversity Program staff has regular meetings with District employees to disseminate information. • Management /supervisory personnel are provided additional guidance concerning AAIEEO policies and procedures in one-on-one and lor small group meetings. External Communications • All District employment opportunity bulletins, recruitment advertisements, and notices cite the District's commitment to equal employment opportunities, affirmative action and diversity. • Employment applicants, as requested, are provided copies of the AAIEEO District's policy.

During the site visit, the Review team observed that the EEO Policy Statement was not posted throughout the AC Transit facilities. AC Transit stated that the EEO Policy Statement had been recently distributed to all employees by including it in their pay check envelopes. AC Transit could not provide documentation that it had disseminated its EEO Policy Statement to regular recruitment sources or any 24 182

external agencies. The EEO Policy Statement was not posted on AC Transit's intranet for internal dissemination or on the Internet for external dissemination.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted revised methods to disseminate its EEO Policy Statement internally and externally. The revised methods include the following:

Internal Dissemination: Intranet under the Human Resources tab includes the GM Statement of Policy, information on how to file a discrimination complaint and form plus contact information; including related the District's Board policies addressing all forms of unlawful employment discrimination, including sexual or other forms of harassment prohibiting. Employees can view and print copies of these documents; New employee orientation reviews the Board Policy, GM Statement of Policy and provides contact information; Annual mailing to all employees of the GM Statement of Policy; Posted at the San Francisco Terminal, each Transportation/Maintenance Division, Training and Education Center, Central Dispatch, Central Maintenance in the lunchlgulley rooms, General Office lobby by the job announcements and Human Resources department. External Dissemination: • AC Transit website can be obtained through [email protected]. Under this link employees and prospective candidates for employment can view and print a copy of a) Statement of Policy b) Procedures for filing an employment discrimination complaint and c) Discrimination complaint form. • AC Transit's utilizes the following temporary agencies to assist in hiring/selection process and have a copy of our Statement ofPolicy, which are as follows: o Office Team o Accountemps 25 183

o Office Team Healthcare o Management Resources o Robert Half Technology

o Volt Employment Services o Modis o Semper

Note: Documentation for dissemination of our Statement of Policy can be obtained through AC Transit's AA/EEO and Diversity Office.

The revised methods to disseminate the EEO Policy Statement internally described various methods that would adequately meet the FTA requirement for Dissemination-Internally; however, documentation supporting the internal dissemination was not included. In addition, the revised methods to disseminate the EEO Policy Statement externally included a link to a website that did not work; however, a Google search on the link produced AC Transit's web page www.actransit.org/careers.org/, which did have its EEO Policy Statement. A

review of AC Transit's EEO Policy Statement found at the web link, dated January 2012, revealed that is was different from both the one provided prior to the site visit as well as the one provided in the February 27, 2012 submission, which was represented as the agency's current EEO Policy Statement, and is dated February 2012. In addition, this EEO Policy Statement indicated that the Executive EEO Officer was the Chief of Human Resources Officer within the Human Resources Division, which is a conflict of interest (as noted in the Finding below).

After further conversations, on April6, 2012, AC Transit submitted the following documentation: • An email indicating that its EEO Policy Statement will be sent "to all recruitment/outreach sources that we currently use. "

• Several emails indicating where the policy was disseminated internally.

26 184

• A revision to the External Dissemination policy that included a link to a website www.actransit.org/careers/ that included AC Transit's current EEO Policy Statement.

While the EEO Policy Statement is not fully in compliance with FTA Circular 4704.1, AC Transit's efforts to disseminate its EEO Policy Statement internally and externally are adequate.

The deficiency in this area is now closed.

4. Designation of Personnel Responsibility Requirement: The importance of an EEO program is indicated by the individual

the agency has named to manage the program and the authority this individual possesses. An executive should be appointed as Manager/Director ofEEO who reports and is directly responsible to the agency's CEO.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found

with FTA requirements for Designation of Personnel Responsibilities. The Program Guidelines of FTA Circular 4 704.1 Chapter III, 2c state:

An executive should be appointed as Manager/Director of EEO who reports and is directly responsible to the agency's CEO. Since managing the EEO program requires a major commitment of time and resources, the Manager/Director of EEO should be given top management support and assigned a staff commensurate with the importance of this program.

27 185

Prior to the site visit, an agency Organization Chart and the EEOP was provided. According to the Organization Chart and the Responsibility for Implementation section of the EEOP, AC Transit had an Executive EEO Officer and an EEO Officer. The Chief Human Resources Officer was the Executive EEO Officer, with a direct reporting relationship to the General Manager. A Senior Human Resources Administrator was the EEO Officer with day to day responsibility for the EEO program functions. The EEO Officer directly reported to a Human Resources Manager who repmted to the Chief Human Resources Officer. During the site visit, AC Transit provided a job description of a Senior Human Resources Administrator and the Chief Human Resources Officer.

The Program Guidelines ofFTA Circular 4704.1 Chapter III, 2c provide for nine program responsibilities, summarized in the Table below, which the EEO Officer was expected to carry out as part of the EEO Officer job. The table also identifies the responsibilities included in the position descriptions for AC Transit's EEO Officers.

EEO Officer Program Responsibilities (FTA Circular 4 704.1 III.2.c) Develop EEO Policy/Program Assist Management in Data Needs, Setting Goals and Timetables, etc. Internal Monitoring and Reporting System Reporting Periodically to CEO on EEO Progress Liaison to Outside Organizations/Groups Current Information Dissemination Recruitment Assistance/Establish Outreach Sources Concur in All Hires/Promotions Process Employment Discrimination Complaints

28 186

AC Transit Executive EEO Officer/EEO Officer Duties Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes

According to the information provided, neither the Executive EEO Officer nor the EEO Officer had assisted management in data needs and set goals and timetables; developed an internal monitoring and reporting system; reported periodically to the General Manager on EEO progress; served as a liaison to outside groups; provided recruitment assistance; or concurred in all hires/promotions.

In addition, the Executive EEO Officer had a direct reporting relationship to the General Manager, and also served as the Chief Human Resources Officer, which was a direct conflict of interest to serving as Executive EEO Officer. Also, the EEO Officer was a Senior Human Resources Administrator within the Human Resources Division, which was another conflict of interest.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted its revised EEO Policy Statement. The revised statement indicated that the individual responsible for

overseeing and carrying out the development and implementation of the FTAEEO/Workplace Mediation and Diversity Program is the Senior Human Resources Administrator, which is a conflict of interest. Also included in the February 27 submission was a revised Organization Chart, which showed that AC Transit's EEO Officer reports to the Interim General Manager as appropriate, however, this Organization chart does not match the revised EEO Policy Statement. In addition, a revised Designation of Responsibility section was submitted, which outlined the responsibilities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer as follows: EEO Officer Program Responsibilities (FTA Circular 4704.1lll.2.c) Develop EEO Policy/Program Assist Management in Data Needs, Setting Goals and Timetables, etc. Internal Monitoring and Reporting System Reporting Periodically to CEO on EEO

29 187

AC Transit's Revised EEO Officer Duties as of February 2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Progress Liaison to Outside Organizations/Groups Current Information Dissemination Recruitment Assistance/Establish Outreach Sources Concur in All Hires/Promotions Process Employment Discrimination Complaints

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

However, as noted above, the EEO Policy Statement dated January 2012 (and included on the agency's website) indicated that the Executive EEO Officer is the Chief of Human Resources Officer within the Human Resources Division, while the EEO Policy Statement dated February 2012 (and included in the revised EEOP) indicated that the individual responsible for overseeing and carrying out the development and implementation of the FTA- EEO/Workplace Mediation and Diversity Program is the Senior Human Resources Administrator. In addition, AC Transit did not provide a job description of the EEO Officer indicated in the revised Organization Chart.

After further conversations, on April6, 2012, AC Transit submitted additional documentation to address the Designation ofPersonnel Responsibility deficiencies. Included was a revised Designation ofPersonnel Responsibility section from the revised EEOP which indicates that an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer has been designated and that this position has all the responisbilites outlined in FTA Circular 4 704.1. Also included in the revised Designation of Personnel Responsibility section was the position description of a newly created and yet to be filled position of Assistant General Manager, who will function as the Executive EEO Officer. The Designation of Personnel Responsibility section goes on to state the following regarding the Assistant General Manager: This Senior Executive staff member has overall responsibility for AC Transit's AAIEEO Programs and has the full support of the General Manager. 30 188

Responsibilities include: carrying out the policies and General Manager's Administrative Regulations, as well as accomplishing goals and objectives for the implementation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Program in compliance with the Federal Transit Administration/Civil Rights Office. A Classification Specification (i.e., job description) for the Assistant General Manager was also provided. The Classification Specification did not include any indication of the EEO responsibilities that were noted in the Designation of

Personnel Responsibility section. Further, a revised Classification Specification for the EEO Officer, with responsibilities aligned with that which is noted in the revised

Designation of Personnel Responsibility section, was not provided.

Also submitted on April 6, 2012, to address the Designation ofPersonnel

Responsibility deficiencies, was an email to AC Transit Employees from the General Manager dated March 15, 2012. The following excerpts are from this email, entitled

Organizational Changes: •

The Internal Audit and EEO functional units will be moved under an as yet to be filled Assistant to the General Manager position. These units will also have direct access to the General Manager and, when appropriate, the Board ofDirectors. • .... this revised structure supports the independence of the EEO function. As a best practice, and to ensure transparency, this function should report at the highest level within the organization. While the organizational placement for the EEO function appears to be appropriate, the actual placement has yet to be implemented. Until that time, the EEO function is within the Human Resources Division, which is a conflict of interest.

Corrective Action and Schedule: Within 60 days of the issuance of the Final report, AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights:

31 189

• A revised organizational placement of an EEO Officer outside of the Human Resources functional area, with a direct reporting relationship to the General Manager for EEO matters. • Revised job descriptions for the Assistant General Manager and the EEO Officer that include the responsibilities noted in the Designation of Personnel Responsibility section of the EEOP and that conform to all of the duties outlined in FTA Circular 4704.1.

5. Utilization Analysis Requirement: The purpose of the utilization analysis is to identify those job categories where there is an underutilization and/or concentration of minorities and women in relation to their availability in the relevant labor market.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with FTA requirements for Utilization Analysis. Prior to the site visit, AC Transit provided its EEOP that included the section entitled Workforce and Utilization

Analysis Goals and Timetables. It also provided an AAIEEO Workforce Diversity Profile Report- Number Of Employees- Changes In Workforce Utilization (over a three-year period), and an AAIEEO Workforce Diversity Profile Report-

Percentage Of Employees- Changes In Workforce Utilization (over a three-year period). The AC Transit EEOP showed the workforce by the following job categories: • Offtcials/Administrators (Group 1) • Professionals (Group 2) • Technician (Group 3) • Paraprofessional (Group 5) • Administrative Support (Group 6)

32 190

• Skilled Craft Workers (Group 7) • Service/Maintenance (Group 8) • Service/Transportation (Group 9) Note: It was explained that Group 4 no longer existed.

The AA/EEO Workforce Diversity Profile Reports showed the workforce by the following different job categories: • Job Category 1 -Office/Clerical • Job Category 2- Official and Administrators • Job Category 3- Professionals • Job Category 4- Service Maintenance • Job Category 5- Service Transportation • Job Category 6- Skilled Craft • Job Category 7- Technician For each of the job groups, AC Transit's AAIEEO Workforce Diversity Profile Reports showed the following: • Number of Employees in each group for 2009-2011 • Gender • Ethnicity • Change from 2009-2011 • Available Workforce number/percentage • Above/Below Goal number/percentage

The Availability I Statistical Analysis section in AC Transit's EEOP section entitled Worliforce and Utilization Analysis Goals and Timetables noted the following:

33 191

Since October I, 1978, the federal government has defined the Eight Factor Analysis for determining the availability of minorities and females. The Eight Factor Computation Method is used to identifY those job categories were there is an underutilization or concentration of minorities and women in comparison to their availability for employment. The difference between the actual workforce and availability determines whether a particular group of employees is under or over represented. The utilization analysis is a strategy to identifY goals and take corrective action. The data used in the District's utilization analysis is drawn from the 1990 Census/Equal Employment Opportunity files. The detail of the availability analysis for each of the eight job categories is contained in Appendix C of this document. Note: The information in Appendix C is the same as provided in the AAIEEO Workforce Diversity Profile Reports noted above During the site visit, the Review team discussed some of the inconsistencies in the Utilization Analysis information provided, as follows:

• The EEOP section Availability I Statistical Analysis noted that there were eight job categories, while Appendix C in the same EEOP noted that there were seven job categories. • The Availability I Statistical Analysis section stated that the utilization analysis data was drawn from the 1990 Census (other areas of the EEOP also indicated that the 1990 Census data was used), not the more recent 2000 or 2010 census. The Review team was informed during the site visit that this was a typographical error. • When asked to provide information about how the Eight Factor Analysis was developed and used, AC Transit could not provide additional insight. • A review of the actual data provided in the AAIEEO Workforce Diversity Profile Reports with the AC Transit team that provided the data revealed that there were errors in the collection and calculation of the data. Therefore, the utilization results were incorrect.

34 192

During the site visit, the Review team provided technical assistance on the type of analyses to be performed and provided the EEO Officer with a tool to assist with the analysis.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted its revised EEOP, which included a revised Utilization Analysis with new Workforce Analysis charts for 2010 and 2011. The Workforce Analysis included a statistical breakdown of the workforce by department job group, and job title. The workforce was crossreferenced by race, national origin, and gender. AC Transit's workforce was compared to the available workforce for the relevant labor market to identified areas of underutilization. The workforce analysis was categorized into the following job groups: • Executive Senior Level Officials and Managers • First/Mid-Level Officials and Mangers • Professionals • Technicians • Sales Workers • Administrative Support Workers • Craft Workers • Operatives • Laborers • Service Workers

The Utilization included a detailed description for each of the job categories that listed all the job titles included in the category.

35 193

The deficiency in this area is closed.

6. Goals and Timetables Requirement: Goals and timetables are an excellent management tool to assist in the optimum utilization of human resources.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with FTA requirements for Goals and Timetables. The Program Guidelines of FTA Circular 4704.1 Chapter III, 2e state:

Goals and timetables are an excellent management tool to assist in the optimum utilization of human resources. Specific and detailed percentage and numerical goals with timetables must be set to correct any underutilization of specific affected classes ofpersons identified in the utilization analysis.

If goals and timetables are not met,

there is an obligation to justify this failure following the recipient's annual evaluation of the EEO program. The justification for failing to meet a goal(s) should address such factors as: whether the anticipated job openings materialized, the availability ofpersons whose employment could have resulted in the goal(s) being achieved, and the adequacy of recruitment and other affirmative actions to change existing employment practices so that the goal(s) could be achieved. Long-range goals are usually stated as percentages, although numerical projections are recommended where feasible. Short-term or intermediate numerical goals should be set and pursued in order to assure accomplishment of long-range goals.

36 194

Prior to the site visit, AC Transit provided its EEOP which included the section entitled Worliforce and Utilization Analysis Goals and Timetables. The Goals and

Timetables section included nmTatives on the following components:

• Underutilization and Availability • Placement Goals • Setting Timetables • Achieving District Goals However, the EEOP did not contain short-term numerical or long-range percentage goals and applicable timetables for underutilized job categories. The EEOP also included a section entitled Action-Oriented Strategies to Achieve

Program Goals. Included in this section were the following steps that would be taken by AC Transit to achieve its EEO Program goals:

• Analyze External Recruitment Practices • IdentifY Individual Recruitment Outreach • Coordinate Employment Development and Training • Employee Career Development • Development of Career Paths within Classification System • Employee Training

37 195

• Outreach o Recruitment at colleges and universities o Recruitment through professional organizations o Recruitment through community organizations

During the site visit, the Review team discussed the information provided in the EEOP with AC Transit and it was discovered that these strategies had not been implemented.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted a revised EEOP, which included a revised Goals and Timetables section. AC Transit provided its numerical hiring goals established for 2011 included in the 2011 Utilization Analysis, a narrative discussion of short-term goals for fiscal year 2008 to 2009 and fiscal year 2009 to 2010, and long-term and short-term goals and timetables as of June 30, 2011. The long-term four-year goals and timetables contained AC Transit's 2011 12 month short-term goals. The following information was provided for the goals for each job category: • Current Workforce • Available Workforce by percentage • Anticipated Job Opening • Job Openings to be filled • Numeric Goals for Program Year • Anticipated Workforce • Hiring Goals Percentage- 12 months • Hiring Goals Percentage - Year 2 • Hiring Goals Percentage - Year 3

38 196

• Hiring Goals Percentage - Year 4

For 2011, numerical goals were established to correct the underutilization for the following areas as follows: • Technicians: 7- Female • Craft Workers: 5- Females • Laborers: 1 -Females •

Service Workers: 35- Females

The long-range goals were designed to eliminate underutilization in job categories where it was identified.

The deficiency in this area is closed.

7. Assessment of Employment Practices Requirement: Recipients, subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors must conduct a detailed assessment of present employment practices to identify those practices that operate as employment barriers and unjustifiably contribute to underutilization.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with FTA requirements for Assessment of Employment Practices. AC Transit did not provide documentation that it had regularly conducted qualitative or quantitative assessments of employment practices.

39 197

FTA Circular 4704.1 requires grantees to undertake a qualitative and quantitative analysis of employment practices to identify those practices that operate as employment barriers and unjustifiably contribute to underutilization: Qualitative analyses should include narrative descriptions of the following: • Recruitment and employment selection procedures from the agency's last EEO submission. • Seniority practices and provisions, upgrading and promotion procedures, transfer procedures, and formal and informal training programs from the last EEO submission. • Procedures and practices regarding wages, salary levels, and other forms of compensation and benefits. • Disciplinary procedures and discharge and termination practices. • Assessment of the impact of external factors (not knowing where to apply for jobs, the availability of bilingual materials and information) Quantitative analyses should include the following statistical data by race, national origin, and sex in the past year: • Number ofjob applicants and the number of individuals offered employment. • Number of employees in each job category that applied for a promotion or transfer, and the number of employees who were promoted or transferred in the past year. • Number of disciplinary actions and terminations (by type) in the past year.

Prior to the site visit, AC Transit provided some quantitative and summary information for the past three years for new hires, competitive promotions, terminations, and disciplinary actions. AC Transit provided its EEOP which included the section entitled Assessment ofPast Employment Activities that included a discussion offemales and minorities in the AC Transit workforce, the areas of underutilization, and various methods to address the underutilization. However, this information did not include an actual Assessment of Employment Practices. The 40 198

table below summarizes the qualitative and quantitative analyses of employment practices required per FTA Circular 4704.1 found in the reports provided by AC Transit.

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis (FTA Circular 4 704.1 111.2.±) Narrative Description and Analyses

Recruitment and employment selection procedures from the agency's last EEO submission. Seniority practices and provisions, upgrading and promotion procedures, transfer procedures, and formal and informal training programs from the last EEO submission. Procedures and practices regarding wages, salary levels, and other forms of compensation and benefits. Disciplinary procedures and discharge and termination practices. Assessment of the impact of extemal factors (not knowing where to apply for jobs, the availability_of bilingual materials and information) Proposed program of remedial, affirmative actions to address problem areas

AC Transit's Assessment of Employment Practices No No

No No No No

Statistical Data Number of job applicants and the number of individuals offered employment.

No

Number of employees in each job category that applied for a promotion or transfer, and the number of employees who were promoted or transferred in the past l'_ear. Number of disciplinary actions and terminations (by type) in the past year.

No

Yes

AC Transit did not provide summary reports on its 2008 to 2011 new hires, competitive promotions, terminations, and disciplinary actions that contained a breakdown of the information by each year or into the various job groups. AC Transit also did not provide applicant data.

AC Transit did not provide documentation that it had done any qualitative or quantitative assessments of the summary data included in its reports. There was no

41 199

discussion of trends or explanations for discrepancies in the information. AC Transit did not perform any analysis to identify those practices that operated as employment barriers and unjustifiably contributed to underutilization.

During the site visit, the Review team provided technical assistance on the type of analyses to be performed. Using the data provided, the Review team attempted to give examples of how an analysis could be completed; however, as the data was reviewed, inaccuracies were identified that prevented completion of a sample analysis. For example, job groupings, as presented in the EEOP, contained too small a sample size to be able to conduct a meaningful analysis. Also, the job categories contained positions that should not have been included, such as non-supervisory positions grouped in the Officials/Administrators category. Further, AC Transit had switched to a new Human Resources Information System and was unable to extract necessary data for analysis.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted a revised EEOP, which included a revised Assessment ofEmployee Practices section. Also included in this section were EEO: Graphs and Trends For Analysis 2008- 2011. This assessment, done by Human Resources instead of the EEO Officer as appropriate, did not adequately meet the requirements outlined in FTA Circular 4704.1. The documents provided did not easily explain the narrative provided. The narrative should describe data results as noted in the documentation of the assessment. In addition, trends between 2008 and 2011 should be described using charts and graphs. Also, significant compensation information was provided without context. Quantitative wage and salary data was provided, but an analysis of the data was not provided.

42 200

The Review team provided a sample spreadsheet for collecting and presenting the data and sample narrative on the quantitative and qualitative assessment format. AC Transit can use these samples with the data on employment practices that is currently available.

Corrective Action and Schedule: Within 60 days of the issuance of the Final Report, AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights qualitative and quantitative assessments of its employment practices (i.e., recruitment, testing, promotions, discipline, terminations, and compensation) for the past three years in accordance with FT A Circular 4704.1.

8. Monitoring and Reporting System Requirement: An important part of any successful EEO program is the establishment of an effective and workable internal monitoring and rep011ing system.

Finding: During this Compliance Review of AC Transit, deficiencies were found with FTA requirements for a Monitoring and Reporting System. FTA Circular

4704.1, Chapter III, 2.g, states:

An important part of any successful EEO program is the establishment of an effective and workable internal monitoring and reporting system. This system should serve the following basic purposes: • Assessing EEO accomplishments • Enabling the agency to evaluate the EEO program during the year and to take necessary corrective actions, as necessary

43 201

• IdentifYing those units which have failed to achieve a goal or implement affirmative action • Providing precise and factual database for future projections.

Prior to the site visit, AC Transit provided its EEOP which included the section entitled Auditing and Reporting Systems. This section detailed an automated Internal Audit and Reporting System for quarterly and annual progress reports.

However, the EEOP did not provide any information about AC Transit's actual monitoring and reporting system. During the site visit, AC Transit explained that it had not been monitoring and reporting on its EEO program as outlined in its EEOP.

Prior to the site visit, AC Transit also provided a reported entitled AC Transit Human Resources EEO/Mediation Activity Report. The report was a quarterly

report to the Board of Directors that provided the current status of internal and external complaints. No EEO goals or progress information was presented.

Also, during the site visit, it was determined that AC Transit had one or more contractors providing paratransit service to the Bay Area consortium. AC Transit was under the impression that its partner in the cons01tium, BART, was monitoring the contractor for EEO, but this was not the case. AC Transit did not know if or whether any of these contractors met the thresholds of having 50 or more transit related employees and received $1 million or more in FTA funding in a given year.

Following the site visit, on February 27, 2012, AC Transit submitted a revised EEOP, which included a revised Monitoring and Reporting section. This section did not adequately meet the requirements outlined in FTA Circular 4704.1. The content of the report and the frequency of monitoring were not described. In addition, the

44 202

revised section described monitoring complaints, but not progress toward goals. Furthermore, the Monitoring and Reporting section states:

EEO Officer will schedule annual meeting with senior management to report on the status of the EEO Program. This will include addressing the underutilization of minorities and women on an on-going basis with respect to recruitment, selection and placement efforts. However, an annual meeting will not allow AC Transit to make adjustments throughout the year in order to meet its EEO goals.

Further, AC Transit did not describe its status on obtaining EEO program(s) or its procedures for monitoring compliance with EEO requirements by its paratransit contractor(s ).

Corrective Action and Schedule: Within 60 days of the issuance of the Final report, AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights: • Documentation of its monitoring and reporting system for evaluating its EEO accomplishments described in FTA Circular 4704.1. • EEO Program(s) from its paratransit contractor(s) that meet the threshold requirements and documentation of its procedures for monitoring the paratransit contractor( s).

45 203

VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Requirements of FTA Circular 4704.1

Site Review Finding

Description of Deficiencies

Corrective Actions

Response Days/ Closed Date

EEO Program Submission did not include all required elements and did not reflect actual practices. Policy Statement missing required elements

AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights a revised EEO Program that contains all of the elements as described in FTA C. 4704.1. AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights a Policy Statement that contains all of the required elements as described in FTA C. 4 704.1. Upon approval from FT A, AC Transit must post new Policy Statement on its public website, its intranet, and on AC Transit bulletin boards throughout its facilities. AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights: • Documentation that it has internally and externally disseminated its revised EEO Policy Statement as described in FTA C. 4704.1. • A revised EEOP documenting actual methods and intervals for disseminating its policy statement internally and externally in accordance with FTA c. 4704.1.

Closed 5116/12

AC Transit must submit to the FT A Office of Civil Rights: • A revised organizational placement of an EEO Officer outside of the Human Resources

Closed 5/16112

I.

Program Submission (Chapter 11.5)

D

2.

Statement of Policy (Chapter lll.2.a)

D

3. Dissemination (Chapter III.2.b)

D

Policy Statement not disseminated internally and externally.

4.

D

Conflict of duties (i.e., EEO Officer was ChiefHR Officer)

Designation of Personnel Responsibility (Chapter lll.2.c)

46 204

Closed 5116/12

Closed 4/6112

Requirements of FTA Circular 4704.1

Site Review Finding

Description of Deficiencies

Corrective Actions

functional area, with a direct reporting relationship to the General Manager for EEO matters. Revised job description to assure that the EEO Officer performs all of the responsibilities described in FT A C. 4704.1.

No concurrence on hires, other missing responsibilities

•

D

Inadequate utilization analysis

6. Goals and Timetables (Chapter III.2.e)

D

Did not follow FTA requirements for quantifiable short term and long term goals

7. Assessment of Employment Practices (Chapter III.2.f)

D

No documentation of qualitative or quantitative assessment of employment practices

8. Monitoring and

D

AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights a complete 20 II Utilization Analysis in accordance with FTA C. 4704.1. AC Transit must submit to the FTA Headquarters Office of Civil Rights Goals and Timetables for 2011 presented in terms of longrange percentage goals and short-term numerical goals in accordance with FT A C. 4704.1. AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights qualitative and quantitative assessments of employment practices (i.e., recruitment, testing, promotions, discipline, terminations, and compensation) for the past three years in accordance with FTA C. 4704.1. AC Transit must submit to the FTA Office of Civil Rights: Documentation of its monitoring and reporting systems for evaluating its EEO accomplishments as

5.

Utilization Analysis (Chapter III.2.d)

Reporting System (Chapter III.2g) Program not implemented adequately

47 205

•

Response Days/ Closed Date

Closed 2/27/12

Closed 2/27112

Closed 5/16/12

Closed 5/16/12

Requirements of FTA Circular 4704.1

Site Review Finding

Description of Deficiencies

Inadequate documentation of monitoring of paratransit contractors

Corrective Actions

•

Response Days/ Closed Date

described in FTA C. 4704.1. EEO Program( s) from its contractor( s) that meet the threshold requirements and documentation of its procedure for monitoring the paratransit contractor.

NO =No Defictency; D = Defictency; NA =Not Apphcable; NR =Not Revtewed; AC=Advtsory Comments

48 206

VIII. ATTENDEES NAME

TITLE/ PHONE ORGANIZATION GRANTEE- Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC T •·ansit) Mary King Interim General Manager 510-89 1-4875 CFO/CPO 510-89 1-4752 Lewis Clinton Kurt De Stigter Ch ief Human Resources (HR) Officer 5 I 0-851 -0928 Carol Babington General Counsel 5 I0-891-483 I 510-891-4827 Cath leen Wadhams Litigation Attorney HR Manager 5 10-891-7204 Janet Jackson Sherri Stokes Sr. HR Administrator 5 10-891 -4898 HR Manager Shelley Fogel 51 0-891-4805 HR Administrator 510-891-4785 Elisabeth West Cheryl Koch Sr. HRIS Analyst 5 10-891-4284 AGENCY- Federal Transit Administration (FT A) Anita Heard Program Analyst, FTA Headquarters 202-493-03 18 Derrin Jourdan

Regional Civil Rights Officer, FTA

REVIEW TEAM- T he DMP G•·oup, LLC Maxine Marshall Lead Reviewer, DMP Reviewer, DMP Danielle Potts Gregory Campbell Reviewer, DMP Khalique Davis Reviewer, DMP

49 207

E-MAIL

mkinf!!a2actransit.om lc Iinton!a2actran sit.org [email protected] cbabinf!to!a2actransit.om. [email protected] [email protected] sstokes!a2actransit.org sfof!el(@.actransit.org ewest(@.actransit.org [email protected] [email protected]

4 15-744-2729

[email protected]

202-726-2630 202-726-2630 202-726-2630 412-952-9007

maxine.marsha ll!a2thedm muoup.com [email protected] [email protected] khatiaue.davis!a2thedmogro uo.com

This page intentionally blank 

208

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-182 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Quarterly Operations Performance Report

BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTIONISI:

Consider Receiving Quarterly Operations Performance Report for AC Transit Fixed Route Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The performance within operations appeared to stabilize during the 4th quarter of Fiscal Year 2012. The number of missed trips has been at an unacceptable level for several months; however, a program to hire additional operators to fill vacancies has resulted in some improvement in missed trips at the end of the 4th quarter. The number of outlates also stabilized and reached a level in July that had not been achieved since mid 2010. On time performance showed modest improvement during the 4th quarter of FY12 with field supervision focusing on operators running ahead of schedule. Total operator unavailability continues to be a problem with nearly one-quarter of operators being unavailable at times during the quarter. The unavailability rate includes vacation time, floating holidays, long-term absences, and sick leave. During the coming months, Operations will be working to identify processes to reduce sick leave, which is currently at a rate of 7% of the workforce. Miles between road calls improved during the 4th quarter after declining for several months with the increased focus on reducing the number of hard hold buses at the divisions and improving the quality of bus inspections. The bus accident rate was at unacceptable levels during the quarter after increasing for several months. The operations department is evaluating several options for improving the accident rate and will continue to work on improving the accident rate for the District. BUDGETARY /FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no current direct fiscal impacts related to the Quarterly Operations Performance Report.

209

Report No. 12-182 Page 2 of 5

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: MISSED TRIPS - The 4rd Quarter missed trips showed minor improvement due to additional operators being added to District staffing to offset attrition from past years. The Training and Education Department continued to aggressively train new operators and increased the new operator class size from 8 to 14 operators to expedite this hiring process. With this increase in hiring, missed trips began to decrease at the very end ofthe fiscal year and beginning of the 1'' quarter of FY2013. The following graph shows the missed trips from 2009 to present. Delays in SeJVice at Divisions: Trips Missed

~

• "

:E"

"

~

j!: ~

•, 0

~

E

z:

7000 6500 6000 5500

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

•

V\ \

1'. \ 1'. .a/ 11/09

-

-

...\

.

1/

'\.

~

08/09

ll'

If

02/10

05/10

08/10

11/10

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

OUTLATES- The 4rd Quarter outlates showed modest improvement at the end ofthe fiscal year as additional operators were brought on board, and showed significant improvement moving into the 1'' Quarter of FY2013 with outlates reaching a level not seen since mid 2010. Delays in SeJVice at Divisions: Out Lates 5 minutes or more 1700 1600

1500 1400

•" "• -' ", 0

~

0 ~

• ,E

~

z:

1300

'\

1200 1100 1000

\ \

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

\1

-

... , ~

08/09

11/09

02/10

....

'\ I

\..

\ \

-.

""'

•

/'\

"\

"'""

ill

/

05/10

08/10

11/10

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

ON TIME PERFORMANCE- The 41h Quarter on-time performance improved during the past two quarters. The improvement in on-time performance is the result of field supervision focusing on

210

Report No. 12-182 Page 3 of 5 operators running ahead of schedule. The performance indicator for operators running ahead of schedule showed a similar improvement during this same period. Percent ofTrips Operating On-Schedule 75.0

-

70.0

c

QJ

u

~

r ~

-~~

\..... 1>.4

~

OJ Cl.

65.0

'*'"·

.. -- - - '\.......

~~ """

Y.

~-

./

~~

""~

60.0 08/09

11/09

02/10

05/10

08/10

11/10

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

ABSENTEEISM - The improvement in on-time performance, missed trips, and outlates are somewhat tempered by a continued high unavailability rate for operators due to a large number of operators on various leaves incorporated into the Labor agreement, as well as Federal and State Leave mandates. The following graphs display the total operator unavailability and operator sick rate from 2009 through the 41h quarter of FY2012. The operator sick rate is higher than expected with nearly 7% of the workforce reporting sick. During the coming months, Operations will be working to identify processes to reduce sick rates to a more acceptable level. Transportation: Total Operator Unavailability 30.0

28.0

-

1\

26.0

A

c

OJ

u

~

24.0

OJ Cl.

22.0

-

":J

L\

)I

20.0

\

..

. \ \ I 1\ •

v

I

. \

_l

I \ II. F"ire-ltc- ~"-jl ""I \I \ -~ -~"' "i • \

-

V\1-

iVIV

18.0

08/09

11/09

02/10

05/10

08/10

11/10

211

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

Report No. 12-182 Page 4 of 5 Transportation: Operator Sick Rate 10.0

•

9.0

I'

8.0 ~

c (I) u L

7.0

(I)

6.0

o_

5.0

/

/ 1\

J

Jll

.... 1/ "\.: r...-

V\

"'\

v

'

4.0

,I .....

lA

-

\1

\

II

\ •

3.0 08/09

11/09

02/10

05/10

MILES BETWEEN ROAD CALLS- The

08/10

4th

11/10

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

Quarter miles between road calls stabilized after declining

for several months. The maintenance staff has been focusing on reducing the number of hold buses and improving the quality of vehicle inspections. Currently, operations is working with the materials department to improve processes for addressing no-stock hold issues. Also, Central Maintenance Facility staffing allocations are being reviewed to ensure the proper allocation in unit rebuild and running repair to address hard hold buses at that location. Miles Between Road Calls 7,000

6,000

"'

~

5,000

::>:

~

\

!vr\. __,. ]\

--

4,000

'Ill

-~

r-....

\

"''~~

~

.....

---

3,000 08/09

11/09

02/10

05/10

08/10

11/10

212

02/11

~

05/11

-=&~·
~- ~N~~

-ftc,

v ~[\,--ll

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

Report No. 12-182 Page 5 of 5 1

ACCIDENT RATE- The 4 h Quarter accidents per 100,000 miles stabilized after increasing for several months. Division management is proactively addressing operator complaints, which is instrumental at improving operator performance. The operations department is evaluating several options for improving the accident rate and will continue to work on improving the accident rate for the District. Accidents Per 100,000 Miles (Excluding Paratransit) 10.5

c;

~

::;:

"' 0 0

rl

-.... ~

c

"'

D

u

f\ IV\ }..

8.5

!1.

6.5

D

""' 4.5

IJ'"'

08/09

11/09

r--. \ I"' N I

02/10

~ .(\

.. •J

t"'

'\.

ll 05/10

08/10

11/10

02/11

05/11

08/11

11/11

02/12

05/12

Month

ADVANTAG ES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages and disadvantages.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: This report does not recommend an action.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None

ATTACHMENTS: None Department Head Approval:

James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

Reviewed by:

James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

Prepared by:

James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

213

This page intentionally blank 

214

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-217 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Class Specification for Computer Operations Supervisor

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider adoption of Resolution No. 12-038 increasing the compensation and adopting the revised classification specification and classification title for Computer Operations Supervisor. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A salary study conducted in 2011 on this Information Technology Department classification determined that the compensation grade (currently AFSCME Grade 8) was too low. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

$4,104 in additional salary plus approximately $2,668 in associated additiona l benefits costs annually. Additional monies will come from the General Fund.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

In December, 2011, the Chief Technology Officer asked the Classification/Compensation unit of Human Resources to conduct a salary study on this single incumbent classification. Following accepted practice, the incumbent was asked to complete a Position Description Questionnaire and answer numerous follow-up questions regarding his job duties and functions . In addition, a benchmarking study was conducted of other local public and transit agencies to determine what comparable classifications were paid. Compared to eight other agencies, Computer Operations Supervisor is compensated 3.9 percent below the median at the mid-point (Step 4), and 7.1 percent below the median at the top step (Step 7). At Grade 9, ($86,880- $103,680) this classification would be 1.1 percent above the median at the mid-point, and even with the median at the top step. Based on the data collected, the Classification/Compensation unit is recommending a one-grade increase in salary to the Board of Directors. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

If adopted, the advantage is that the District is more likely to retain a technically proficient incumbent, and avoid the costs associated with hiring and training a replacement. The

215

Report No. 12-217 Page 2 of 2 disadvantage is the additional annual cost of $4,104 in salary, plus approximately $2,668 in additional annual cost of benefits to the District to fund the higher salary.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The Board can decide not to increase the salary grade.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Resolution No.2045 and GM Memo No. 02-035: Established the policy for modifying existing class specifications.

ATTACHMENTS: 1:

Resolution 12-038

2:

Current Classification Specification for Computer Operations Supervisor

3:

Revised Classification Specification for Computer Operations Administrator.

4:

Public Utilities Commission Code §24886

Department Head Approval:

Kurt De Stigter, Chief Human Resources Officer

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Llew Keller, Human Resources Administrator

Prepared by:

216

Staff Report 12-217

Attachment No.1

ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 12-038 A RESOLUTION INCREASING THE SALARY GRADE, AND ADOPTING THE REVISED CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION TITLE FOR COMPUTER OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 24886 authorizes the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to determine and create such number and character of positions in the District as are necessary to carry on the functions of the District; and WHEREAS, Section 24886 also authorizes the Board of Directors to establish the appropriate salary, salary range, or wage for each classification created by the District; and WHEREAS, the General Manager has assessed the current personnel needs of the District and determined amendments to the classification plan are necessary for the proper operation of the District. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the General Manager to increase the salary grade, and adopt the revised classification specification for Computer Operations Supervisor; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1. Adopts the increased salary grade, revised classification specification, and new classification title of Computer Operations Administrator, as set out in Staff Report 12-217. Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of September 2012

Elsa Ortiz, President Attest:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Page 1 ofl

Resolution No. 12-038 217

Staff Report 12-217 Attachment No.1

I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit.L9i"stf.i€t,-EI€1-l'H:!Feclw-' certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 5th day of September, 2012 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Approved as to Form and Content:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

Resolution No. 12-038

Page 2 of2 218

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Staff Report ification

12-217

Computer Operations Supervisor

Attachment

No.2 Class Code 201

FLSA Status Exem t

AFSCME

8

REV 2-10

NA

Pa es 1 of 2

DEFINITION: Under general supervision, supervises the staff and work activities of the Information Services Help Desk; identifies, develops, tests and recommends technical solutions to the Director of Information Technology for possible adoption; consults with District departments and end-users; and ensures that all users of the District's technical infrastructure have the client-facing tools they need to accomplish their jobs. REPORTS TO: Chief Information Officer (CIO) or designee. REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTIONS may include, but not limited to the following: o

Delivers excellent customer service and support to all users of desktop computers and telecommunications systems provided by the District.

o

Provides hands-on technical leadership including development, maintenance and supervision of PC lifecycle hardware and software, PC cloning and client-side software distribution systems.

o

Develops and maintains standard operation procedures for functions performed by assigned staff, including Network!PC technicians, and the Telecommunications Coordinator.

o

Ensures consistency of hardware and software rollouts by developing and enforcing procedures and best practices, and through the direct training and supervision of technicians.

o

Investigates, troubleshoots, and resolves a variety of network and individual PC issues for District staff by providing user information, and by dispatching assigned staff, or responding in person.

o

Maintains a log of users' problems ("ITSM Tickets"); evaluates, prioritizes, and resolves associated issues; assigns technicians as appropriate; and tracks the completion of assignments and performance of assigned staff.

o

Schedules vendor appointments and provides status updates to vendors specializing in repairs on networks, servers, cable pulls, etc; develops scope of work documentation, and justifies expenditures.

o

Maintains and monitors District resources such as PC hardware, software and telecommunication devices. Tracks "evergreening" of technology assets and recommends upgrades to the Director of Information Technology. Coordinates preventative maintenance schedule.

o

Manages the design and review of hardware and software modifications.

o

Teams directly with Network Engineers to facilitate the integration of enterprise networking systems and software into the PC and telecommunications environment. Ensures accurate reporting and monitoring of centralized systems such as PC antivirus protection, 0/S updates, asset monitoring.

o

Monitors technical developments related to systems planning, programming, and analysis; evaluates impact on District operations; and recommends and implements procedural and policy changes.

o

Writes comprehensive status reports regarding regular unit activities, budget development and administration, and on-going and proposed projects. Prepares oral and written communications describing technical issues, and schedules for all District personnel.

Established 5/13/98. Revised 6/06 & 2/1 o 219

Computer Operations Class Code 201

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Staff Report ification 12-217 Supervisor Attachment No.2 Pa es

FLSA Status Exem t

AFSCME

8

REV 2-10

NA

2 of2

o

Documents, tracks and schedules the ongoing training of assigned staff to ensure that they are able to maintain proficiency with evolving technical requirements.

o

Confers with the CIO and Director of IT regarding assignments and projects, and may report findings to Executive Staff.

o

Performs related duties, as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge Of: Principles, practices, and methods of IS systems planning and development; project management techniques such as project control, budgeting, scheduling, and administration including goal-setting, program development and implementation, and employee supervision; practices of hardware and/or software applications in a client-server environment, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft office productivity software (Office suite, Visio, Access, Project); hardware and software interoperability and management in a virtualized environment; systems design, configuration, set-up, testing, and troubleshooting procedures; current technology architectures (physical and virtual); documentation procedures; mathematics, algebra and statistics; and modern office methods and procedures. Ability To: Organize, supervise, motivate, and monitor the work of assigned staff at various levels of proficiency; provide technical leadership in design, implementation and ongoing maintenance and monitoring of a client-side systems in a client-server environment; team build and provide leadership; create standards, procedures, and instructions for the assigned unit staff; forecast unit needs and develop long-term goals and plans; develop and monitor the unit budget; provide input into the department's budget; anticipate, troubleshoot, and resolve project disruptions and malfunctions with networked systems, and/or PCs; write documentation, and reports; maintain records; compute mathematical formulas; set-up and install software and/or hardware; keep abreast of current and imminent developments in computer technology and make recommendations; communicate effectively in English both verbally and in writing; and establish and maintain effective working relations with assigned staff and other District personnel using principles of excellent customer service. Education: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, or a directly related field. Experience: Six (6) years of recent, verifiable, and increasingly responsible experience in Information Services, computer technology, or a related field. Additional experience above the minimum will be considered in lieu of the education requirement on a year-for-year basis. Special Requirements: (1) Certification as a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE), or Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator is desired. (2) Must possess or obtain and maintain a California Class C Driver License and meet the District's safe driving standards. (3) Must be available on a 24 hour on-call basis, as needed. Physical Requirements: (1) Must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform tasks in an office setting operating a personal computer, keyboards, and other peripheral equipment; (2) must maintain mobility in order to safely drive a District vehicle to travel between District facilities; and (3) must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform the following physical movements: frequently stand, walk, lift and transport light objects weighing up to fifteen (15) lbs., push, bend, balance, kneel, crouch, access constricted spaces, and make fine motor movements with the hands, fingers, and arms; and occasionally lift and transport objects weighing up to fifty (50) lbs., pull, climb, crawl, twist, and reach. S.\HR\Data 12-01-01\Ciass-Comp\Ciass Specs\CompOpsSupv REV 2-10.doc

This Class Specification is intended to present a descriptive list of the range of essential functions perlormed by an incumbent in this class, but is not intended to reflect all duties erformed within the ·ab

Established 5/13/98. Revised 6/06 & 2/10

Approved by Mary King, Interim General Manager 220

Date

Alameda

Cont,.........C!..-..o........._-=-~.a..o..o.,; ·

Cia

Computer Operations Administrator

trict

Staff Report 12-217

Attachment

Effective 9 -5-1 2

No.3 12-038

DEFINITION: Under general supervision, supervises the staff and work activities of the Information Services Help Desk; identifies, develops, tests and recommends technical solutions to the Chief Technology Officer for possible adoption; consults with District departments and end-users; and ensures that all users of the District's technical infrastructure have the client-facing tools they need to accomplish their jobs. REPORTS TO: Chief Technology Officer (CI O) or designee. REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTIONS may include, but not limited to the following: •

Delivers excellent customer service and support to all users of desktop computers and telecommunications systems provided by the District.

•

Provides hands-on technical leadership including development, maintenance and supervision of PC lifecycle hardware and software, PC cloning and client-side software distribution systems.

•

Develops and maintains standard operation procedures for functions performed by assigned staff, including Network/PC technicians , and the Telecommunications Coordinator.

•

Ensures consistency of hardware and software rollouts by developing and enforcing procedures and best practices, and through the direct training and supervision of technicians.

•

Investigates, troubleshoots, and resolves a variety of network and individual PC issues for District staff by providing user information, and by dispatching assigned staff, or responding in person.

•

Maintains a log of users' problems ("ITSM Tickets"); evaluates, prioritizes, and resolves associated issues; assigns technicians as appropriate; and tracks the completion of assignments and performance of assigned staff.

•

Schedules vendor appointments and provides status updates to vendors specializing in repairs on networks, servers, cable pulls, etc; develops scope of work documentation, and justifies expenditures.

•

Maintains and monitors District resources such as PC hardware, software and telecommunication devices. Tracks "evergreening" of technology assets and recommends upgrades to the Director of Information Technology. Coordinates preventative maintenance schedule.

•

Manages the design and review of hardware and software modifications.

•

Teams directly with Network Engineers to facilitate the integration of enterprise networking systems and software into the PC and telecommunications environment. Ensures accurate reporting and monitoring of centralized systems such as PC antivirus protection, 0/S updates, asset monitoring.

•

Monitors technical developments related to systems planning, programming, and analysis; evaluates impact on District operations; and recommends and implements procedural and policy changes.

•

Writes comprehensive status reports regarding regular unit activities, budget development and administration, and on-going and proposed projects. Prepares oral and written communications describing technical issues, and schedules for all District personnel.

This Class Specification 1s mtended to present a descnptive hst of the range of essential funct1ons performed by an 1ncumbent1n th1s class, bulls not intended to reflect all dut1es performed w1thm the job

221

~)At#£vs/r

Alameda

Cont,.._.,c.a..-..........:.::...~........L..I:J.."'Strict

Cia

Computer Operations Administrator Effective 9-5- 12

Staff Report 12-217 Attachment No.3

tion

12-038

•

Documents, tracks and schedules the ongoing training of assigned staff to ensure that they are able to maintain proficiency with evolving technical requirements.

•

Confers with the CI O and Director of IT regarding assignments and projects, and may report findings to Executive Staff.

•

Performs related duties, as required .

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge Of: Principles, practices, and methods of IS systems planning and development; project management techniques such as project control , budgeting , scheduling , and administration including goal-setting, program development and implementation, and employee supervision ; practices of hardware and/or software applications in a client-server environment, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft office productivity software (Office suite, Visio , Access , Project); hardware and software interoperability and management in a virtualized environment; systems design, configuration, set-up, testing, and troubleshooting procedures ; current technology architectures (physical and virtual) ; documentation procedures ; mathematics, algebra and statistics; and modern office methods and procedures. Ability To: Organize, supervise, motivate, and monitor the work of assigned staff at various levels of proficiency; provide technical leadership in design, implementation and ongoing maintenance and monitoring of a client-side systems in a client-server environment; team build and provide leadership; create standards, procedures, and instructions for the assigned unit staff; forecast unit needs and develop long-term goals and plans; develop and monitor the unit budget; provide input into the department's budget; anticipate, troubleshoot , and resolve project disruptions and malfunctions with networked systems , and/or PCs ; write documentation, and reports; maintain records; compute mathematical formulas ; set-up and install software and/or hardware; keep abreast of current and imminent developments in computer technology and make recommendations; communicate effectively in English both verbally and in writing ; and establish and maintain effective working relations with assigned staff and other District personnel using principles of excellent customer service. Education: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Management Information Systems, or a directly related field . Experience: Six (6) years of recent, verifiable, and increasingly responsible experience in Information Services, computer technology, or a related field . Additional experience above the minimum will be considered in lieu of the education requirement on a year-for-year basis . Special Requirements : (1) Certification as a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) , or Microsoft Certified Systems Administrator is desired. (2) Must possess or obtain and maintain a California Class C Driver License and meet the District's safe driving standards. (3) Must be available on a 24 hour on-call basis, as needed. Physical Requirements: (1 ) Must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform tasks in an office setting operating a personal computer, keyboards , and other peripheral equipment; (2) must maintain mobility in order to safely drive a District vehicle to travel between District facilities ; and (3) must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform the following physical movements: frequently stand , walk, lift and transport light objects weighing up to fifteen (15) lbs., push, bend, balance, kneel , crouch , access constricted spaces , and make fine motor movements with the hands, fingers, and arms; and occasionally lift and transport objects weighing up to fifty (50) lbs., pull , climb, crawl , twist, and reach . Computer Operations Supervisor est 5/98. Revised 6/06 & 2/10 . Title & Grade change 8/12 S:IHR\Data 12-01-01\Ciass-Comp\Ciass Specs\CompOpsAdmin REV 8-12.doc

ThiS Class Specification 1s Intended to present a descriptive list of the range of essenltal functions performed by an Incumbent 1n lh1s class, but 1s not tntended to reflect all dut1es performed wtlhtn the job.

222

Staff Report

12-217 Attachment No.4

CAL. PUC. CODE § 24886 : California Code- Section 24886

The board may adopt a personnel system for the purpose of recruiting and maintaining an effective working force with good morale. The board shall by resolution determine and create such number and character of positions as are necessary properly to carry on the functions of the district and shall establish an appropriate salary, salary range, or wage for each position so created. The board may by resolution abolish any such position. Except as otherwise provided, appointments to such positions shall be made by the general manager.

223

This page intentionally blank 

224

Report No: Meeting Date:

12-229 September 5, 2012

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

STAFF REPORT TO:

Operations Committee AC Transit Board of Directors

FROM:

David J. Armijo, General Manager

SUBJECT:

Class Specification for Project Engineer-Architect

ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Consider adoption of Resolution No. 12-040, creating the new classification of Project EngineerArchitect. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Director of Capital Projects has determined the need for a classification in the Capital Projects Department that requires training and skills in engineering and/or architecture. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:

An additional $5,136 in direct salary, plus approximately $3,338 in associated cost of benefits during annually. This classification will be grant funded through the end of the Bus Rapid Transit project in December 2016, at which time the position will be eliminated.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:

This classification is being created to address the District's need for project management skills which require specialized skills in civil engineering and/or architectural design. It is expected to be used to obtain the skilled staff needed for major capital projects, such as the Bus Rapid Transit project. One current Project Manager (Grade 10), because of her background, will be reclassified into this Grade 11 position. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:

The advantage to this classification is that it addresses a critical need for the successful completion of major Di strict capital projects. The new classification will also provide a competitively compensated District position to a qualified Engineer with Project Management experience. The disadvantage is that it will incur an additional $5,136 in direct salary, plus approximately $3,338 in additional cost of benefits during the first year, through grant funding.

225

Report No. 12-229 Page 2 of 2

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The Board can take no action. This will mean that the current Project Manager who already possesses a professional Engineer's license will remain in salary grade 10.

PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None.

ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution No. 12-040 2:

Proposed Classification Specification for Project Engineer- Architect

Department Head Approval:

Kurt De Stigter, Chief Human Resources Officer.

Reviewed by:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Llew Keller, Human Resources Administrator

Prepared by:

226

Staff Report

12-229 Attachment No.1 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 12-040 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NEW CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATION FOR PROJECT ENGINEER/ARCHITECT (REPORT 12-229). WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code Section 24886 authorizes the Board of Directors of the

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to determine and create such number and character of positions in the District as are necessary to carry on the functions of the District; and WHEREAS, Section 24886 also authorizes the Board of Directors to establish the

appropriate salary, salary range, or wage for each classification created by the District; and WHEREAS, the General Manager has assessed the current personnel needs of the

District and determined amendments to the classification plan are necessary for the proper operation of the District. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the General Manager to establish the new classificaton specification for Project EngineerI Architect; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District

does hereby resolve as follows: Adopts the new classification specification for Project Engineer/Architect, as set out in Staff Report No. 12-229; Section 1.

Section 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of September 2012

Elsa Ortiz, President Attest:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Resolution No. xx-xxx

Page 1 o/2 227

Staff Report 12-229 Attachment

No.1

I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 5th day of September, 2012 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary

Approved as to Form and Content:

Vincent C. Ewing, General Counsel

Page 2 o/2

Resolution No. xx-xxx 228

Alameda Co Cl

Project Engineer - Architect Class Code TBD

FLSA Status Exem t

Sala

Grade 11

Staff Report 12-229 Attachment No.2

Effecti e Date

TBD

strict ation

Resolution TBD

Pa es 1 of2

DEFINITION: Under general administrative direction; manages one or more implementations or ongoing assigned capital projects that require civil engineering and/or architectural design; and provides highly responsible civil engineering consultation and assistance to other projects, as required. REPORTS TO: The Director of Capital Projects, or designee. REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTIONS include. but are not limited to: •

Evaluates and recommends professional consulting services for assigned projects; develops and disseminates Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and Request for Qualifications (RFQs); and Invitation For Bids (IFBs); assists in the negotiation, preparation and administration of professional services architectural/engineering services and construction contracts; and recommends and prepares amendments to professional services contracts.

•

Applies civil engineering methods and techniques to the design, development, and maintenance of assigned District capital projects, as well as consultation to projects lead by Project Managers and Senior Project Managers.

•

Prepares engineering and/or architectural plans, drawings, sketches, specifications, calculations, cost estimates, and analyses for implementation projects, as well as the renovation and repair of existing District facilities and systems.

•

Insures that projects confirm with applicable County, State, and Federal codes and regulations, and are appropriate, cost-effective and in conformance with generally accepted principles of construction and design.

•

Participates in the establishment and implementation of project goals and objectives, and establishes and maintains adherence to project administration techniques, policies and procedures.

•

Leads, or participates in the negotiation, implementation, and administration of agreements, including professional services agreements, architectural/engineering services agreements, and construction agreements.

•

Supervises, and participates in the formation, planning, review, and management of assigned projects. Assigns, supervises, trains, and reviews the work of project management staff, contractors, and consultants.

•

Reviews and recommends the approval of project proposals; coordinates design and planning services for assigned projects; and reviews design concepts for compliance with development plans.

•

Prepares and submits purchasing documentation; including requisitions, Statements of Work (SOWs), and proposal evaluation criteria. Participates in evaluation of proposals and bids.

•

Exercises technical and functional supervision over assigned professional, technical, and clerical staff, as well as outside consultants and contractors.

•

Monitors agreements and projects for compliance with rules and requirements.

•

Develops, prepares, and monitors project budgets, submits budget justifications, and monitors and controls expenditures. Prepares or oversees the preparation of program budget forms, reports, and work sheets.

•

Reviews and approves invoices from contractors. Monitors financial reports to ensure proper accounting of project expenditures. Coordinates with grants management, grants accounting, Accounts Payable, and Accounts Receivable to resolves issues.

•

Enters, reviews, and maintains project-related information in the District's Project Management Information System, including project schedules, status reports, issues, risks and deliverables.

This Class Specification 1s mtended to present a descnptlve list of the range of essent•al funct1ons performed by an Incumbent 1n th•s class but IS not Intended to reflect all dut1es performed Within the JOb

229

~~~~ llz!;:;/VS/T

Alameda Con Cl

- .. ~-.-:~''

Project Engineer -Architect Class Code TBD

FLSA Status Exem I

EEO Cate o 1

Officials/Administrators

Represented Status Unrepresented

Sala

Grade 11

Staff Report 12-229 Attachment

strict ation

No.2 Effecti e Date TBD

Resolution TBD

Pa es 2of2

•

Attends and participates in professional meetings with District management, as well as outside business, government, and professional organizations. Makes presentations, as required.

•

Provides civil engineering and/or architectural design consultation to ongoing implementation projects assigned to Project Managers and Senior Project Managers, as well as other District departments; as instructed by the Chief of Planning and Development.

•

Performs related duties as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Knowledge Of: The principles and practices of civil engineering design, construction methods, materials and costestimating; principles and practices of project management; principles of supervision, motivation, team building, training, and conflict resolution; the general principles of accounting; contractual approaches and their proper usage as outlined in FTA Circular 4220.1 F;English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation; personal computers and commonly used software for spreadsheets, word processing, and presentation at the intermediate level of proficiency, as well as specific software required for assigned projects at the advanced level of proficiency. Ability To: Apply civil engineering and/or architectural principles and methodologies to District capital projects; prepare engineering and/or architectural drawings, designs, specifications, and plans; lead, organize, and review the work of internal and external professional personnel; develop, analyze, evaluate. and modify project management methodologies; prepare bid documents; develop, interpret, explain, and apply project policies and procedures, as well as applicable federal, state, and local laws, and regulations; properly interpret, ensure compliance with, and make recommendations in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies; analyze and interpret financial statements; work cooperatively with other departments, officials of local government jurisdictions, and other outside agencies and businesses; respond tactfully, clearly, concisely, and appropriately to inquiries from the public, and governmental agencies on issues with assigned projects; effectively organize and prioritize timelines and project schedules; manage consultant contracts; prepare and administer large project budgets and monitor expenditures; prepare clear and concise reports; stay abreast of new developments and trends in civil engineering and project management, and recommend and incorporate changes as appropriate; communicate clearly and concisely in English, both orally and in writing; and establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work using principles of excellent customer service. Education: A Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering or Architecture from an accredited college or university. Desired Education/Training: Additional education or training in project management, public administration, and/or organizational development. Experience: A minimum of seven (7) years of experience in civil engineering, at least three (3) years of which must have been in a supervisory or managerial capacity. License/Certification (1) A License as a professional civil engineer in the state of California is desired. (2) Possession of, or ability to obtain, and maintain a valid Class C California Driver License. Physical Requirements: Must maintain the physical condition necessary to perform tasks in an office setting operating a computer, keyboard, and other peripheral equipment; safely drive a District automobile; and walk, stand, and climb short distances in construction settings in order to conduct field inspection for assigned projects. 5:\HR\Data 12-01-01\Ciass-Comp\Ciass Specs\ProJect Engineer-Architect DRAFT 8-12 doc

Thts Class Spectftcation ts mtended to present a descnpttve list of the range of essenttal functtons performed by an tncumbent m thts class, butts not mtended to reflect all duttes performed wtthtn the JOb

230

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda.

PLEASE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE SECTIONS OF THIS BINDER FOR STAFF REPORTS 231

This page intentionally blank 

232

STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA PLANNING

I

.EXTERNAl,.AFFAiBS'COMMI"rTEE Monthly • Legislative Report [Updates on State, Federal, Regional and Local Legislation, including Measure B and the APTA Reauthorization process for T-4]. Pending Not Scheduled • Status report on the Oral History Project. [Request from Director Peeples to retain on long-term pending. Staff to continue efforts to locate funds, hire personnel utilizing grant funds, and contact local museums to determine if there is interest in taking on the project]. • Report on the use of cameras in headsigns to assist with parking enforcement at bus stops pending the results of the MUNI study (Transit Lane Enforcement Pilot Project) due in March 2011. [Proposed by Councilmember Kaplan as a joint project with the City of Oakland and Requested by Director Peeples- 11/18/09; Referred from Planning 4/28/10] • Report on the re-writing of the California Environmental Quality Act regulations (checklist) by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research and implications on transit. [Requested by Director Peeples- 5/27/09] • Review the state legislation that would be necessary to enable AC Transit to police bus stops through the use of cameras on buses. [Requested by Director Harper- 2/22/12]

FINANC.EAND AUDIT COJ\IIMilJ~E

I

I

Pending Not Scheduled • Report on the closure of the print shop. Retained in Committee pending receipt of additional research (i.e. capital cost for equipment replacement; Request for Proposals for outside printing services and review of the Pennfield-Fairbanks Report as discussed at the Committee meeting held on August 15, 2012). Quarterly Reports (Nov. Feb. May. Aug) • Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense • Employee Out-of-State Travel • Surplus/Obsolete Materials • Finance/Human Resources (FHR) System Implementation • Financial Performance/Quarterly Budget Update Semi Annual Reports • DBE/FTA Report and Update on DBE Goal (May/Nov) • Retirement Board (July/Dec) Annual Reports • Appropriations Limit (June) • Externally Funded Welfare to Work (Nov) • Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (Dec to Board) • Year-End Audited Financial Statements (Nov) Agenda Planning Septembers, 2012

Page 1 of 4 233

STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA PLANNING

OPERATIONS CoMI\IIITl"EI;. . September • Ref}ert eA filiAg eomtalaiRts via teHt FAessage aREI Ro·1114li::IER it 'IIOI::IIEI east. [Reet~:~estea By Qireetor Wallaee Gr113 1112] October • Report on the possibility of reopening Division 3 in Richmond [Requested by Director Wallace6/27/12] • Report from Operations and Marketing staff on what it would cost to develop a system that would notify customers of cancelled trips or other service interruptions (e.g. text message) [Requested by Director Peeples- 8/17/11] December • Report on policy recommendations pertaining to baby strollers (formerly Board Policy 408) [Requested by Director Wallace- 6/13/12] Quarterly Reports !Nov. Feb. May. Aug) • Operations Performance Report (Combination of On-Time Performance and Service Cancellations and Outlates Reports) Semi Annual Reports !Jan/Junl • Environmental Sustainability Plan and Progress Report on Climate Action Plan Implementation. • Outreach efforts for the transition to Clipper. [Requested by Director Young- 7/8/09] • Customer Service Call Center. Pending Not Scheduled • Report on whether we can keep the existing NABI high floor buses and get rid of the 4000 and 7000 NAB I low floor buses. [Requested by Director Peeples- 9/1/10] • Report on what additional security measures can be taken at Board meetings to ensure that everyone is in a safe environment. [Requested by Director Young- 1/12/11] • Report on the procedure operators use when handling a slip and fall incident on a bus and whether courtesy cards can include an option which allows riders to waive their right to sue the District. [Requested by Director Harper-1/17/11.] • Request for staff investigate reports that bus stops are being painted over with grey paint and provide a report on whether there is a cost effective way to determine if these incidents were isolated or more frequent occurrences and what could be done. [Requested by Director Peeples -7/9/11] • Report on the savings associated with the October service cuts. [Requested by Director Harper 2/23/11] • Report on emergency preparedness and business continuity, including preparation for the Major MTC Drill in 2013 and whether all road supervisors and division superintendents should be required to take NIMS 100 and 200 training. [Requested by Director Peeples -7/13/11] • Report on a report on a District-wide calendaring system to track contracts, license renewals, etc . [Requested by Director Peeples- 4/25/12] Agenda Planning September 5, 2012

Page 2 of4 234

STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA PLANNING

PLANNIN~ COMMITTEE . October

• •

Report regarding discussions about BRT on MacArthur [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/27 /12] Report on bus services that have been approved, signed off and agreed to contract [Requested by Director Peeples- 5/23/12]

December

•

Review of the District's Policy on baby strollers (formerly Board Policy 408}. [Requested by Director Wallace- 6/13/12]

Februarv 2013

•

Report in the next 9 months on AC Transit's attitude toward shuttles. [Requested by Director Harper5/9/12]

Quarterly Reports (Nov. Feb. May. Aug)

• • • •

Bus Rapid Transit Project MTC Sustainability Process Transbay Transit Center Project Update on District Involvement in External Planning Processes. ·:· Lake Merritt Area Plan [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/9/11] ·:· Oak to 9'h Street project and details of the commitments made by and to Signature Properties [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/25/06]

Annual Reports

• •

Update on CARB (Jun} Update on Service and Operations Special District 2 (Oct}

Pending Not Scheduled

• • • •

•

•

Report on supplemental service guidelines. [Requested by Director Young -10/14/09] Update of the Designing with Transit document which is to include the development of bus shelter design standards. [Requested by Director Peeples -10/27/10] Review Board Policy 163 with respect to environmental issues. (Board Policy 512} [Requested by Director Peeples] Amendments to Board Policy 550 - Service Standards and Design. [Requested by the Board 12/17/08] ·:· Development of a policy to officially require regular ridership surveys every four or five years. [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/24/09] Report on the implications of a study by the California Transportation Commission on anticipated transportation needs in California and the implications to AC Transit. [Requested by Director Peeples -11/16/11] Report on transit signal priority associated with the Bus Rapid Transit Project [Requested by Director Harper- 5/9/12]

Agenda Planning

Page 3 of 4

September 5, 2012 235

AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS

STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS

AGENDA PLANNING

Planning Committee, Cont. Pending Not Scheduled !Parked Items! • Follow-up report regarding staff's investigation of alternative Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) Systems. [Requested by Director Harper- 9/30/09] Update on the use of freeway shoulders as bus lanes. Staff to monitor the San Diego study and • identify potential areas for use locally. [Requested by Committee- 7/25/07] • Update on the status of the customer satisfaction survey. Matter was retained in committee on July 9, 2008 pending receipt of proposed survey. On 9/30/09 Director Peeples requested the report include staff's analysis of surveys conducted in Europe, specifically surveys conducted in Helsinki Finland, to determine how surveys can be done cheaper, better and more often. [Requested by Director Peeples- 5/28/08] • Report on how to better serve lower density diffuse communities and increase the use of public/private shuttles, including: •!• General Purpose Demand Rapid Transit [Requested by Vice President Davis -1/28/09] •!• Trends regarding the use of private shuttles, carpools, van pools and taxis to serve the public and how it has changed over time [Requested by Vice President Davis- 2/9/11]

Agenda Planning

Page 4 of 4

September 5, 2012 236