Technology Contracting for Transit Projects (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

46 previous five years that are particularly important.674 The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District identi- fied one of its largest projects to date, the replace- ment of its CAD/AVL system. This $30M project will replace our first-generation CAD/ AVL system implemented around the year 2000. We first developed a rough set of requirements based on our own experience with the first-gen system. We then competitively engaged a transit engineering firm to refine our draft requirements into a Scope of Work, which was issued as an RFI. Based on the responses received, we selected the three best firms and issued the final RFP to them. After an exten- sive review of their proposals, including site visits to several of their current customers and a BAFO round, we made a contract award to Clever Devices.675 The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development/Public Transportation referred to its “Statewide Transit Tracking and Reporting System (STTARS) [that] is used by transit providers to record ridership data and vehicle usage. This information could be used to analyze data recorded by STTARS to illustrate the utilization and effi- ciency of Public Transportation in rural areas in the state of Louisiana.”676 The Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail- road identified as a particularly important project its procurement for Positive Train Control (PTC) System Integrator Services, a global positioning system (GPS)-based safety system, which is designed to prevent train-to-train collisions and entry into work zones and over-speed derailments.677 B. Transit Agency Guidance and Best Practices for Technology Projects One source recommends that agencies have “a quality assurance program to apply industry best and all other terms and conditions reasonably related to the RFP.667 In Wisconsin, competitive bidding is preferred unless it is determined “that competitive bidding is neither practical…nor in the best interests of the state.”668 Wisconsin’s IT department may “[e]stab- lish master contracts for the purchase of materials, supplies, equipment, or contractual services relating to information technology or telecommunications for use by agencies, authorities, local governmental units, or entities in the private sector.”669 C. FTA Guidance for Recipients on Third Party Contracting FTA Circular 4220.1F on Third Party Contract- ing Guidance provides recipients and subrecipients with assistance on compliance with federal laws and regulations applicable to procurements funded by FTA.670 However, statutory and regulatory changes, including the Fixing America’s Transportation Act (FAST Act)671 amendments to title 49, chapter 53, of the U.S. Code and revisions to the Uniform Guid- ance (a/k/a Super Circular), 2 C.F.R. part 200, have superseded the current version of Circular 4220.1F, as well as 49 C.F.R. parts 18 and 19.672 OMB’s Final Guidance became effective December 26, 2013.673 Readers will want to consult the FTA’s new or revised Circular when it becomes available, and in the meantime, contact the FTA for assistance or clarification. XIV. BEST PRACTICES FOR TECHNOLOGY CONTRACTING BY TRANSIT AGENCIES A. Transit Agencies’ Significant Technology Projects Numerous transit agencies responding to the survey described technology projects within the 667 Metzger & Kramer, supra note 650, at 21. 668 State Bureau of Procurement (Wis.), Competitive Bidding Policy, The Procurement Process, state Procure- ment manuaL, http://vendornet.state.wi.us/vendornet/ procman/proc1.pdf (last accessed Feb. 24, 2017). 669 wis. stat. § 16.972(2)(h)(2016). 670 U.S. deP’t of transP., federaL transit administration, Third Party Contracting Guidance, FTA C 4220.1F (Rev. March 18, 2013), https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations- and-guidance/fta-circulars/third-party-contracting- guidance (last accessed Feb. 24, 2017). 671 Pub. L. No. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2016). 672 BPP & LLM, supra note 480, at Preface N 1. 673 office of mgmt. & Budget, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 78 fed. reg. 78589 (Dec. 26, 2013), https:// www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/12/26/ 2013-30465/uniform-administrative-requirements-cost- principles-and-audit-requirements-for-federal-awards (last accessed Feb. 24, 2017). 674 See Appendix C, responses to question 19 of Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (identifying mobile ticketing and the implementation of innovative/emerging technology within a strict timeline), Connecticut Depart- ment of Transportation, Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (referring to its CAD/AVL system and its pro- curement and financial system), Greater Peoria Mass Transit District (identifying its project for telecommunica- tion and high-speed fiber line RFP), Jacksonville Trans- portation Authority (referring to its ERP (Project Firefly), real-time passenger information, and CAD/AVL projects), Maryland Transit Administration (Bus Unified Systems Architecture project), San Diego Metropolitan Transit Sys- tem (Nextfare System and SAP ERP/EAM projects), and Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (identifying a proj- ect enabling the purchasing of fare passes using a cellular phone RFID/QR validation while on a bus). 675 See Appendix C, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District’s response to question 19. 676 See Appendix C, Louisiana Department of Trans- portation and Development/Public Transportation’s response to questions 2 and 19. 677 See Appendix C, Northeast Illinois Regional Com- muter Railroad’s response to questions 2 and 19.