Arlington County Government Sealed Solicitation

Title: 22-DES-RFP-611 Performance Parking Solution for Deployment in Commercial Corridor

Deadline: 4/18/2022 1:00 PM   (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Status: Awarded

Solicitation Number: 22-DES-RFP-611

Description: The County is seeking a qualified contractor to design, install, operate, implement, maintain and repair an Intelligent Technology System for Performance Parking.

Pre-Bid Meeting Date: 3/9/2022 3:00 PM

Pre-Bid Meeting Details: Please sign up if you plan to attend the pre-bid meeting.

Documents:

Documents as of 3/2/2022
Final 22-DES-RFP-611 Performance Parking Sytem Solution 2.24.22.pdf
Attachment B Table of Conformance.xlsx
Proposal Forms Submittal.pdf
Addition 1

Posted: 3/10/2022

Type of Addition: PreProposal Conference Notes and Sign-in

Overview: Meeting Notes for the Preproposal Conference and attendance.

Documents:

Addition 2

Posted: 3/18/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 1

Overview: Addendum No. 1 replaces Attachment A - Cost Proposal with the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal

Documents:

Addition 3

Posted: 4/5/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 2

Overview: Addendum No. 2 extends the Proposal Due date.

Deadline: 4/18/2022 1:00 PM

Documents:

Addition 4

Posted: 4/5/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 3

Overview:

Addendum No. 3 revises Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal due to the following errors:

1. The line items do not total into the orange cell in column F in each tab.
Response: The tabs in the revised workbook allow for the offeror to adjust the number of line items to their proposal, so they must enter their subtotals and add subtotals to ensure each orange box depicts the full total for that tab.

2. Each column F does not autogenerate into the “Total Cost Proposal (sum of orange boxes in column F, Sheets 1-7) as intended.
Response: The one orange box on the Task 1 Project Management tab has been unlocked; all orange boxes on tabs 1-7 add up correctly on the summary tab. We have populated those orange boxes with an example “1” to show that the addition is working (the summary tab shows “7”). The orange boxes, however, do not autogenerate sums for each tab. The revised workbook tabs allow the offeror to adjust the number of line items to their proposal, so they must enter their subtotals and add subtotals to ensure each orange box depicts the full total for that tab. It cannot be pre-set for each task because the added range may change from one offeror to another.

3. For recurring costs: is the formula intended to calculate over a defined term? How does the County handle if proponent A’s lifecycle is 5 years vs. proponent B’s is 10 years?
Response: The RFP defines the initial project term, and all costs in tabs 1-7 should sum to the total cost of the initial project term. Task 8 Ongoing Operations and Maintenance is an optional task that the County can opt into or not on an annual basis. Tab 8 should be structured as yearly costs, and any lifecycle considerations should be factored into those annual costs. We have added a field where the offerors may include the total number of years that their proposed system/technology can expect to be operational, but also noted that if individual components have different life cycles, they may note that by line item in tab eight as well, for the County’s information.

Documents:

Addition 5

Posted: 4/18/2022

Type of Addition: In Review

Addition 6

Posted: 9/19/2022

Type of Addition: Award Information

Overview: Notice of Award of RFP No. 22-DES-RFP-611 to ELEVEN-X US INCORPORATED: For Performance Parking System Solution for Deployment in Commercial Corridors

Documents:

Question 1

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: Is the pre-bid meeting mandatory?

Response: No, the prebid meeting is not mandatory

Question 2

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: What is the estimated value/budget for the project?

Response: The County does not disclose budget information

Question 3

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: When is the projected start date for construction to begin?

Response: This date is not available.

Question 4

Posted: 3/8/2022

Question: In task 8 “On-Gong Maintenance and Operation of the ITS Hardware and Software” there is a reference to separately scoping and negotiations prices for items b and c as necessary. We are seeking the following additional clarification: • If the applicant determines they would like to scope items b and c separately do they still need to provide responses in the proposal and cost proposal? • Would the County allow the applicant to refrain from providing a response to scope item 8, sub-task a, covering deliverables in tasks 4, 5, and 6 given the potential uncertainty on both the final technology that is implemented and the quantity deployed? We would assume they could be scoped at a later date closer to transition from implementation to ongoing operations.

Response: 1. If the applicant determines they would like to scope items b and c separately do they still need to provide responses in the proposal and cost proposal? The scoping of Task 8 subtasks b. and c. is at the County’s option, not the applicant’s. A responsive proposal should offer a suggested approach to how b. and c. would be worked out in collaboration with the County, even if the exact needs are not known at this time. The cost proposal can depict costs that could be known (such as but not limited to hourly rates for software development labor), but the cost for Task 8 in the cost proposal worksheet is not factored into the total cost for evaluation purposes. 2. Would the County allow the applicant to refrain from providing a response to scope item 8, sub-task a, covering deliverables in tasks 4, 5, and 6 given the potential uncertainty on both the final technology that is implemented and the quantity deployed? Answer: Task 8 Subtask a. assumes that the Contractor if selected, commits to operating and maintaining the final solution that is produced and provided as a part of earlier tasks. A responsive proposal must make that commitment. For purposes of a cost proposal Task 8 is not factored into the evaluation, but estimates should be provided if known (such as but not limited to hourly rates for software development labor). Estimates may be provided based on quantity, area, coverage, or type of equipment such that the County can tell from the offer that the cost for ongoing operations and maintenance of the system may vary depending on the final solution selected.

Question 5

Posted: 3/10/2022

Question: Would the County consider issuing a two-week extension for the proposal deadline? The consultant team will need more time to devise the technical approach, coordinate with subcontractors, and prepare the cost proposal to adequately respond to the requirements of the RFP.

Response: The current proposal date will remain as is.

Question 6

Posted: 3/10/2022

Question: Given the complex initiatives incorporated into this Request for Proposals, would the County be willing to grant an extension of at least two (2) weeks so that vendors have sufficient time to put together the most compelling and comprehensive proposals for the County’s consideration?

Response: The current proposal date will remain as is.

Question 7

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Has a related Pilot project for the solution already been completed, and can a report be shared with proponents?

Response: No, a related pilot project for the solution has not been completed—no report to share.

Question 8

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is a Pilot phase anticipated during the current procurement process?

Response: No, the county does not anticipate a pilot phase during the procurement process.

Question 9

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is an Arlington County Business License required to respond or can it be obtained if a proponent is deemed the successful Offeror?

Response: An Arlington County Business License is not required to submit a response to this RFP.

Question 10

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: The RFP requires integration and testing with current vendor of meters, payment machines, etc, should the costs related to those vendors be part of our response or will the County pay those Vendors for the required service related to this project.

Response: The cost of any integration and testing related to this project should be part of the response.

Question 11

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Can we get contact information and capabilities for existing parking payment providers to integrate dynamic pricing features.

Response: The contact information for the existing parking payment providers is listed on their respective official web pages provided in the RFP.

Question 12

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: In the case of SaaS model hosting, are there data residency requirements.

Response: No, there are no residency requirements. The data may reside with the contractor, but the contractor must ensure access to data by County (SQL databases preferred) and ensure data security.

Question 13

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Please confirm which existing Parking Access and Revenue Control systems would transmit occupancy data to be integrated into the solution.

Response: No system currently provides occupancy data to the County.

Question 14

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Can the City provide any examples of successful public engagement or existing campaigns in the Arlington VA area.

Response: Please see the examples of existing campaigns in the Arlington VA area at the following links: RPP Review - https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/RPPReview Vision Zero - https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Transportation/Vision-Zero

Question 15

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Has there been a parking tall-based occupancy sensing solution trialed by the County. If yes which solution.

Response: No, there has not been a parking tall-based occupancy sensing solution trialed by the County

Question 16

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is there a consultant report available regarding development of this RFP that can be referenced to ensure our response is in line with intended objectives.

Response: No, there is not a consultant report. Instead, the RFP outlines the intended objectives.

Question 17

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are there any Offstreet Garages using access control system(s) which need to be integrated into the proposer’s system? If so, how many unique access control vendor systems are expected to be integrated?

Response: No, there are not any off-street garages using access control systems.

Question 18

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: For purposes of verifying transactions in the parking lots, can you provide the zone number of the 38 off-street parking spaces at the County-owned Virginia Highlands Park (located at S Hayes St between 18th St S and 15th St S)?

Response: 54362 (this zone covers regular on-street as well as off-street spaces) and 54727 (handicap)

Question 19

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Will the County waive permit fees associated with the project and, if not, can the County provide the fee schedule?

Response: Yes, the County will waive permit fees for all work in the County right-of-way

Question 20

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: In certain cases, we found that the data related to spaces in the RFP may not match the data based on transaction counts. For instance, Zone 54467 has transactions related to 164 spaces, while the RFP indicates there are 177 spaces. Can the County clarify this discrepancy or should we assume more data gathering is required?

Response: Per the RFP solicitation, the quantities specified in the solicitation are estimates available at the time of the RFP development.

Question 21

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The citation data does not provide the side of the street of the relevant citation. Is it possible to obtain that? Related to expired meter violations, is it possible to obtain the address or meter location of the violations?

Response: This information is not available at this time.

Question 22

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Can you define the zone number described in the transaction data? We noticed based on transaction data that sometimes zones include the blocks on the other side of the street or contain more than a single block.

Response: Most of the time, zones are contained within one block face, meaning between two intersections; however, there are a few exceptions where the zone extends beyond one block. In addition, one block face may contain more than one zone (e.g., one zone for regular spaces, one zone for handicap spaces, and a separate zone for regular spaces that have a shared use and require a different time set-up). Finally, in a few instances, a zone may also cover both sides of a block face due to the design of the street layout (mainly due to sidewalk access constraints).

Question 23

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The 2100 Clarendon Blvd North block face has more than 1 zone number (54471, 40802, 54427) based on the data. Can you clarify the appropriate zone number?

Response: 54471 (regular), 54427 (handicap). 40802 – that is not a valid cell zone number;

Question 24

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: We found some meters have different zone space counts. For example, meter 34N in zone 54471 notes that the zone has 5 spaces, but meter 21N in the same zone 54471 notes the zone has 30 spaces. We assumed during our cleaning process that the most recent active meter information prevailed for determining spaces, addresses, and operating hours. Can you clarify these discrepancies or verify that our process is sound?

Response: Zone 54471 currently has a total of 36 spaces; Not all transaction data can be assigned to a specific meter (e.g., park mobile payments are processed by zone, which may include more than one meter)

Question 25

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The RFP states there are 611 active block faces but the transaction data suggests there are 578 block faces. Can you clarify this discrepancy?

Response: Transaction data represents customers who paid for their parking. In some instances/locations, demand is low, and parkers may not pay for parking, and as such, the transaction data would not represent the meter or active block face. In addition, the meter numbers were not calculated at the same time as the transaction data was compiled and, as such, may also lead to some count differences.

Question 26

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The transaction data suggests there are 240 active disabled parking spaces while the RFP states there are approximately 129 +19 ADA-accessible meters. We believe that the reason is because some of the meters may not really be “active” (ActiveStatusIn) based on the the last transaction dates in 2017. Can you verify the active status of the meters for ADA and non-ADA meters, especially IPS meters?

Response: Historical transaction data (2017) does not represent the currently active state. Pulling the most recent numbers, we currently have 139 single space handicap meters in the project area and 20 double (meaning one pole for two single meters with a total of 35 active spaces), totaling 174 handicap spaces in the project area. As mentioned in the RFP, the active meter inventory changes all the time with a trend towards increase over the longer term. In addition, transaction data does not represent a complete picture of the meter, zone, and space inventory, as explained in some of the other answers.

Question 27

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The transaction data suggests there are 505 CALE multi-space meters, but the RFP notes there are 608 multi-space meters. Can you clarify this discrepancy?

Response: The quantities are estimated quantities available at the time of this RFP development.

Question 28

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Is it correct to assume that some evaluation data, like determining average stays, occupancy, etc., is part of the scope, while other evaluation data, like understanding VMTs, circling, etc., would be part of a separate evaluator contract?

Response: Per the RFP, the selected offeror is expected to cooperate with an evaluation contractor in designing the data to be provided in a way that will assist with later evaluation and make project and system data available for the evaluation.

Question 29

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are there any restrictions on the file size that can be submitted?

Response: No, there are no restrictions on file size to be submitted to Vendor Registry.

Question 30

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: May proposers use a font size smaller than 10 point, but still readable, for the following: - Headers and Footers - Graphics - Tables

Response: Please reference the RFP, Proposal Submission for the specific requirements on the type size - it must not be less than 10-point.

Question 31

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Can images related to our past experience and methodology be included in an appendix and be excluded from the page limitations?

Response: Please reference the page limitations and exclusions of page limits in Section V. Proposal Requirements, #6 Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Weights, Implementation Approach, proposed solution, and Understanding of Scope.

Question 32

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: There are prepopulated formulas in rows 5 through 11; 14 through 20; and 23 through 29 in Columns D and E on each tab of the cost proposal. The cells currently contain the formula “=SUBTOTAL(109,DX)”, where X is the row number directly above it. Please confirm that it is the County expectation that proposers overwrite these formulas and enter their unit cost values in Column D and units in Column E?

Response: Please reference Addendum No. 1 for the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal.

Question 33

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: May proposers change or enter information on the header rows filled in gray on each tab of the cost proposal (e.g. rows 4, 13, 22)? For example, could proposers replace “Group of Items Name” with relevant text, or should proposers only add text to the blue- and white-filled rows?

Response: Please reference Addendum No. 1 for the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal.

Question 34

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The meter parking transactions cover a wider area than the project area map. Should we limit our analysis to those meters and zones within the project area?

Response: Please reference the project geographic Scope and the project area map.

Question 35

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: With questions due 3/17 and proposals due 4/6, when does the County anticipate providing answers to all questions received by proposers?

Response: As soon as possible.

Question 36

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Is parking payment data alone accurate enough for the high-performance parking system (ITS) provided that there is only visibility for paid parkers.

Response: No, the transaction data is not representative of the actual utilization of spaces due to various factors such as technical issues, users not paying, or leaving earlier than paid time. The County expects the offeror to propose the best system solution with elements necessary to achieve the project's purpose as stated on page 8 of the solicitation and the requirements found within the Table of Conformance.

Question 37

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are individual stall sensors required in addition to utilizing payment data from Parking Meters and Payment Apps to determine real time Stall occupancy.

Response: The County is seeking the Offerors to use their expertise to provide a solution for the County for a performance parking solution. Please include any recommendations.

Question 38

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Does the stall-based sensor need to be completely embedded in the asphalt or will a surface mount sensor which may be impacted by maintenance, be allowed.

Response: The County is open to receiving information on either option.

Question 39

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: What municipal infrastructure may be available for mounting wireless transceivers (ie Municipal building rooftops, Municipal communication towers, water towers, light standards, etc)? Can a map or list of locations be provided?

Response: Street light poles may be used depending on the size, shape, weight, and potentially other variables associated with the wireless transceivers.

Posted: 3/10/2022

Type of Addition: PreProposal Conference Notes and Sign-in

Overview: Meeting Notes for the Preproposal Conference and attendance.

Documents:

Posted: 3/18/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 1

Overview: Addendum No. 1 replaces Attachment A - Cost Proposal with the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal

Documents:

Posted: 4/5/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 2

Overview: Addendum No. 2 extends the Proposal Due date.

Deadline: 4/18/2022 1:00 PM

Documents:

Posted: 4/5/2022

Type of Addition: Addendum No. 3

Overview:

Addendum No. 3 revises Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal due to the following errors:

1. The line items do not total into the orange cell in column F in each tab.
Response: The tabs in the revised workbook allow for the offeror to adjust the number of line items to their proposal, so they must enter their subtotals and add subtotals to ensure each orange box depicts the full total for that tab.

2. Each column F does not autogenerate into the “Total Cost Proposal (sum of orange boxes in column F, Sheets 1-7) as intended.
Response: The one orange box on the Task 1 Project Management tab has been unlocked; all orange boxes on tabs 1-7 add up correctly on the summary tab. We have populated those orange boxes with an example “1” to show that the addition is working (the summary tab shows “7”). The orange boxes, however, do not autogenerate sums for each tab. The revised workbook tabs allow the offeror to adjust the number of line items to their proposal, so they must enter their subtotals and add subtotals to ensure each orange box depicts the full total for that tab. It cannot be pre-set for each task because the added range may change from one offeror to another.

3. For recurring costs: is the formula intended to calculate over a defined term? How does the County handle if proponent A’s lifecycle is 5 years vs. proponent B’s is 10 years?
Response: The RFP defines the initial project term, and all costs in tabs 1-7 should sum to the total cost of the initial project term. Task 8 Ongoing Operations and Maintenance is an optional task that the County can opt into or not on an annual basis. Tab 8 should be structured as yearly costs, and any lifecycle considerations should be factored into those annual costs. We have added a field where the offerors may include the total number of years that their proposed system/technology can expect to be operational, but also noted that if individual components have different life cycles, they may note that by line item in tab eight as well, for the County’s information.

Documents:

Posted: 4/18/2022

Type of Addition: In Review

Posted: 9/19/2022

Type of Addition: Award Information

Overview: Notice of Award of RFP No. 22-DES-RFP-611 to ELEVEN-X US INCORPORATED: For Performance Parking System Solution for Deployment in Commercial Corridors

Documents:

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: Is the pre-bid meeting mandatory?

Response: No, the prebid meeting is not mandatory

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: What is the estimated value/budget for the project?

Response: The County does not disclose budget information

Posted: 3/7/2022

Question: When is the projected start date for construction to begin?

Response: This date is not available.

Posted: 3/8/2022

Question: In task 8 “On-Gong Maintenance and Operation of the ITS Hardware and Software” there is a reference to separately scoping and negotiations prices for items b and c as necessary. We are seeking the following additional clarification: • If the applicant determines they would like to scope items b and c separately do they still need to provide responses in the proposal and cost proposal? • Would the County allow the applicant to refrain from providing a response to scope item 8, sub-task a, covering deliverables in tasks 4, 5, and 6 given the potential uncertainty on both the final technology that is implemented and the quantity deployed? We would assume they could be scoped at a later date closer to transition from implementation to ongoing operations.

Response: 1. If the applicant determines they would like to scope items b and c separately do they still need to provide responses in the proposal and cost proposal? The scoping of Task 8 subtasks b. and c. is at the County’s option, not the applicant’s. A responsive proposal should offer a suggested approach to how b. and c. would be worked out in collaboration with the County, even if the exact needs are not known at this time. The cost proposal can depict costs that could be known (such as but not limited to hourly rates for software development labor), but the cost for Task 8 in the cost proposal worksheet is not factored into the total cost for evaluation purposes. 2. Would the County allow the applicant to refrain from providing a response to scope item 8, sub-task a, covering deliverables in tasks 4, 5, and 6 given the potential uncertainty on both the final technology that is implemented and the quantity deployed? Answer: Task 8 Subtask a. assumes that the Contractor if selected, commits to operating and maintaining the final solution that is produced and provided as a part of earlier tasks. A responsive proposal must make that commitment. For purposes of a cost proposal Task 8 is not factored into the evaluation, but estimates should be provided if known (such as but not limited to hourly rates for software development labor). Estimates may be provided based on quantity, area, coverage, or type of equipment such that the County can tell from the offer that the cost for ongoing operations and maintenance of the system may vary depending on the final solution selected.

Posted: 3/10/2022

Question: Would the County consider issuing a two-week extension for the proposal deadline? The consultant team will need more time to devise the technical approach, coordinate with subcontractors, and prepare the cost proposal to adequately respond to the requirements of the RFP.

Response: The current proposal date will remain as is.

Posted: 3/10/2022

Question: Given the complex initiatives incorporated into this Request for Proposals, would the County be willing to grant an extension of at least two (2) weeks so that vendors have sufficient time to put together the most compelling and comprehensive proposals for the County’s consideration?

Response: The current proposal date will remain as is.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Has a related Pilot project for the solution already been completed, and can a report be shared with proponents?

Response: No, a related pilot project for the solution has not been completed—no report to share.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is a Pilot phase anticipated during the current procurement process?

Response: No, the county does not anticipate a pilot phase during the procurement process.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is an Arlington County Business License required to respond or can it be obtained if a proponent is deemed the successful Offeror?

Response: An Arlington County Business License is not required to submit a response to this RFP.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: The RFP requires integration and testing with current vendor of meters, payment machines, etc, should the costs related to those vendors be part of our response or will the County pay those Vendors for the required service related to this project.

Response: The cost of any integration and testing related to this project should be part of the response.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Can we get contact information and capabilities for existing parking payment providers to integrate dynamic pricing features.

Response: The contact information for the existing parking payment providers is listed on their respective official web pages provided in the RFP.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: In the case of SaaS model hosting, are there data residency requirements.

Response: No, there are no residency requirements. The data may reside with the contractor, but the contractor must ensure access to data by County (SQL databases preferred) and ensure data security.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Please confirm which existing Parking Access and Revenue Control systems would transmit occupancy data to be integrated into the solution.

Response: No system currently provides occupancy data to the County.

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Can the City provide any examples of successful public engagement or existing campaigns in the Arlington VA area.

Response: Please see the examples of existing campaigns in the Arlington VA area at the following links: RPP Review - https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/RPPReview Vision Zero - https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Transportation/Vision-Zero

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Has there been a parking tall-based occupancy sensing solution trialed by the County. If yes which solution.

Response: No, there has not been a parking tall-based occupancy sensing solution trialed by the County

Posted: 3/15/2022

Question: Is there a consultant report available regarding development of this RFP that can be referenced to ensure our response is in line with intended objectives.

Response: No, there is not a consultant report. Instead, the RFP outlines the intended objectives.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are there any Offstreet Garages using access control system(s) which need to be integrated into the proposer’s system? If so, how many unique access control vendor systems are expected to be integrated?

Response: No, there are not any off-street garages using access control systems.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: For purposes of verifying transactions in the parking lots, can you provide the zone number of the 38 off-street parking spaces at the County-owned Virginia Highlands Park (located at S Hayes St between 18th St S and 15th St S)?

Response: 54362 (this zone covers regular on-street as well as off-street spaces) and 54727 (handicap)

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Will the County waive permit fees associated with the project and, if not, can the County provide the fee schedule?

Response: Yes, the County will waive permit fees for all work in the County right-of-way

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: In certain cases, we found that the data related to spaces in the RFP may not match the data based on transaction counts. For instance, Zone 54467 has transactions related to 164 spaces, while the RFP indicates there are 177 spaces. Can the County clarify this discrepancy or should we assume more data gathering is required?

Response: Per the RFP solicitation, the quantities specified in the solicitation are estimates available at the time of the RFP development.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The citation data does not provide the side of the street of the relevant citation. Is it possible to obtain that? Related to expired meter violations, is it possible to obtain the address or meter location of the violations?

Response: This information is not available at this time.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Can you define the zone number described in the transaction data? We noticed based on transaction data that sometimes zones include the blocks on the other side of the street or contain more than a single block.

Response: Most of the time, zones are contained within one block face, meaning between two intersections; however, there are a few exceptions where the zone extends beyond one block. In addition, one block face may contain more than one zone (e.g., one zone for regular spaces, one zone for handicap spaces, and a separate zone for regular spaces that have a shared use and require a different time set-up). Finally, in a few instances, a zone may also cover both sides of a block face due to the design of the street layout (mainly due to sidewalk access constraints).

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The 2100 Clarendon Blvd North block face has more than 1 zone number (54471, 40802, 54427) based on the data. Can you clarify the appropriate zone number?

Response: 54471 (regular), 54427 (handicap). 40802 – that is not a valid cell zone number;

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: We found some meters have different zone space counts. For example, meter 34N in zone 54471 notes that the zone has 5 spaces, but meter 21N in the same zone 54471 notes the zone has 30 spaces. We assumed during our cleaning process that the most recent active meter information prevailed for determining spaces, addresses, and operating hours. Can you clarify these discrepancies or verify that our process is sound?

Response: Zone 54471 currently has a total of 36 spaces; Not all transaction data can be assigned to a specific meter (e.g., park mobile payments are processed by zone, which may include more than one meter)

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The RFP states there are 611 active block faces but the transaction data suggests there are 578 block faces. Can you clarify this discrepancy?

Response: Transaction data represents customers who paid for their parking. In some instances/locations, demand is low, and parkers may not pay for parking, and as such, the transaction data would not represent the meter or active block face. In addition, the meter numbers were not calculated at the same time as the transaction data was compiled and, as such, may also lead to some count differences.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The transaction data suggests there are 240 active disabled parking spaces while the RFP states there are approximately 129 +19 ADA-accessible meters. We believe that the reason is because some of the meters may not really be “active” (ActiveStatusIn) based on the the last transaction dates in 2017. Can you verify the active status of the meters for ADA and non-ADA meters, especially IPS meters?

Response: Historical transaction data (2017) does not represent the currently active state. Pulling the most recent numbers, we currently have 139 single space handicap meters in the project area and 20 double (meaning one pole for two single meters with a total of 35 active spaces), totaling 174 handicap spaces in the project area. As mentioned in the RFP, the active meter inventory changes all the time with a trend towards increase over the longer term. In addition, transaction data does not represent a complete picture of the meter, zone, and space inventory, as explained in some of the other answers.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The transaction data suggests there are 505 CALE multi-space meters, but the RFP notes there are 608 multi-space meters. Can you clarify this discrepancy?

Response: The quantities are estimated quantities available at the time of this RFP development.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Is it correct to assume that some evaluation data, like determining average stays, occupancy, etc., is part of the scope, while other evaluation data, like understanding VMTs, circling, etc., would be part of a separate evaluator contract?

Response: Per the RFP, the selected offeror is expected to cooperate with an evaluation contractor in designing the data to be provided in a way that will assist with later evaluation and make project and system data available for the evaluation.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are there any restrictions on the file size that can be submitted?

Response: No, there are no restrictions on file size to be submitted to Vendor Registry.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: May proposers use a font size smaller than 10 point, but still readable, for the following: - Headers and Footers - Graphics - Tables

Response: Please reference the RFP, Proposal Submission for the specific requirements on the type size - it must not be less than 10-point.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Can images related to our past experience and methodology be included in an appendix and be excluded from the page limitations?

Response: Please reference the page limitations and exclusions of page limits in Section V. Proposal Requirements, #6 Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Weights, Implementation Approach, proposed solution, and Understanding of Scope.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: There are prepopulated formulas in rows 5 through 11; 14 through 20; and 23 through 29 in Columns D and E on each tab of the cost proposal. The cells currently contain the formula “=SUBTOTAL(109,DX)”, where X is the row number directly above it. Please confirm that it is the County expectation that proposers overwrite these formulas and enter their unit cost values in Column D and units in Column E?

Response: Please reference Addendum No. 1 for the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: May proposers change or enter information on the header rows filled in gray on each tab of the cost proposal (e.g. rows 4, 13, 22)? For example, could proposers replace “Group of Items Name” with relevant text, or should proposers only add text to the blue- and white-filled rows?

Response: Please reference Addendum No. 1 for the Revised Attachment A - Cost Proposal.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: The meter parking transactions cover a wider area than the project area map. Should we limit our analysis to those meters and zones within the project area?

Response: Please reference the project geographic Scope and the project area map.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: With questions due 3/17 and proposals due 4/6, when does the County anticipate providing answers to all questions received by proposers?

Response: As soon as possible.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Is parking payment data alone accurate enough for the high-performance parking system (ITS) provided that there is only visibility for paid parkers.

Response: No, the transaction data is not representative of the actual utilization of spaces due to various factors such as technical issues, users not paying, or leaving earlier than paid time. The County expects the offeror to propose the best system solution with elements necessary to achieve the project's purpose as stated on page 8 of the solicitation and the requirements found within the Table of Conformance.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Are individual stall sensors required in addition to utilizing payment data from Parking Meters and Payment Apps to determine real time Stall occupancy.

Response: The County is seeking the Offerors to use their expertise to provide a solution for the County for a performance parking solution. Please include any recommendations.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: Does the stall-based sensor need to be completely embedded in the asphalt or will a surface mount sensor which may be impacted by maintenance, be allowed.

Response: The County is open to receiving information on either option.

Posted: 3/17/2022

Question: What municipal infrastructure may be available for mounting wireless transceivers (ie Municipal building rooftops, Municipal communication towers, water towers, light standards, etc)? Can a map or list of locations be provided?

Response: Street light poles may be used depending on the size, shape, weight, and potentially other variables associated with the wireless transceivers.