February 11, 2010

 

REPORT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

 

Honorable Board of Directors
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
  and Transportation District

Honorable Members:

A meeting of the Transportation Committee/Committee of the Whole was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, California, on Thursday, February 11, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., Chair Brown presiding.

Committee Members Present (8): Chair Brown; Vice Chair Cochran; Directors Grosboll, Kerns, Pahre, Snyder and Sobel; President Boro (Ex Officio)
Committee Members Absent (1): Director McGlashan
Other Directors Present (6): Directors Eddie, Elsbernd, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Reilly and Stroeh

Committee of the Whole Members Present (14): Directors Brown, Cochran, Elsbernd, Grosboll, Kerns, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Snyder, Sobel and Stroeh; Second Vice President Eddie; First Vice President Janet Reilly; President Boro (Ex Officio)
Committee of the Whole Members Absent (5): Directors Campos, Chu, Dufty, McGlashan and Sanders

Staff Present: General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith; District Engineer Denis J. Mulligan; Auditor-Controller Joseph M. Wire; Secretary of the District Janet S. Tarantino; Attorney David J. Miller; Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Kary Witt; Deputy General Manager/Bus Transit Division Teri Mantony; Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James Swindler; Deputy General Manager/Administration and Development Z. Wayne Johnson; Bridge Captain Lisa Locati; Executive Assistant to the General Manager Amorette Ko; Assistant Clerk of the Board Lona Franklin

Visitors Present: Kes Narbutas, Cypress Private Security, LLC; Evan Barbier, Owner, Barbier Security Group; Harry Barbier, Vice President, Barbier Security Group

     
1. Report of District Advisory Committees
     
  a.

Advisory Committee on Accessibility

The agenda for the January 28, 2010, meeting and the minutes of the November 19, 2009, meeting of the Advisory Committee on Accessibility were furnished to the Transportation Committee. Copies are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

     
  b.

Bus Passengers Advisory Committee

The agenda for the January 20, 2010, meeting and the minutes of the November 18, 2009, meeting of the Bus Passengers Advisory Committee were furnished to the Transportation Committee. Copies are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

     
  c.

Ferry Passengers Advisory Committee

The agenda for the January 11, 2010, meeting and the minutes of November 9, 2009, meeting of the Ferry Passengers Advisory Committee were furnished to the Transportation Committee. Copies are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

     
2.

Approve Actions Relative to the Award of Contract No. 2010-MD-3, Security Guard Services for Bus and Ferry Facilities, to Barbier Security Group

In a memorandum to Committee, Bridge Captain Lisa Locati, Deputy General Manager/Bridge Division Kary H. Witt, Deputy General Manager/Bus Transit Division Teri Mantony, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Transit Division James P. Swindler and General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith provided a staff recommendation for security guard services for bus and ferry facilities. The report recommended that: 1) reject the protest of First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc., on its merits; 2) reject the protests of Cypress Private Security, Inc., as untimely and on its merits; and, 3) authorize award of Contract No. 2010-MD-3, to Barbier Security Group, San Rafael, CA, in the amount of $475,514.00, for a two-year period, effective March 1, 2010, with two successive one-year options on the same terms and conditions, with the exception of a cost increase of up to five percent, subject to satisfactory documentation and District approval, exercisable by the General Manager or her designee. The report stated that requisite funds are available in the FY 09/10 Bus and Ferry Division Operating Budgets and that future year budgets will include sufficient funds.

The staff report stated that services will be provided at: 1) the Santa Rosa, Novato and San Rafael Bus facilities; 2) the San Rafael Transit Center; and, 3) the Larkspur and San Francisco Ferry Terminals. The contract in place with Silicon Valley Security & Patrol, Inc., expires on February 28, 2010. The report listed the twelve proposals that were received in response to the Request for Proposals. Evaluation criteria used by the Evaluation Committee (Committee) to score each proposal were: 1) Estimated Grand Total Proposal Price, weighted at 40%; 2) Firm Experience and Qualifications, weighted at 40%; and, 3) References, weighted at 20%.

The staff report noted that the four top scoring proposals: Allied Barton Security Services, LP; Barbier Security Group (Barbier); Cypress Private Security, LLC (Cypress); and, Execushield, Inc., were within the competitive range, and that principals from these four companies were interviewed. The report stated that the Committee completed the final evaluation and consensus ranking of the four finalists, with Barbier Security Group (Barbier) being ranked the highest.

Further, the staff stated that two protests were received; one from First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc. and one from Cypress Private Security, LLC. The deadline to file a protest was January 20, 2010. On January 19, 2010, First Alarm filed its protest, alleging that: 1) Barbier did not submit the lowest cost proposal; 2) Barbier’s owner was not licensed as a Private Patrol Officer for a long enough time to have the required experience; and, 3) Barbier allowed a current employee to work as a security guard without a valid security guard card and without a proper uniform. Staff’s recommendation is that this protest be denied on its merits because cost is a factor but not the sole determinant. The qualitative criteria totaled 60 points whereas Estimated Grand Total Proposal Price accounted for only 40 points. First Alarm’s proposed costs were competitive and as a result, it received more points in this evaluation category than Barbier did. However, First Alarm’s proposal received far fewer points than Barbier for the non-cost evaluation. Therefore, First Alarm’s total score was lower than Barbier’s total score. Regarding the second and third allegations, Barbier has submitted a letter to the District disputing First Security’s allegations and has provided evidence satisfactory to the District that (1) its owner has been licensed as a Private Patrol Operator for a long enough time to have acquired the required experience, and (2) the employee in question has a valid security guard card and a proper uniform.

The staff report stated that the Barbier’s price proposal is within the budget allocated for this contract, and is $557.00 less than the expiring contract for a two-year period. The estimated cost of this Contract, if awarded, is $475,514.00, for a two-year period. It is anticipated that services for the remainder of FY 09/10 will be approximately $80,000.00. A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, in reference to the protests received, Mr. Miller stated that, due to the shortness of time between receipt of First Alarm’s protest and the Building and Operating Committee meeting on January 21, 2010, at which this item was scheduled to be considered, in order to allow staff adequate time to review and evaluate the protest, a Committee recommendation on award of the contract was postponed to the Transportation Committee meeting on February 11, 2010.

Mr. Miller stated that, shortly after the Building and Operating Committee meeting of January 21, 2010, a protest was received from Cypress. Given that the deadline for filing a protest was January 20, 2010, staff recommends that, in compliance with the District’s procurement rules, this protest be denied as untimely. In addition, Cypress’ protest does not allege any impropriety in the evaluation process, but disagrees with staff’s exercise of judgment. Cypress claims it should have been scored higher than Barbier in both experience and price. Cypress’ price proposal was lower than Barbier’s and was scored higher in that evaluation category. However, cost was not the determining factor, and in the categories of firm experience and qualifications, including key personnel and references, Cypress scored lower than Barbier. While Cypress demonstrated relevant experience and ability, its total score was lower than Barbier’s total score.

Mr. Miller stated that the nature of the service to be provided is transit facilities patrol and that the bids were highly competitive. Twelve firms submitted proposals. He stated that, as the staff report indicates, the criteria and ground rules were enumerated and cost was not the determining factor. Experience, qualifications and references, scored together, made up 60% of the score, with the estimated grand total proposal price accounting for 40% of the score. Mr. Miller stated that the protests contained no allegations that would cause staff’s recommendation to change.

Mr. Miller stated that another protest was received from Cypress on February 10, 2010. In compliance with the District’s procurement rules, this protest is also untimely, because the filing deadline for protests on this item was January 20, 2010.

Under the District's procurement rules and regulations, protesting parties are afforded an opportunity to address the committee before action is taken on a protest. He recommended that the Chair inquire as to whether a representative of First Alarm was present and wanted to address the committee. Upon the absence of an appearance on behalf of First Alarm, Mr. Miller then recommended that the Committee deny First Alarm's protest on its merits.

At the meeting, Bridge Captain Lisa Locati discussed the ranking of proposals, stating that there was a natural break after the top four companies. She reported that the top four companies were interviewed. References were called and checked using the same of questions for each company. Each company was allowed to give a presentation and speak about its expertise. All companies were responsive and had good credentials. Barbier was ranked highest because of their personal, intimate knowledge of the area. Experience in transit industry security was not a requirement. Instead, the RFP called for experience in “like” agencies with similar diversity. It was felt that Barbier’s experience with Dominican College, local schools and Marin County buildings was far more than adequate. She stated that, at the interviews, Director of Bus Operations Rich Hibbs, explained to each applicant that the bulk of the requirement would be for bus transit security service, with the main responsibility being at the transit center. She stated that Barbier representatives addressed themselves directly to that requirement. She reported that the fairness of the award process has been evaluated and found satisfactory. She stated that she supports the staff recommendation to award the Contract to Barbier.

Public Comment

Kes Narbutas, Cypress Private Security, LLC, stated that, with respect to legal questions, there is nothing in public law or policy to prevent the Board from considering Cypress’ protest. He stated the company is San Francisco based and has thirteen years experience providing security services to companies such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the State of California Department of Transportation, Caltrain and many others. He stated that, on measurable criteria, Cypress should be awarded this Contract. He requested that the selection process be re-examined and that Cypress be awarded the Contract.

Evan Barbier, Owner, Barbier Security Group, stated that his company is located in San Rafael, and that extensive knowledge of San Rafael is a unique qualification. He stated that Barbier can provide deep understanding of transit, as well as the area, its people and Marin County in general. He stated that the company has done work throughout schools, county buildings and other such facilities, and that Barbier’s experience is more than adequate to provide this service.

Harry Barbier, Vice President, Barbier Security Group, stated that the transit center in San Rafael will be one of the main focus areas. He stated that he recently retired as a police officer in San Rafael, with the last 15 years of his career spent as a school officer. He asserted his familiarity with people who ride buses, stating he knows the problems, as well as the solutions, that will make the San Rafael Transit Center a safe place. He stated that Barbier security guards patrol areas that have gang activity, and the guards both know and are known to the individual gang members. He noted that his family has lived in Marin County for 150 years, and that they care personally about the buses and the transit center. He stated his opinion that no other company could do a better job.

Discussion ensued, including the following comments and inquiries:

  • Director Sobel inquired as to whether Harry Barbier is presently employed by Barbier. In response, Ms. Locati stated he is presently employed as their Vice President. Ms. Kupersmith added that Barbier actively provides security services to Dominican College, to the Montecito Shopping Center and to health-related County buildings in the area. The award was made to Barbier not because of a single individual, but because of the excellent service their customers have experienced. She stated that all finalists received good reports when their references were checked. Barbier stood out because of excellent reports about individual security guards and the way Barbier personnel interact with the public to provide excellent customer service.
  • Director Grosboll inquired as to the difference in price between Barbier’s bid and that of Cypress. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the difference was approximately $10,000.00 per year.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/KERNS to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2010 MD-3, Security Guard Services for Bus and Ferry Facilities:

  1.
Rejected the protest submitted by First Alarm Security & Patrol, Inc., Oakland, CA;
  2.
Rejected the protests submitted by Cypress Private Security, LLC, San Francisco, CA, as untimely and on its merits; and,
  3.

Authorized award of a Contract to Barbier Security Group, San Rafael, CA, relative to RFP No. 2010-MD-3, in the amount of $475,514.00, for a two-year period effective March 1, 2010, with two successive one-year options on the same terms and conditions with the exception of a cost increase of up to five percent, subject to satisfactory documentation and District approval, exercisable by the General Manager or designee.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

     
  AYES (14): Directors Brown, Cochran, Elsbernd, Grosboll, Kerns, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Snyder, Sobel and Stroeh; Second Vice President Eddie; First Vice President Janet Reilly; President Boro (Ex Officio)
NOES (0): None
     
3.

Authorize Execution of an Agreement with the Marin County Transit District to Operate the Muir Woods Shuttle for the Summer of 2010

In a memorandum to Committee, Principal Planner Ron Downing, Deputy General Manager/Administration and Development Z. Wayne Johnson, Deputy General Manager/Bus Transit Division Teri Mantony and General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to authorize execution of a one-year agreement with the Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) to operate the Muir Woods Shuttle from Saturday, May 1, 2010, through Sunday, September 26, 2010, with the understanding that the service will be paid for by Marin Transit at a cost not to exceed $326,686.00.

The report stated that, in November 2009, following a successful four-year demonstration project administered by the Marin County Department of Public Works, Marin Transit issued a Request for Proposals seeking an operator for the Summer 2010 service. No responses were received. On January 12, 2010, Marin Transit requested that Golden Gate Transit (GGT) operate the Muir Woods Shuttle during the Summer 2010 season. GGT staff proposed terms that followed the Marin Local Service Agreement, with an estimated project cost of $326,686.00, for a program identical to that operated in 2009, with the understanding that the service will be paid for by Marin Transit.

The report noted that, as in the past, five small, narrow-width buses (35 feet long by 8 feet wide) will be leased to navigate the narrow roadways along the route. The report stated that Marin Transit will fully reimburse the District the actual costs for undertaking the project. Thus, there will be no fiscal impact to the District. A copy of the staff report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/COCHRAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of a one-year Agreement with the Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) to operate the Muir Woods Shuttle from Saturday, May 1, 2010 through Sunday, September 26, 2010, with the understanding that the service will be paid for by Marin Transit at a cost not to exceed $326,686.00.

Action by the Board – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

AYES (14): Directors Brown, Cochran, Elsbernd, Grosboll, Kerns, Moylan, Newhouse Segal, Pahre, Snyder, Sobel and Stroeh; Second Vice President Eddie; First Vice President Janet Reilly; President Boro (Ex Officio)
NOES (0): None

     
4.

Monthly Report on Bridge Traffic, Transit Ridership Trends and Transit Service Performance

The monthly report on Bridge Traffic and Transit Ridership Trends and Transit Service Performance was furnished to the Transportation Committee. The report shows the annual trend lines for the 12-month period ending December 2009, and includes the following charts:

  a.
Southbound Golden Gate Bridge Traffic Trend for the period from June 2004 to December 2009, showing the annual percentage change in traffic for the 12 months ending December 2009;
  b.
Golden Gate Ferry Ridership Trend for the period from June 2004 through December 2009 showing the annual percentage change in ridership for the 12 months ending December 2009; and,
  c.
GGT Bus Ridership Trend as a 12 month running total from June 2004 through December 2009 showing the annual percentage change in ridership for the 12 months ending December 2009.
     
 

The monthly report also included the Transit Service Performance Statistics Report for December 2009, showing that, during the month of December 2009, bus and ferry productivity as measured by passengers per trip and load factor declined as a result of the recession and seasonal fluctuations. Copies of all of the above-listed items are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

     
5.
Monthly Report on Activities Related to Marin Local Service Contract with the Marin County Transit District

The monthly report on activities related to the Marin local service contract with the Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) was furnished to the Transportation Committee. The report included the following elements:

  a.
Revised spreadsheets from the Planning Department outlining GGT bus service performance of both District regional routes and Marin Transit local routes, for December, 2009; and,
  b.
A spreadsheet from the Auditor-Controller outlining the history of payments made from July, 2009 to January, 2010, by Marin Transit to the District for intra-county bus transit services in Marin County.
     
 
Due to the high volume of agendas and minutes from Marin County agencies related to this item, hard copies of those items were not provided to the Committee. Instead, electronic versions of the following items were posted on the District’s web site:
  a. Marin Transit Agenda for February 1, 2010, Board Meeting;
  b. Marin Transit Board Minutes from October 19, 2009;
  c. Marin Transit Board Minutes from December 21, 2009;
  d. Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Agenda for January 28, 2010;
  e. TAM Draft Minutes from November 19, 2009;
  f. TAM Draft Minutes from December 17, 2009;
  g. TAM Executive Committee Agenda for January 11, 2010; and,
  h. TAM Executive Committee Minutes from November 9, 2009
 

Copies of all of the above-listed items are available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

Action by the Board – None Required

     
6.

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

     
7.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.

     

 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Harold C. Brown, Chair
Transportation Committee