BOARD MEETING DATE: February 18, 2000 AGENDA NO. 30
Employee Transportation Coordinator Training Services
SYNOPSIS:
Under Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, employers choosing to implement Employee Commute Reduction Programs (ECRPs) are required to designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) who is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring, and marketing an ECRP. The designated ETC must attend a one-time 16-hour AQMD certified training course designed to educate the ETC about Rule 2202. The current training contract expired 12/99. Previous direction was given from the Mobile Source Committee to determine the impacts of internalizing this training function.
COMMITTEE:
Mobile Source, January 28, 2000. Less than a quorum was present; the Committee Member who was present communicated his recommendation to take this item to the February Governing Board meeting for consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff to conduct Rule 2202 ETC Training on a monthly basis for employers choosing to implement Employee Commute Reduction Programs, and to charge $50 per attendee to offset estimated expenses.
Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer
Background
In December 1995, the AQMD Board adopted Rule 2202 – On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options in place of the previous Rules 1501 – Work Trip Reduction Plans and 1501.1 – Alternatives to Work Trip Reduction Plans. Rule 2202 offered a variety of compliance options to employers, including emission reduction and employee commute reduction programs. In January 1997, the Rule 2202 applicability threshold was raised from 100 to 250, exempting approximately 2,800 worksites from the rule. The impact of the threshold change was a significant decrease in the demand for ETC training. At that time, the training program was modified from three days to a two-day format, as well as having only one certified training provider conduct the training. These sessions were conducted at various locations throughout the Basin, and ranged in cost from $150 - $200 per attendee depending on the training contractor selected.
The selected training provider tasks include organization and implementation of one to three training sessions each month, making adequate facility arrangements, securing audio visual equipment, producing training materials, as well as developing appropriate registration and confirmation arrangements for attendees. The training curriculum includes segments on air quality, the role of the AQMD, and Rule 2202.
Proposal Evaluation
The RFP for a new contractor was released in August 1999. A total of three proposals were received by the submittal deadline of September 14, 1999. All proposals submitted were reviewed and scored based on the information in the proposal as submitted to the AQMD, and according to the selection criteria described in the RFP.
Due to concerns raised by one of the three bidders, a second review panel was established to reevaluate the original proposals. Upon convening this second panel, one of the three bidders withdrew from the process. The second panel recommendation was different than that of the first panel. See Attachments I and II for Summary of Proposal Ratings for the two panels. Both bidders have now contested the outcome of the two panels.
Internalization and Resource Impacts
Because of the recent SIP settlement, some staff resources are now available that would have otherwise been used to develop indirect source rules. Thus, internalization of training can occur. Internalization of the Rule 2202 training function would require .75 additional FTE in the Transportation Programs unit. Total expenses, including facility rental, material and staff labor are estimated to cost $48,666/year compared with $65,745/year to be administered by an outside consultant. (Typically, an annual training class schedule includes approximately 6 sessions at AQMD headquarters and 6 at regional sites.) Attendee registration fees could partially offset AQMD’s cost of internalizing the training function. Staff proposes to charge $50 per attendee which would cover the costs of the facilities, the training materials, and part of the staff time. See Attachment III for Summary of Expenses.
Attachments
Summary of Proposal Ratings
Rule 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options
Request for ETC Training Services
Panel # 1
The panel reviewed the proposals and evaluated them on the bidder’s ability to perform the services specified in the RFP based on a two-step process. Proposals were first evaluated using technical criteria, which included overall understanding of the project, technical expertise of the firm, experience of the proposed team on projects with government agencies, technical approach, and previous experience. Step 2 of the evaluation process required an evaluation of the technically qualified proposals using "cost and other factors" which included cost, presentation, small business, and local business designation. The resulting total and average scores of the three proposals submitted are summarized in the table below.
Step 1 – Technical Criteria (52 points minimum, 65 points maximum)
|
Inland Transportation Services (ITS) |
Melinda Sue Norin & Associates (MSN) |
TVS Consulting |
|
|
Panel Average |
59.75 |
52.87 |
61.00 |
Step 2 – Cost and Other Factors (50 points maximum)
ATTACHMENT II
Summary of Proposal Ratings
Rule 2202 On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options
Request for ETC Training Services
Panel #2
The panel reviewed the proposals and evaluated them on the bidder’s ability to perform the services specified in the RFP based on the same two-step process used by the first panel (Attachment I). Proposals were first evaluated using technical criteria, which included overall understanding of the project, technical expertise of the firm, experience of the proposed team on projects with government agencies, technical approach, and previous experience. Step 2 of the evaluation process required an evaluation of the technically qualified proposals using "cost and other factors" which included cost, presentation, small business, and local business designation. The resulting total and average scores of the two proposals submitted are summarized in the table below.
Step 1 – Technical Criteria (52 points minimum, 65 points maximum)
|
Melinda Sue Norin & Associates (MSN) |
TVS Consulting |
|
|
Panel Average |
63.00 |
61.02 |
Step 2 – Cost and Other Factors (50 points maximum)
|
*ESTIMATED |
IN-HOUSE |
OUTSIDE
|
|
**$6,570 |
$8,160 |
|
$6,120 |
$10,335 |
|
Labor |
$35,976 |
$47,250 |
|
TOTAL EXPENSES |
$48,666 |
***$65,745 |
|
* |
Estimates are based on 25 attendees per month. |
** |
Adjusted down from presentation at Mobile Source Committee. Staff will identify facilities charging minimal rental fees. |
*** |
Based on highest scoring proposal recommended by second panel. |
/ / /