BOARD MEETING DATE: February 1, 2002
AGENDA NO. 3

Execute Contracts for AQIP Proposals Received During Third Quarter of 2001

SYNOPSIS: 

Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options was adopted on December 8, 1995. One of the compliance strategies under Rule 2202 allows employers to invest in the AQIP. Monies received are placed in a restricted account to fund programs that result in equivalent emission reductions that would otherwise have been achieved by the participating employers. Staff evaluated the proposals received during the third quarter of 2001. This action is to recommend two for funding. The amount available for this quarter is $889,822. This action is also to make minor adjustments to the contracts already awarded at the December 21, 2001 meeting to the taxicab organizations.

COMMITTEE: 

Administrative, January 18, 2002, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Chairman to execute two contracts for a total amount not to exceed $800,000 from the AQIP Special Revenue Fund to obtain mobile source emission reductions with Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $400,000 and with Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services for an amount not to exceed $400,000. To further authorize the Chairman to make adjustments to the contracts awarded to the six taxicab organizations at the December 21, 2001 Board Meeting, as listed in Attachment 1, Table 5.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

Rule 2202 AQIP allows subject employers to participate by electing to invest in an AQMD-administered restricted fund. Investment can be either $60 annually per employee reporting to the worksite during the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. peak window, or $125 triennially per employee. The restricted monies are to be used by the AQMD to fund proposals that achieve mobile source emission reductions that would otherwise have been achieved by implementing a rideshare program. This Board letter contains a discussion regarding the disbursal of funds from the AQIP compliance option for the third quarter of 2001.

Upon registering under this option and submitting the designated investment amount, an employer is considered to be in compliance with the Rule and there is no need for the employer to take further action to reduce mobile source emissions. The collected monies are used to fund alternative mobile source emission reduction strategies that reduce mobile source emissions at a more cost-effective rate which could potentially result in greater overall emission reductions.

The third quarter of the 2001 participation period ended on September 30, 2001 with 93 employers participating in the AQIP program. The total amount of AQIP funds received during this period was $2,288,887, which includes both annual and triennial participants (see Attachment 1). In addition, $1,537,311 is being carried forward from the previous quarters, and an additional amount of $12,411 was made available from Rule 2202 legal settlements.

The Board, at its meeting on December 21, 2001, authorized the Executive Officer to execute contracts, using AQIP money, with six taxicab services in an amount not to exceed $2,948,787, to assist in the purchase of natural gas vehicles. Since the Board action, one of the six taxicab organizations withdrew its request for funding. In addition, the remaining five organizations requested that the funding levels be consistent with the requirements of Rule 1194. As such, they requested that the cost of sales tax be covered through the AQIP funds. Staff revised the emission reduction benefits associated with the revised number of vehicles requested and the funding level recommended for award to each organization. The adjusted amount of the requested funds (shown in Attachment 1, Table 5) is $2,884,098.80, which represents a decrease of $64,668.20 from the amount requested in December 2001. Staff recommends that an additional $800,000 be used to purchase emission reductions from Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc. and Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services. Regardless, the total emission reductions from the recommendation would exceed the 2^nd and 3^rd quarter targets.

Proposal Evaluation

During the bidding process of the third quarter of 2001, 13 proposals were received requesting funds ranging from $61,200 to $2,983,562. The project proposals received can be grouped in three categories: Old-Vehicle Scrapping, Transportation Demand Management, and Other. Attachment 2 gives a summary of emission reduction targets and the emission reduction credit balance. Attachment 3 gives a summary of each proposal received and funds requested. Attachment 4 provides an overall summary of the proposals by type, listing the proposals received, funds requested, total proposal costs, and emission reductions expected from each proposal.

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. The evaluation panel comprised of one Engineering and Compliance Senior Manager, one Transportation Programs Manager, two Technology Advancement Program Supervisors, one Transportation Programs Supervisor, one Planning and Rules Air Quality Specialist, and one Transportation Specialist; three females and four males; one African-American, one Asian-Indian, three Caucasian, and two Hispanic. Attachment 5 discusses the selection criteria, the scoring process, and the overall ratings for each proposal.

Attachment 5 also provides a summary of the proposal rankings. While cost-effectiveness is a heavily weighted criterion for determining ranking and selection of proposals, the amount of funding available, status of the Emissions Bank, and the desire to diversify types of projects ultimately determines the staff recommendation. The proposals submitted by Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc. and Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services were not the most cost-effective in regard to available funds, but met the necessary emission reduction targets, and provided multi-pollutant benefits. In addition, many of the marine vessel and off-road equipment project proposals could be funded under other programs such as the Carl Moyer Program or the State NOx and PM Emissions Mitigation Program.

The following proposals are recommended for approval (as detailed in Attachment 6):

1. Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc.

$2,000,000 County: All

Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc. proposes to generate MSERCs by eliminating pre-1982 vehicles through old-vehicle scrapping. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $2.75 per pound. (Recommended for partial funding of $400,000.)

 

2. Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services

$2,000,000 County: All

Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services proposes to generate MSERCs by eliminating pre-1982 vehicles through old-vehicle scrapping. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $2.75 per pound. (Recommended for partial funding of $400,000.)

Outreach

In accordance with the AQMD’s consulting and contracting policies, a public notice advertising the RFP and inviting bids was published in the following publications:
 

1. Antelope Valley Press	11. La Opinion	21. Precinct Reporter
2. The Black Voice News	12. La Prensa Hispana	22. Rafu Shimpo
3. Chinese Daily News	13. La Voz	23. Riverside Press Enterprise
4. Eastern Group Publications	14. Los Angeles Daily News	24. San Bernardino Sun
5. El Chicano	15. Los Angeles Sentinel	25. Santa Clarita Signal
6. El Informador	16. Los Angeles Times	26. State of California Contracts Register
7. Excelsior, The	17. M/W/DVBE Source	27. Register
8. Inland Empire Hispanic News	18. Orange County Register	28. The Wave Community Newspapers
9. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin	19. Palm Springs Desert Sun
10. Korea Central Daily	20. Philippine News

Additionally, potential bidders were identified from the Los Angeles County MTA and Caltrans Directories of Certified Minority, Women, Disadvantaged and Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises; the Inland Area Opportunity Pages Ethnic/Women Business & Professional Directory; the AQMD’s own electronic listing of certified minority vendors; and AQMD Purchasing’s mailing list. Notice of the RFP was mailed to the Black and Latino Legislative Caucuses and various minority chambers of commerce and business associations; and placed on the Internet at AQMD’s Web site [http://www.aqmd.gov, "Business and Job Opportunities" icon] and AQMD’s 24-hour telephone message line for bidders (909) 396-2724.

A Bidders’ Conference was convened at the AQMD on September 27, 2001 to highlight the requirements of the proposals and to answer questions from the prospective bidders in attendance.

Resource Impact

Not applicable.

Attachments

1. AQIP Funding and Participation
2. Summary of Emission Reduction Targets and Credit Balances
3. Summary of AQIP Proposals Received
4. Summary of Proposals By Type
5. Summary of Proposal Ratings
6. Recommendation for Funding

ATTACHMENT 1

AQIP – 3rd Quarter 2001

TABLE 1

Funds Received (as of September 30, 2001)

TABLE 2

Annual Participation

TABLE 3

Triennial Participation

ATTACHMENT 1

(Continued)

TABLE 4

Total Available Funding
 

TABLE 5

Revised Taxicab Purchase Requests
 

ATTACHMENT 2

TABLE 1

Emission Reduction Targets
(Pounds)
 

TABLE 2

Emission Reduction Credit Balances
(Pounds)
 

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Emission Reduction Credit Balances
(Pounds)
 

ATTACHMENT 3

Summary
Air Quality Investment Program
Proposals Received

The following proposals were received in response to the AQIP Request for Proposals (RFP) on or before November 2, 2001. The proposals are not listed by classification or rank.
 

1. Earthguard Environmental Services

Option   1         $81,250 Option   2       $117,000 Option   3       $130,000 Option   4       $170,625 Option   5    $1,683,562 Option   6    $1,683,562 Option   7    $1,683,562 Option   8    $2,983,562 Option   9    $2,983,562 Option 10    $2,983,562 County: Los Angeles

Earthguard Environmental Services proposes to provide AQMD-approved Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) generated by "Process Change." The quantification of these ERCs were verified by the AQMD according to the methodology contained in Regulation XIII, Rule 1306. The cost-effectiveness of various options in this proposal ranges from $1.32 to $4.02 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

2. OceanAir Environmental

Option 1-A     (3 Years)   $503,159 Option 2-A     (5 Years)   $670,879 Option 3-A     (7 Years)   $792,476 Option 4-A   (10 Years)   $964,388 County: Los Angeles

OceanAir Environmental proposes to generate emission reductions by repowering one marine vessel (Pacific Escort) based in the Port of Long Beach with low-emissions diesel engines. The cost-effectiveness of the four options of this proposal ranges from $1.15 to $2.00 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

3. Acacia Housing Advisors

Option 1 $200,000 County: Orange County

Acacia Housing Advisors propose to generate emission reductions by replacing two gasoline powered shuttles with propane powered shuttles in the Anaheim Senior Mobility Project. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is  $23.46 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

4. Pick Your Part Auto-Wrecking

Option 1      $500,000 Option 2   $1,000,000 Option 3   $1,500,000 Option 4   $2,000,000 County: All

Pick Your Part Auto-Wrecking proposes to generate MSERCs by eliminating pre-1982 vehicles through old-vehicle scrapping. The cost-effectiveness of all four proposals is $4.26 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

5. Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc.

$2,000,000 County: All

Michael Reese Enterprises, Inc. proposes to generate MSERCs by eliminating pre-1982 vehicles through old-vehicle scrapping. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $2.75 per pound. (Recommended for partial funding of $400,000.)
 

6. Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services

$2,000,000 County: All

Mobile Checkpoint Auto Services proposes to generate MSERCs by eliminating pre-1982 vehicles through old-vehicle scrapping. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $2.75 per pound. (Recommended for partial funding of $400,000.)
 

7. Anaheim Transportation Network

$120,000 County: Orange

Anaheim Transportation Network proposes to generate emission reductions in Anaheim by deploying 10 electric cars in its Electric Commute Project. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $48.27 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

8. ArrowTek

$1,601,312 County: Orange

ArrowTek proposes to generate emission reductions by re-powering 27 engines used in its off-road diesel equipment. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $3.96 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

9. Cattrac Construction, Inc.

$533,151 County: Orange

Cattrac Construction, Inc. proposes to generate emission reductions by re-powering 11 diesel engines used in its vehicles and construction equipment. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $1.87 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

10. Sukut Construction, Inc.

$1,801,604 County: Orange

Sukut Construction, Inc. proposes to generate emission reductions by re-powering 32 diesel engines used in its construction equipment. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $0.93 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

11. VPSI Commuter Vanpools

$61,200 County: All

VPSI Commuter Vanpools proposes to generate emission reductions in Anaheim by deploying 10 GEM zero emission vehicles for use to and from departure lots. The cost-effectiveness of this proposal is $61.74 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

12. Seaboard Marine (Proposal 1)

Option 1 $1,153,200 Option 2 $1,353,315 Option 3 $1,512,730 County: Los Angeles

Seaboard Marine proposes to generate emission reductions by re-powering outboard powered boats operating on gasoline and diesel fuels. The proposal lists 28 marine vessels and the duration of the project varies from three to seven years. The cost-effectiveness of the four options of this proposal, on the average, ranges from $0.19 to $0.34 per pound. (Not funded.)
 

13. Seaboard Marine (Proposal 2)

County: Los Angeles

Seaboard Marine proposes to generate emission reductions by re-powering 92 diesel powered marine vessels. The duration of the project varies from three to 10 years. Average cost-effectiveness, which could vary with the vessels chosen, was not provided in this proposal. (Not funded.)
 

ATTACHMENT 4

Proposal Summary By Type
 

ATTACHMENT 4
(Continued)
 

ATTACHMENT 4
(Continued)
 

ATTACHMENT 5

Summary

Proposal Ratings

All proposals submitted were reviewed and scored according to the selection criteria in the Board-approved RFP. Points were also allocated for "Local Business," "Small Business," DBVE and DBVE "Joint Ventures."
 

ATTACHMENT 5
(Continued)
 

ATTACHMENT 6

TABLE 1

Proposals Recommended for Funding
Anticipated Emission Reductions
(Pounds/Year)
 

TABLE 2

Proposals Recommended for Funding
Funding Request
 

///