BOARD MEETING DATE: May 3, 2002
AGENDA NO. 10

Execute Contracts for AQIP Proposals Received During Fourth 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 fourth quarter of 2001. This action is to recommend five for funding. The amount available for this quarter is $1,340,626. This action is also to make minor adjustments to the contracts already awarded at the February 1, 2002 meeting to the taxicab organizations.

COMMITTEE: 

Mobile Source, March 22, 2002, Recommended for Approval

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Chairman to execute five contracts for a total amount not to exceed $1,107,052 from the AQIP Special Revenue Fund to obtain mobile source emission reductions with the City of Monterey Park, for an amount not to exceed $113,320; with Nationwide Environmental Services for an amount not to exceed $140,000; with Seaboard Marine for amounts not to exceed $85,000 and $158,000; and with Sukut Construction, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $610,732. To further authorize the Chairman to make adjustments to the contracts awarded to two of the five taxicab organizations at the February 1, 2002 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 fourth 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 fourth quarter of the 2001 participation period ended on December 31, 2001 with 49 employers participating in the AQIP program. The total amount of AQIP funds received during this period was $903,398, which includes both annual and triennial participants (see Attachment 1). In addition, $154,510 is being carried forward from the previous quarters, and an additional amount of $282,718 was made available from the interest accrued during Fiscal Year 2000-01. Therefore the total amount available for this quarter is $1,340,626 (see Attachment 1, Table 4). Staff recommends that $1,107,052 be used to purchase emission reductions to satisfy the target for the quarter.

Status of AQIP Funding of Rule 1194-Compliant Alternative-Fueled Vehicles for Taxicab Services

At the February 1, 2002 meeting, the Board approved adjustments to the contract awards to five taxicab organizations for the purchase of Rule 1194-compliant alternative-fueled vehicles for taxicab services out of commercial airports in the South Coast Air Basin. Since the approval, staff has proceeded to prepare contracts with the five taxicab organizations. However, two of the five taxicab organizations (Administrative Services Co-op, who represents several different individual cooperatives in Los Angeles County, and Cabco Yellow, Inc., who operates in Orange County) requested a modification to their vehicle purchase requests based on current operational needs. Specifically, Cabco Yellow, Inc. requested to purchase 45 alternative-fueled vehicles rather than 50 as identified in the February 2002 request. Administrative Services Co-op is requesting an additional five alternative-fueled vehicles bringing their total request to 55 vehicles. In addition, Administrative Services Co-op indicated that they provide administrative services (and acts an agent) to several individual cooperatives and that the 55 vehicles would be allocated to three of the cooperatives, as listed in Attachment 1, Table 5.

Staff is requesting the Board’s approval to increase the number of vehicles funded for Administrative Services Co-op by five vehicles to a total of 55 at a cost not to exceed $587,072.25 (the 55 vehicles will be allocated to three individual cooperatives represented by Administrative Services Co-op as noted above) and decrease the total number of vehicles funded for Cabco Yellow, Inc. to 45 alternative-fueled vehicles at a cost not to exceed $477,247.50. The total number of alternative-fueled vehicles purchased under the AQIP would remain the same. However, there would be an increase in the funding requested of $342.75 which represents the difference in sales tax between Los Angeles County and Orange County. The total cost to fund the 271 Rule 1194-compliant alternative-fueled vehicles would be $2,884,441.55. In addition, staff has revised its emissions reduction benefits estimates based on more recent typical annual miles traveled information from the five taxicab organizations. Table 6 in Attachment 1 shows the emission reduction benefits associated with the 271 alternative-fueled vehicle purchases. Staff believes that since the emissions reduction benefits are conservative, the actual miles traveled may be more for most of the vehicles participating in the program and would result in additional emission reductions that would be considered surplus to the AQIP. Also, the February Board letter indicated a seven-year life span for the taxis but a more realistic life span is four years.

Proposal Evaluation

During the bidding process of the fourth quarter of 2001, 13 proposals were received requesting funds ranging from $85,000 to $1,538,513. 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 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 the City of Monterey Park, Nationwide Environmental Services, Seaboard Marine, and Sukut Construction, Inc., were not necessarily the most cost-effective in regard to available funds, but met the necessary emission reduction targets, and provided multi-pollutant benefits.

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

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:
 

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 December 13, 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 – 4th Quarter 2001

TABLE 1

Funds Received (as of December 31, 2001)

TABLE 2

Annual Participation

TABLE 3

Triennial Participation

ATTACHMENT 1

(Continued)

TABLE 4

Total Available Funding

TABLE 5

Modifications to Vehicle Purchases for Two Taxicab Organization Awards

TABLE 6

Projected Emission Reductions (lbs/year)

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 February 1, 2002. The proposals are not listed by classification or rank.

ATTACHMENT 4

Proposal Summary By Type

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
 

/ / /