Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum 1 - RFP - 10155 Shared MicromobilityRFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 1 of 8 ADDENDUM NO. 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of RFP 10155: Shared Micromobility OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM (Our Clock) October 27, 2025 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this addendum: Exhibit 1 – Questions and Answers Exhibit 2 – Micromobility RFP Insurance Amendments, for the CSU Agreement Please contact Ed Bonnette, C.P.M., CPPB, Senior Buyer, at (970) 416-2247 or ebonnette@fcgov.com with any questions regarding this addendum. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE PROPOSAL STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. Financial Services Purchasing Division 215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6775 fcgov.com/purchasing RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 2 of 8 1) Would the City consider extending the current 50-page proposal limit to 70 pages? This additional space will allow us to address all questions fully and provide comprehensive responses for evaluation. Answer: Yes, we’ve increased the page limit to 70 pages. 2) The RFP asks how the operator would use data the City, CSU, and other partners provide. Can the City clarify what kinds of the data they anticipate providing? Answer: Examples of data we’ve provided in the past include: • Geographical data such as equity zones, affordable housing communities, campus areas, areas where college students make up >40% residents, locations of bike racks and City-installed bike/scooter boxes, low-stress bicycle network. • Through GetFoCo we can identify income-qualified residents at any level of % area median income. • Database of community partners. 3) We would like to clarify the definition and types of public charging (as per question 1.e.ii) that the City would be interested in exploring as part of the program? Answer: Public charging refers to racks or devices that could be used by the public to charge personally-owned e-bike, e-scooters and/or e-skateboards. The Committee is interested in exploring partnerships and/or solutions for e-bike, e-scooter and/or e- skateboard charging and would entertain ideas as part of vendor proposals 4) What is the current split in devices that are being offered in the existing program (by e- scooters, e-bikes, seated scooters, and other seated vehicles)? Answer: A minimum of 30% of the deployed fleet are e-bikes; the remainder are e- scooters. 5) What is the current fee structure and is there a preferred fee structure by the City and CSU? Additionally, is there a preference on revenue split between the City and CSU Campus? We ask because there is a lot of wiggle room in this negotiation. RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 3 of 8 Answer: The current fee structure is an annual fee to the City and an annual fee per vehicle to CSU. We are open to exploring other fee structures, such as a per trip fee. Revenue generation is not the primary goal of this program, however, revenue is necessary to ensure a robust program. This RFP does not prescribe how revenue must be distributed, and both entities are interested in reviewing proposed fee structures from vendors. Final fee structures and amounts will be determined during contract negotiations. 6) As per the previous question, what is the exact weightage on the proposed revenue to the City and CSU? Answer: This RFP does not prescribe how revenue must be distributed, and both entities are interested in reviewing proposed fee structures from vendors. Final fee structures and amounts will be determined during contract negotiations. 7) Are applicants allowed to add Appendices at the end of the submission document or attached as a separate document. If so, will that be considered as part of the 50 page count limit? Answer: Appendices can be combined or attached. We have increased the page limit to 70 pages, and appendices are not part of that limit. 8) Could we find out if reviews of this document will be split between different reviewers, this is to control the amount of repetition of answers in each question. Answer: All reviewers will review the entire proposal. Please avoid repetition; while having responses to the scope prompts in order is preferable, it is acceptable for responses to be in a different order for ease of review. 9) Would CSU or the City be open to program branding or naming partnerships that reinforce campus identity and local ownership? Answer: We would be willing to consider proposals. 10) What infrastructure (if any) will be provided or supported by the City/CSU—such as bike parking racks, concrete pads, or designated hubs? Answer: The City has an up to date database of most bike racks in the City. The City has installed about 40 designated parking areas and can install more, depending on funding RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 4 of 8 availability. The main obstacle to installing parking areas on-street is opposition from residents who live adjacent to proposed parking areas. CSU currently requires that all shared micromobiity vehicles are parked in one of the 18,000+ bike/scooter parking spaces on campus. A map of bike parking on campus can be found at: https://map.concept3d.com/?id=748#!ct/15365,84752,84753,84754,20558,12853?s/. CSU can provide GIS layers of bike parking locations. With funding support and space availability, CSU is willing to consider additional designated parking locations for shared micromobility devices. 11) Will the selected vendor have exclusive operating rights for bikes and scooters, or will other operators be allowed to enter the market later? Answer: City ordinance requires shared micromobility operators to have a contract with the City. Our intention is to maintain a single-vendor program, provided the vendor can meet the needs of both the City and CSU. 12) Would the City/CSU be open to piloting special programs such as adaptive bike access, workforce lending libraries, or long-term lending programs? Would the City be willing to consider funding these programs? Answer: The City and CSU are both interested in these programs. The City and CSU do not, however, have identified funding to support these programs currently. 13) Is it the intention for the vendor to incur all costs, or does the City plan to provide any financial funding? Would the City be open to a leasing program? Answer: The City is unable to provide funding at this time. 14) Can the City clarify what “proposed revenues to the City and CSU” means? Does this refer to a per trip, per vehicle fee or something else? Answer: The current fee structure is an annual fee to the City and an annual fee per vehicle to CSU. We are open to exploring other fee structures, such as a per trip fee. 15) Would the City be able to share a list of questions submitted during the RFP question window once all questions have been answered? RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 5 of 8 Answer: Yes. We will be replying to these plus any others we receive by the deadline stated in the RFP via a Questions & Answers Addendum that I will post out on the Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing System (aka BidNet), same place I posted the Bid. I will give you a courtesy email to let you know when that is posted. 16) Can the City disclose who is on the evaluation panel? What departments or entities do they represent? Answer: It will be staff from the City FC Moves and from CSU Transportation, plus representatives from the purchasing division of both entities. 17) How do you intend to notify bidders of the City's decision? Will both the selected operator and those not selected be notified at the same time? If so, how? Answer: Via email. The selected operator will be informed that they are awarded subject to contract negotiations. If those negotiations should happen to break down, then we will move on to the next highest rated firm. For that reason, we hold off notifying the oth er bidders who have made the short list of their status until we are sure we will have the selected vendor under contract. 18) How will the City handle abnormally high financial proposals, which may represent financially unsustainable commitments? Answer: We cannot answer this question without first reviewing the received proposals; it is too speculative. 19) What consideration has been given to ensuring bidders do not over-promise significant revenue shares to increase their chance of success, but are unable to deliver on their financial commitments? Answer: We cannot answer this question without first reviewing the received proposals; it is too speculative. 20) How will the rider pricing offers be evaluated? Will lower rider prices be awarded more points? Answer: Not necessarily. Ridership is an important goal of the program, and lower prices typically drive higher ridership. A stable, reliable service is also an important goal of the program, and a sound business model is necessary. RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 6 of 8 21) Does the City anticipate a period of contract negotiation after award? Answer: Yes. This is why the RFP is on the street well before the current contract expires on June 30, 2026. 22) How does the City intend to evaluate applications received from the same company or subsidiaries operating under different names? Would such applicants be eligible for one or two permits? Answer: Each proposal will be scored on its relative merits. Only one applicant will be selected. 23) How does the City intend to evaluate current operators versus new applicants? Answer: Each proposal will be scored on its relative merits. 24) Is the interview and demonstration scored separately from the written submission, or are the scores for the written and interview components combined for each category in Section IV? Answer: The written proposal is scored independently of the oral interview/demonstration phase. The scores are not summed. 25) Under what question is rider pricing scored? Is rider pricing for the City scored separately from rider pricing for CSU? Answer: Reduce emissions and single-occupant-vehicle trips through mode shift 26) Can the City provide the minimum requirements for each category that would result in a score of 5? Answer: Each proposal will be scored on its relative merits. 27) Is there a detailed scoring rubric that explains how evaluators assign scores from 1–10? What criteria distinguish a score of 10 from lower scores? RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 7 of 8 Answer: Each proposal will be scored on its relative merits; as to how well it meets the criteria in the RFP, and relative to the answers provided in the other proposals. 28) The RFP requests insurance information in Section B - Question 6, which is not included in the scoring criteria in Section IV. How will insurance coverage be scored? Answer: Pass/fail. 29) Can the City share detailed scoring broken down by each sub-question in Sections A-F? Answer: No. The scores are internal to the process, and are not public records. 30) Are the suggested revisions in Section E - Sample Agreement scored? If so, how? Answer: The Purchasing representatives evaluate those, as potential tie-breakers. 31) Regarding Section 12. Project Instruments and License, can the City confirm that these clauses are not intended to transfer ownership of the provider's pre-existing and proprietary software, hardware, and data analytics platforms, and that they apply only to reports or other custom deliverables created specifically for the City and CSU? Answer: That’s correct. RFP 10155 Shared Micromobility Addendum #1 Questions and Answers Page 8 of 8 Exhibit 2 – Micromobility RFP Insurance Amendments, for the CSU Agreement Revise subparagraph VI(9)(A)(ii, iv, v) by deleting the subparagraphs and replace with the following: ii) Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 0001 10/93 or equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent operators, products and completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with minimum limits as follows: a. $1,000,000 each occurrence; b. $5,000,000 general aggregate; c. $50,000 any one (1) fire. iv) Errors and Omissions Insurance with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000. v) Crime / Fidelity Insurance with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000. Revise subparagraph VI(9)(B) by deleting the subparagraph and replace with the following: If any aggregate limit is reduced below $5,000,000 because of claims made or paid, the operator shall immediately obtain additional insurance to restore the full aggregate limit and furnish to the University a certificate or other document satisfactory to the University showing compliance with this provision. Notwithstanding this subsection A, if the Operator is a “public entity” within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101, et seq., as amended (“CGIA”), the Operator shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the CGIA. Upon request by the University, the Operator shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the University.” Revise subparagraph VII(9)(H) of the Contract by deleting the subparagraph in its entirety and replace with the following: H. Self-insurance programs do not meet the State’s or the University’s insurance requirements unless the Operator provides satisfactory evidence of a loss reserve of not less than $500,000.00, plus excess liability coverage as appropriate to the industry, financial statements of the business, and proof of Department of Labor certification of self-insurance program for worker’s compensation. The effective date for the insurance policy under this provision shall be no later than the effective date of the contract. Operator shall provide University with a copy of all insurance policies and a Certificate of Insurance conforming to the requirements of the Contract no later than effective date of contract.”