REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Cost-Benefit Analysis Toolkit – Phase II
Note: This document is available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities by calling Ashley Duran at 651-366-4627 or for persons who are hearing or speech impaired by calling the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529.
This RFP does not obligate MnDOT to award a Contract or complete the project, and MnDOT reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if it is considered to be in its best interest.
Project Specific Information
Project Overview
Clear Roads is an ongoing pooled fund research project aimed at rigorous testing of winter maintenance materials, equipment and methods for use by highway maintenance crews. Clear Roads will fund and oversee the contract for this project in coordination with MnDOT. For more information, visit www.clearroads.org. For the last 15 years, agencies have reduced their winter operations budgets, requiring every new purchase to have a cost-benefit analysis to justify its dollar value. Managers needed a way to evaluate and justify the value of new and even standard products in order to take advantage of them. With this in mind, Clear Roads funded the research project Cost-Benefit Analysis Toolkit – Phase I to create a tool for calculating the costs and benefits for specific new materials, equipment and methods used in winter maintenance activities. The toolkit turned out well and worked as anticipated, but Clear Roads would like to enhance the tool. This Phase II research project will address issues with the original toolkit and expand its functionality to include additional materials, equipment and methods. More information about the Cost-Benefit Analysis Toolkit – Phase I can be found here: http://clearroads.org/research-projects/08-02costbenefitanalysis.html. The toolkit itself is accessible here: http://cbt.clearroads.org/.
Project Goal
The goal of this Phase II Cost-Benefit Toolkit project is to expand upon and improve the toolkit developed in Phase I. Expected enhancements include:
- Ability to run on more versions of Internet browsers.
- Reporting in additional formats (such as Microsoft Word) for easier manipulation for presentation.
- Ability to save multiple scenarios and revisit them.
- Expansion to include analysis of more winter maintenance materials, equipment and methods.
Scope of Work and Deliverables
The scope of work and deliverables for this 12-month project will consist of the following:
Task 1: In coordination with the Clear Roads project subcommittee, the successful responder will review the issues and enhance the Phase I version. The necessary enhancements include ensuring the tool runs on more versions of Internet browsers and generating reports in a format that can be more easily manipulated for presentation to managers. The successful responder should plan to work with the subcommittee to identify one to three appropriate formats for output. It should also include the capability of allowing a user to save multiple scenarios and revisit them. Additional enhancements may be identified in discussion with the Clear Roads subcommittee.
Task 2: The successful responder will survey Clear Roads members and other winter maintenance professionals to determine the next ten most important materials, equipment or methods on which the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would like to be able to perform a cost-benefit analysis using the tool. The successful responder will work with the TAC to determine final list for Phase II development. Some items suggested for consideration in Phase II development by the TAC include:
1. Comparing flexible blades to traditional blades
2. Pre-treating prior to the storm
3. Pre-wetting at the spreader
4. Slurries
5. Plow guards
6. Spreader calibration
7. Tow plows
8. Open vs. closed loop spreader controls
9. Laser guides
10. Abrasives (sand/aggregates in different types or weights/sizes)
11. Remote cameras for monitoring remote sites locations
12. Contracted truck (private or municipal) versus a state-owned truck
13. Tailgate vs. hopper spreaders
Task 3: The successful responder will conduct a literature search and surveys as needed to determine how cost-benefit analysis has been done at other agencies. The goal will be to determine if methodologies already exist for developing a cost-benefit analysis or to identify existing reports or data formats used in cost accounting that might be applicable to the specific aspects of winter maintenance under consideration. The result should identify the elements required for cost-benefit analysis to be included in the toolkit.
Task 4: The successful responder will develop methodologies and assumptions to address cost-benefit analysis for materials, equipment and methods for which the literature search did not yield established cost-benefit analysis methodologies.
Task 5: Based on the results of Tasks 3 and 4, the successful responder will enhance the existing tool and user’s guide to address the additional methods, materials and equipment identified in Task 2.
Task 6: The successful responder will provide a presentation on the final report and include a training session for the Clear Roads TAC to demonstrate the fixes to the toolkit and familiarize them with the enhanced content.
The following deliverables are expected from the project:
1. One teleconference/webinar to collaborate on Task 1, which can serve a dual purpose as the overall project kick-off teleconference to provide guidance on where to focus the Task 1 effort and establish an understanding regarding the focus of the Phase II project.
2. Monthly teleconferences will be held in addition to the Task 1 teleconference to keep the Clear Roads TAC updated on progress. Monthly teleconferences can be waived at the discretion of the project champion.
3. A concise memorandum of findings after the completion of Tasks 1-5 to summarize the results of each task.
4. The final training session that is described in Task 6.
5. A Face-to-face meeting or webinar presentation to present the final report findings. The successful responder will provide the draft version of the report at least two weeks in advance of the meeting or webinar. The successful responder should also assume there will be some additional time after the presentation required to gather and incorporate feedback on the final report. This meeting or presentation can be held in conjunction with the final training session.
6. An updated training guide for the toolkit.
7. The enhanced cost-benefit analysis toolkit.
8. Final Report of work completed, including an executive summary of the study format and findings; the results of each task; and recommendations for ongoing development and maintenance of the toolkit.
9. Quarterly Reports that provide written reports of progress to the Clear Roads TAC at the end of each quarter of the year (March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31) for the duration of the Contract.
Responder Qualifications
Responders will be evaluated on the following qualifications:
- Responders must have a degree in Statistics, Economics or Engineering or related field of study to analyze costs and benefits. Preference will be given to those that hold an advanced degree in one of the areas listed above.
- Responders must demonstrate abilities to conduct theoretical research from a peer-reviewed publication on the subject of either winter maintenance or understanding the real costs of transportation operations.
- Responders must demonstrate a fundamental understanding of and experience with winter maintenance operations.
- Responders must demonstrate experience with developing and analyzing surveys.
- Responders must demonstrate experience with conducting literature searches.
- Responders must demonstrate an ability to assemble a team to reach across the boundaries between fields of study including economics, engineering, computer science and others.
- Responders must demonstrate experience with Web development.
- Responders must demonstrate the ability to produce working documents or guidelines for others to follow.
Responders are encouraged to propose additional tasks or activities if they will substantially improve the results of the project. These items should be separated from the required items on the cost proposal.
Proposal Content
The following will be considered minimum contents of the proposal and must be submitted in the order listed:
1. Responder’s company name, business address, the contact person’s name, telephone number, fax number and email address (as available).
2. A statement of the objectives, goals and tasks to show or demonstrate the responder's view of the nature of the Contract.
3. A description of the deliverables to be provided by the responder.
4. An outline of the responder’s company background and experience as it relates to understanding the costs and benefits of winter maintenance materials, operations and equipment.
5. A detailed work plan, identifying the major tasks to be accomplished and be used as a scheduling and managing tool, as well as the basis for invoicing.
a.) The work plan must present the responder’s approach, task breakdown and deliverable due dates.
b.) In addition, the work plan must present the personnel working on the project and the hours assigned to each individual to reach the project results. Responder’s must demonstrate the key personnel’s background and experience as it relates to understanding the costs and benefits of winter maintenance materials, operations and equipment. No change in personnel assigned to the project will be permitted without the written approval of MnDOT’s Project Manager and representatives from the TPF 5-(218) (found at http://www.clearroads.org/members-and-partners.html) TAC.
6. Identification of the level of MnDOT’s, and other TPF 5-(218) states’ participation in the Contract, as well as any other services to be provided by MnDOT and details of cost allowances for this participation.
7. The forms and documents required under any other section of this RFP.
8. Provide, in a separate envelope, one copy of the cost proposal, clearly marked on the outside “Cost Proposal”, along with the responder’s official business name and address. For purposes of completing the cost proposal, MnDOT does not make regular payments based upon the passage of time; it only pays for services performed or work delivered after it is accomplished. Terms of the proposal as stated must be valid for the length of the project. If proposing an hourly rate, unit rate or lump sum, include a breakdown (labor, overhead, profit & expenses) showing how the rate was derived. If proposing a cost plus fixed fee (profit) budget, the responder’s Overhead Rate must not exceed 160%. The responder must utilize their current MnDOT approved Overhead rate, not to exceed 160%. For the purposes of this Cost Proposal, responders should utilize a fixed fee (profit) of 10%. Actual fixed fee (profit) will be determined/calculated by MnDOT upon selection. The responder must include a total project cost along with the following:
· A breakout of the hours by task for each employee.
· Identification of anticipated direct expenses.
· Identification of any assumption made while developing this cost proposal.
· Identification of any cost information related to additional services or tasks, include this in the cost proposal but identify it as additional costs and do not make it part of the total project cost.
· Responder must have the cost proposal signed in ink by authorized member of the firm. The responder must not include any cost information within the body of the RFP technical proposal response.
Questions
Responders who have any questions regarding this RFP must submit questions by e-mail only to:
Ashley Duran, Contract Administrator
All questions and answers will be posted on MnDOT’s Consultant Services Web Page at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/consult/index.html under the “P/T Notices” section. All prospective responders will be responsible for checking the web page for any addendums to this RFP and any questions that have been answered. Note that questions will be posted verbatim as submitted.
Questions regarding this RFP must be received by MnDOT no later than 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on Tuesday, August 23, 2011.
MnDOT anticipates posting answers to such questions no later than 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on Wednesday, August 24, 2011.
No other department personnel are allowed to discuss the RFP before the proposal submission deadline. Contact regarding this RFP with any personnel not listed above may result in disqualification.
Proposal Submittal
All proposals must be mailed (U.S. Postal Service), expressed (UPS, FedEx or other similar express carrier) or dropped off to the attention of:
Ashley Duran, Contract Administrator
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Consultant Services Section, Mail Stop 680
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899
All proposals must be received no later than 2:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time on Thursday, September 8, 2011. Please note that MnDOT procedures do not allow non-MnDOT employees to have access to the elevators or the stairs. You should plan enough time and follow these instructions for drop-off:
· Enter through the Rice Street side of the Central Office building (1st Floor).
· Once you enter through the doors, you should walk straight ahead to the Information Desk.
· Proposals are accepted at the Information Desk only. The receptionist will call the Contract Administrator to come down and to time stamp the proposal.
Submit one hard copy of the proposal, along with a CD ROM of the entire proposal in .pdf format. Proposals are to be submitted in a sealed mailing envelope or package, clearly marked “Proposal” on the outside. An authorized member of the firm must sign each copy of the proposal in ink.
MnDOT and the participating states of TPF 5-(218) have determined that the cost of this 12-month Contract should not exceed $100,000.00.
Proposal Evaluation
Representatives of MnDOT will evaluate all responses received by the deadline. In some instances, an interview may be part of the evaluation process. A 100-point scale will be used to create the final evaluation recommendation. The factors and weighting on which proposals will be judged are:
1. Work plan 20%
2. Qualifications/experience of personnel working on the project 20%
3. Expressed understanding of project objectives 25%
4. Qualifications/experience of company 5%
5. Cost Detail 30%
Proposals will be evaluated on a “best value” basis with 70% qualifications and 30% cost considerations. The review committee will not open the cost proposal until after the qualifications points are awarded.
General Information
Responders must adhere to all terms of this RFP. Late responses will not be considered. Fax and e-mail responses will not be considered. All costs incurred in responding to this RFP will be borne by the responder.