Summary of Questions Submitted to the City of Seattle

In response to an RFP/RFQ issued July 30, 2012 for

An Operational, Management and Efficiency Analysis

Of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT)

And the City’s Responses

  1. We will be responding to the RFP. Have we registered with you or do we need to do that?

Response: Registration is encouraged but not required. To register, see

  1. If we plan to include a WMBE firm in our proposal, what percentage of the work must we allocate to the WMBE firm in order to receive all of the evaluation points in that category?

Response: We provide some general guidelines on what constitutes a robust inclusion plan in the RFP (see 7. Response Format, #5 Consultant Inclusion Plan, page 17). Our evaluations will rate the inclusion plans included in the proposals we receive relative to these guidelines.

  1. Are the following functions included in the review:
  2. Office of the Director – Response: Yes
  3. Resources Management – Response: Yes
  4. Human Resources – Response: Yes, to the extent its policies, procedures and practices affect other areas, particularly the Focus Areas listed on page 7.
  1. If a consultant on our proposed team conducted an asset management maturity and risk assessment for the Seattle DOT in 2010, would that be perceived as a conflict of interest?

Response: We do not see this as a conflict of interest.

  1. Should proposers submit responses that follow the numbering under section 7, Response Format or under the Procurement Package Checklist?

Response: Please use the numbering sequence under section 7, Response Format.

  1. Do the required resumes count against the 10, double-sided page limit?

Response: No.

  1. Are proposers to provide 8 copies of the entire proposal package (items 1-7) or 1 copy of the entire proposal package and 8 copies of the proposal response (item 7)?

Response: We need 8 copies of the entire proposal package.

  1. If we include a consultant on our proposed team who serves on the Seattle Board of Park Commissioners, would that be perceived as a conflict of interest?

Response: Please see page 16 of the RFP, section 7.27 Ethics Code, Involvement of Current or Former City Employees. As I understand it, the volunteer position you describe would not automatically exclude a potential consultant as long as you provide written notice to the City of their name and relationship to the City, and continue to update that information during the full course of the contract. As the lead consultant, you are also obligated to be aware of and familiar with the City of Seattle’s Ethics Code, and educate subcontractors accordingly.

Please also note that the consultant questionnaire, linked in the RFP and a required part of your response, also has 3 questions pertaining to current or former city employees.

  1. Realizing your sizeable project backlog as discussed in the pre-proposal meeting ($1.6BB), is there a certain maintenance category (maintenance vs. capital) that comprises the majority of the backlog? Further, within each category (maintenance and capital), are there more granular subsets of work, e.g., routine (pothole filling) vs. major (resurfacing, preservation), etc., that may comprise a majority of the categorical backlog?

Response: See attached spreadsheet.

  1. With regard to projects in the backlog, is there legislation that mandates certain amounts or categories of spending each year?

Response: No, although SDOT has a variety of funding sources that have restrictions on how they are spent.

  1. There is no mention of SDOT fleet and equipment assets in the proposed scope of work. Is this an intentional omission?

Response: Evaluating the management of SDOT’s fleet and equipment assets is not in the scope of work for this review, as these assets are managed by the City of Seattle’s Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

  1. We found no reference in the scope of work as to evaluating whether SDOT is using outsourcing at appropriate levels (e.g., maintenance contracting and/or use of consulting engineers). Are these areas that SDOT is interested in examining?

Response: Yes.

  1. Could you please clarify the exact Transit components that are considered in-scope for this project, e.g., the South Lake Union Trolley, etc.? Also, if additional transit components are scheduled to come into service within the next 1-3 years, please include those as well.

Response: None of the City’s street car lines are within the scope of this audit, as the South Lake Union Streetcar is operated by King County and the upcoming First Hill Streetcar will be operated by Sound Transit.

  1. Please clarify SDOT’s requirements/your expectations around our inclusion plan for utilization of women and minority-owned businesses? In order to fulfill the expectations of the engagement, is it mandatory for such businesses to be included in the scope of the service providers we will either subcontract to or partner with?

Response: Under Washington State Initiative I-200, the City cannot provide a requirement or expectation regarding the utilization of women and minority-owned businesses. The Inclusion Plan asks for voluntary goals from the Consultant firm that show a good-faith effort, which can be expressed as subcontracting commitments or other strategies as provided on the Inclusion Plan form.

1