TITLE
RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. EVN0001148, FARE COLLECTION APPLICATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS

BODY
WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board rejects all proposals received in response to Request for Proposals No. EVN0001148, Fare Collection Application, for the Department of Transportation and Public Works. A copy of the solicitation document and the proposals received in response are on file with and available upon request from the Strategic Procurement Department.

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Anthony Rodriguez
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor

Subject: Recommendation to Reject all Proposals for Fare Collection Application

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This item is requesting rejection of proposals received in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purchase of a Fare Collection Application (FCA) for the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW). A modern FCA software will provide account-based ticketing that includes intuitive, user-friendly interfaces, customer-facing websites will self-service elements, robust security measures for payment information and personal data, open architecture to adapt to future technologies, robust data analysis, dynamic fare changes, and regional interoperability. During the evaluation of proposals, staff received numerous objections from multiple proposers. To allow for updates to the RFP and to provide further clarity on the evaluation process and assure a best value contract, upon review of the objections with the County Attorney’s Office, a rejection of all proposals is recommended.

A new RFP with revisions will be advertised to allow for an open and competitive contract award. The revised RFP will include clarifying language on subcontracting restrictions, the number of firms to be shortlisted for oral presentations, pricing submission requirements for optional items, and the methodology for evaluating pricing. It is imperative that the resultant contract is awarded competitively in compliance with federal provisions to allow the County to use Federal Transit Administration funds for this project.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve the rejection of all proposals received under Request for Proposals No. EVN0001148, Fare Collection Application, for DTPW. This contract was intended to replace Contract No. L8481-0/27 that was approved by the Board, currently having a twelve-year term. The contract is currently valued at $31,671,329 and expires on January 31, 2028.

Background
The Strategic Procurement Department (SPD) issued a competitive RFP on May 16, 2025, on behalf of DTPW, to obtain proposals from qualified firms to provide a cloud-based or vendor-hosted FCA to replace the County’s existing legacy fare collection software. Additionally, the scope includes the option to purchase Standalone Fare Validators and Handheld Fare Validators as an alternative source to the already-awarded Fare Collection Equipment provider to allow the County to select the most seamless solution to integrate between the equipment and software components. On August 29, 2025, nine proposals were received in response to the RFP. The Competitive Selection Committee (CSC) completed evaluation of the nine proposals. During the evaluation phase of the process, staff received numerous objections from multiple proposers. Upon review of the objections with the County Attorney’s Office, it was determined that some RFP requirements created ambiguity in the process. A revised RFP with modifications to address ambiguities will be advertised expeditiously to allow for fair competition.

Revisions to the current RFP requirements will address:

1) Subcontracting with the County’s current provider of fare collection equipment
The Board, via R-1023-24, awarded a contract for the purchase of fare collection equipment to Genfare, LLC (Genfare). In accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract, Genfare has an obligation to coordinate, collaborate, and cooperate for the integration of the FCA as contracted by the County. Neither Genfare’s contract nor the RFP included any prohibition or preclusions on Genfare’s ability to subcontract with a provider of FCA. One proposer for the FCA RFP included Genfare as its subcontractor. Although no contractual violations or violations of law resulted from this partnership, it created a perception of disadvantage for other proposers. The revised RFP will prohibit proposers from engaging in a subcontracting relationship with Genfare to avoid any conflict.

2) Ambiguity in the number of proposers that would be invited to Oral Presentations
The RFP stipulated that the top three highest-ranked firms would be invited for oral presentations. The CSC requested, in addition to the top three proposers, that two proposers that were tied for fourth ranked also receive an invitation for oral presentations due to there being only a 0.3% score differential between the third ranked and two fourth ranked proposers. Five proposers were invited for oral presentations and were further evaluated and ranked. Subsequently, after careful consideration, the CAO determined the RFP provided that only the top three firms would receive invitations to participate in oral presentations. The revised RFP will allow the CSC to determine the number of proposers that will be invited for oral presentations.

3) Ambiguities with the requirement for proposers to provide an offer with pricing for optional items
The RFP included ambiguous language regarding evaluation of optional components. The scope of work and associated addendums stated proposers may offer validators and pricing at their discretion, and validators were listed as optional equipment and were not to be evaluated. The total proposed price on the price form, evaluated by the CSC, included pricing for optional items, including standalone and handheld validators. As a result, proposers that did not include pricing for the optional items were evaluated without consideration for the cost of the validators that would then be borne by the County under Genfare’s contract. In order to conduct a fair price evaluation in instances where a proposer does not propose the optional items to the County, the revised RFP will provide clarifying language and incorporate a methodology to add the price of validators from the existing Genefare contract to the total proposed price so the CSC can evaluate the total project cost.

4) Additional Revisions
The revised RFP may include revisions to the scoring criteria including but not limited to the point distribution between the technical and financial criteria, as well as the methodology to evaluate pricing.

To facilitate a process that complies with the highest standards of the County, a rejection of all proposals is recommended.

Scope
The scope of this item is countywide in nature.

Fiscal Impact/Funding Source
There is no fiscal impact to the County with the rejection of all proposals.

Delegated Authority
There is no delegated authority requested for this rejection.

Vendor Recommended for Award
None

Vendors Not Recommended for Award

Vendor Local Address Reason for Not Recommending
Masabi LLC No Rejection of all Proposals
Moovel N. America LLC No Rejection of all Proposals
Indra USA Inc No Rejection of all Proposals
Cubic Transportation Systems Inc No Rejection of all Proposals
INIT Innovations in Transportation Inc No Rejection of all Proposals
Kuba LLC No Rejection of all Proposals
Flowbird America Inc No Rejection of all Proposals
Token Transit Inc No Rejection of all Proposals
Sidetool LLC Yes Rejection of all Proposals




___________________
Jimmy Morales
Chief Operating Officer