BPS has laid out an intensive clarification of the brand new transportation contract with controversial incumbent-bidder Transdev — lastly offering fuller solutions to questions long-raised by watchdog investigators and a skeptical neighborhood.
“We have put out a contract that requires (Transdev) to put their money where their mouth is,” BPS Transportation Director Daniel Rosengard mentioned. “They have shown us and told us that they are willing to take on that challenge and that they believe they can continue to improve and hit the performance targets that we’ve set.”
The contract was awarded to Transdev, the one bidder and BPS’s present transportation supplier, for a five-year time period with the choice of three one-year extensions at $17.5 million in December. BPS has offered the finalized model, together with an extended checklist of accountability measures.
Major areas of adjustment within the contract, Assistant Director of Contract Operations and Fleet Jackie Hayes mentioned, are incentives and penalties for efficiency and price metrics, a shift of economic legal responsibility from BPS to the contractor and steps to an electrical bus fleet.
For occasion, Hayes detailed, Transdev get a bonus for 85% on-time bus efficiency of their first 10 days and the next bonus for 90%.
“The district will be able to demand accountability from the vendor for our shared goals,” Hayes mentioned.
BPS has caught by the contract determination via neighborhood pushback — following persistent points with on-time efficiency and particular schooling service underneath Transdev — and warnings from state and metropolis watchdog investigations.
BPS officers addressed at size two factors of competition raised: why Transdev got here out the one bidder and why they determined to danger signing an extended five-year contract with an company that’s had persistent points.
Though 4 bidders initially confirmed curiosity within the bidding course of, Rosengard mentioned, suggestions from most took problem with the monetary dangers of the contract’s expensive efficiency accountability incentives.
“That is ultimately what we heard,” Rosengard mentioned. “But we knew what was most important to us was having a contract that puts students first and that really drives student outcomes.”
The earlier investigations questioned whether or not iffy contract necessities — like earlier expertise with very giant districts — unfairly restricted competitors.
As for the five-year contract time period, Hayes famous the long term “provides the district stability” whereas they implement wide-scale enhancements and was mandatory to draw any distributors.
“We’ve made steady progress with transportation services and still have a great deal of work to do,” mentioned Superintendent Mary Skipper. … “The five-year vendor contract proposed tonight is a critical part of the consistent and comprehensive process that we believe is required.”