Chittenden County Transportation Modeling

 

2008 Model Update RFP Questions and Answers

The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization issued a Request for Proposals on January 25, 2008 for consultant services to update the Regional Transportation Demand Model. Below is a list of questions and answers received from consultants interested in submitting proposals. Questions will be accepted until February 15, 2008.

---

1. What is the project budget?

CCMPO has identified $30,625 for consultant assistance this fiscal year (through June 2008) to initiate work on this project. This project will continue into the 2009 fiscal year (starting July 1, 2008), at which time additional funds will be available to the project. However, CCMPO may not be able to provide enough funds to complete all the desired tasks in the scope of work. For this reason specific components of the model scope may be eliminated to reduce the total project cost. We are requiring the use of a cost proposal template which will clearly identify the costs for each task. This information will be used to develop the contract budget if elements from the scope included in the RFP are eliminated due to budget concerns.

 

2. The RFP indicates that delivery of NHTS data is expected in the summer of 2008. If delivery is delayed, how will this affect the scheduled project completion date of November 2008?

If the NHTS data is delayed, then the project completion date would be extended to ensure this data is available for use in the model update. Depending on the schedule of the NHTS data, the MPO may request the consultant examine the project workplan to allow other aspects of the update to move ahead so the the parameters related to the NHTS data can be inserted when it becomes available. Changes to the completion date would be determined by mutual agreement of the CCMPO and consultant.

 

3. There are some speed data in the ccmpo_aadt database. Are there any other speed data available? Are any efforts planned to collect additional speed data in 2008 independent of this contract?

The MPO is not aware of any other large sources of speed data available. VTrans has some data for state highway facilities and local municipalities may also have a limited amount of data. There are no specific speed data collection efforts planned independent of the Model Update contract, but the MPO does have summer transportation technicians available who may be able to provide limited data collection assistance. The current speed data available is almost all based on Automatic Traffic Recorder information collected at a single point on a roadway.

The MPO is interested in hearing from consultants whether other sources of data, such as corridor travel time studies, might be more beneficial in developing accurate estimates of pollutant emissions. If corridor travel times or other data collection techniques are recommended, then the scope and cost proposal should include this work. The MPO may negotiate with the selected consultant to provide CCMPO technician assistance to reduce expenses or eliminate this task if costs appear prohibitive.

 

4. Under Task 6, the RFP says that a CCRPC memo on their land use forecasting methodology is posted on the MPO’s website. I am not finding it, could you please tell me where this information is available ?

The RPC memo is included on the version 2.3.0 model distribution DVD - you should be able to find it here:
[DVD_Drive]:\Land Use Input Files\20070110_CCRPC_Household_Employment_Forecast_method.pdf

Also included in the same folder is supporting documentation for the regional forecasts.

 

5. Page 7 of the RFP in the Financial Forms section lists Standard Form 254. The RFP also provides a link to the CCMPO website where the newer Standard Form 330 is listed instead. Could you please advise us as to which form you would prefer?

The Standard Form 254 referred to in the RFP is the older version of the Federal Standard Form for Architects and Engineers and has been replaced by Standard Form 330 listed on the CCMPO RFP website (look for the link on the bottom of the page). We would prefer SF 330, but either form would be acceptable to us if you have already completed form 254.

 

 

last updated February 15, 2008