Res No. 120-18 --- .
RESOLUTION NO. 120-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH,
FLORIDA APPROVING A PIGGY-BACK AGREEMENT WITH
MERCURY ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PERFORM A
COMPREHENSIVE FLEET ANALYSIS; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND
TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THIS
AGREEMENT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, the City of Delray Beach ("City") is authorized to enter into agreements to provide
services,programming and products in accordance with its Charter;and
WHEREAS,the City owns approximately 550 vehicles and equipment and the Fleet Maintenance
Division is responsible for the maintenance of these vehicles and equipment.
WHEREAS,the City wishes to perform a comprehensive analysis of the City's fleet management
operations and development of specific recommendations toimprove operational efficiencies,maximize
use of available resources and position the fleet organization to become a leading provider of fleet
management and maintenance and repair services.
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with Mercury Associates, Inc. utilizing
an existing contract and pricing provided to the City of Boynton Beach,pursuant to its solicitation number
RFP 017-2510-18/IT for Comprehensive Analysis—Fleet Operations.
WHEREAS,the City Commission deems approval of this Resolution to be in the best interest of
the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and citizens of the City of Delray Beach and the public at
large.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DELRAY BEACH,FLORIDA,AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and ratified.
Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Delray Beach has reviewed and hereby
approves this Agreement between the City and Mercury Associates, Inc. which is attached to this
resolution as Exhibit A.
Section 3. The City Commission authorizes the City Manager to execute the Agreement and
jany amendments and/or renewals thereto, and take any other actions necessary to effectuate this
Agreement.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED in tegulat session on the, ° "L'
day o.
f � ��.<�.��,..,�,�.�,��^ ,2018.
A r ST: ���o� �"��� .�.....�. M A '� O R
w
Katerti Johnson,City Clet
p v form sufficiency:
Max Lo , City Attorney
i
{1
l
i
i
I
� l
i
i
l
i
i
l
I,
2
MASTER CONTRACTOR/SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Delray Beach, a Florida
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), whose address is 100 NW 1St Avenue,
Delray Beach, FL 33444 and Mercury Associates, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, (hereinafter
to as " Florida, whose address is 7361
Calhoudn Place, Suter 680r )Rocky Rockville, 20855, this c 1-ig� day of w'.�" ��'r°N ;�
2018.
WHEREAS, the City desires to procure certain services from Contractor, utilizing
existing contract prices provided to the City of Boynton Beach, pursuant to its solicitation
number RFP 017-2510-18/IT for Comprehensive Analysis — Fleet Operations; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with solicitation number RFP 017-2510-18/IT, the City of
Boynton Beach entered into an agreement with Contractor for services effective upon contract
execution (the "Boynton Beach Agreement," attached hereto as Exhibit A) and will remain in
effect until completion of project; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase services from Contractor with both parties
hereto being bound to the same terms, conditions, and pricing provided in the Boynton Beach
Agreement as if"the City" in the Boynton Beach Agreement were referring to the City of Delray
Beach, subject to any modifying terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City's Purchasing
Policies and Procedures as referenced in the Code of Ordinances, and Florida law, including
the City's opting herein to obtain and pay for those optional project components 2 and 3 set
forth in Contractor's Proposal that resulted in the Boynton Beach Agreement (such Contractor
Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, the Contractor agrees to extend the terms, conditions, and pricing
contained in the Boynton Beach Agreement to the City, subject to any modifying terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration of which the parties hereto acknowledge, the parties
agree as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. Except as otherwise specifically modified herein, the Contractor shall provide to
the City the services identified in the attached Exhibits A and B, in accordance with and
pursuant to the same terms, conditions, and pricing set forth therein.
3. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to terminate this Agreement with
or without cause with ten (10) days advance written notice to Contractor. Upon termination,
the Contractor shall not incur any additional costs under the Agreement for services performed
by Contractor after the termination date. The City shall be liable only for, and will promptly pay
to Contractor, Contractor's fees and costs for services provided pursuant to this Agreement
prior to the date of termination.
4. The Contactor certifies that the price and rate represents the lowest price and
rate for the products and services of any contract between the Contractor and any other
governmental entity within the State of Florida.
5. Paragraph 8 of Exhibit A is revised, with respect to its applicability to the parties
hereto, to read as follows:
"Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its
offices, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims,
losses or liability, or any portion thereof, including fees and costs,
arising from 1) injury or death to persons, including injuries, sickness,
disease or death to Contractor's own employees; 2) damage to
property occasioned by a negligence act, omission or failure of the
Professional or 3) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the
performance of the agreement by the Contractor or its employees,
agents, servants, partners, principals, or subcontractors."
6. Whenever either Party desires to give notice to the other, such notice must be in
writing, sent by certified United States Mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or sent
by commercial express carrier with acknowledgement of delivery, or by hand delivery with a
request for a written receipt of acknowledgment of delivery, addressed to the party for whom it
is intended at the place last specified. The place for giving notice shall remain the same as set
forth herein until changed in writing in the manner provided in this section. For the present, the
Parties designate the following:
For CITY:
City of Delray Beach
100 N.W. 1st Avenue
Delray Beach, Florida 33444
Attn: City Manager
For CONTRACTOR:
Mercury Associates, Inc.
7361 Calhoun Place, Suite 680
Rockville, Maryland 20855
Attn: Tony Yankovich, Senior Manager
7. Neither this Agreement nor any right or interest herein shall be assigned,
transferred, or encumbered without the written consent of the other Party.
8. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the City of Delray Beach's
Code of Ordinances, the laws of the State of Florida and any applicable federal laws. Any
dispute relating to this Agreement shall only be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction in Palm
Beach County, Florida, and each of the parties to this Agreement submits itself to the
jurisdiction of such court.
9. IF THE CONTRACTOR HAS QUESTIONSREGARDING THE
APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 119, FLORIDA T TUT , TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S DUTY TO PROVIDE U LIC RECORDS RELATINGT
THIS AGREEMENT, CONTACT TH CUSTODIAN OF PUBLIC RECORDS AT
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, CITY CLERK, 100 N.W. 1sT AVE., DELRAY BEACH
FLORIDA. THE CITY LERK'S OFFICE MAY BE CONTACTED Y PHONE AT
561-243-7050 OR VIA EMAIL AT
CITYCLERK@-MYDELRAYBEACH.COM.
Contractor shall comply with public records laws, specifically to:
i. Keep and maintain public records required by the City to perform the service.
ii. Upon request from the City's custodian of public records, provide the City with
a copy of the requested records or allow the records to be inspected or copied
within a reasonable time at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in
Florida Statute or as otherwise provided by law.
iii. Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from
public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized
by law for the duration of the Agreement term and following completion of the
Agreement if the Contractor does not transfer the records to the City.
iv. Upon completion of the Agreement, transfer, at no cost, to the City all public
records in possession of the Contractor or keep and maintain public records
required by the City to perform the service. If the Contractor transfers all public
records to the City upon completion of the Agreement, the Contractor shall
destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and
exempt from public records disclosure requirements. If the Contractor keeps
and maintains public records upon completion of the Agreement, the
Contractor shall meet all applicable requirements for retaining public records.
All records stored electronically must be provided to the City, upon request
from the City's custodian of public records, in a format that is compatible with
the information technology systems of the City.
V. If the Contractor does not comply with this section, the City shall enforce the
contract provisions in accordance with the contract and may unilaterally
cancel this contract in accordance with state law.
10. Contractor is aware that the Inspector General of Palm Beach County has the
authority to investigate and audit matters relating to the negotiation and performance of this
contract, and may demand and obtain records and testimony from Contractor and its
subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors. Contractor understands and agrees that in
addition to all other remedies and consequences provided by law, the failure of Contractor or
its subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors to fully cooperate with the Inspector General
when requested may be deemed by the City to be a material breach of this Agreement justifying
its termination.
11. The continuation of this Agreement beyond the end of any fiscal year shall be
subject to both the appropriation and the availability of funds in accordance with Florida law.
12. The documents listed below are a part of this Agreement and are hereby
incorporated by reference. In the event of inconsistency between the documents, unless
otherwise provided herein, the terms of the following documents will govern in the following
order of precedence:
a. Terms and conditions as contained in this Agreement.
b. Terms and Conditions of the Boynton Beach Agreement (Exhibit A) substituting
City of Boynton Beach with City of Delray Beach throughout.
C. Contractor's response to solicitation number RFP 017-2510-18/IT as well as the
terms and pricing relating to optional project components 2 and 3 set forth in
Exhibit B.
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Contractor executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: Cl�&F' ��LRAY B H
yli
By:
Katerri Johns n, City Clerk Shelly Petrolia, "Yor
Apprqyed, 0 m and � ufficiency:
R. Mox Lohms (to Attorney
CONTRACTOR
By:
Print Name: FAU4,—( U'Nugj A
Title: f g'wl o'etj
(SEAL)
STATE OF <STATE>
COUNTY OF <COUNTY>
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 04'h day of t,�Mhcr 20/8,
by Pao 1 -7 1 LrA L)r;a- , as Prz-sl con-F (name of officer or agent, title of officer
or agent), of Plarc-orSociaILWLc- (name of corporation acknowledging), a
_PjcjrjZ faf-i c) (state or pl6ce of incorporation) corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He
/ She is personally known to me or has produced -LkA5cvia1fV k-dcaZo (type of
identification) as identification.
Diane Made Thainas
NcAau,y Public
Frederick C AV Notary Public- State of <state>
Marylarid
orninissionE,xp=1r@* ( he remainder of this page intentionally left blank)
L..,---J2-`18 9,2
EXHIBIT A
jr k 4Y ,i2Ge Aav✓.w^sa ( �i a.E,.>f¢ G� „;,i`n,st" wr 4<d:
e�t f-3 O r i�f@ e b, iF si ,,, f e f 1 ff-. �^�d4 �a kj �4i k 4 t
.,ay L,,x� ,5w,s'�x� .��".,�:(!,.tr�.,�.d� td 2lh �. �� n ..s�:"g .� ,�.�c� .}}g�rA�$,Z` � �,..,ik��r�r'��,
v
THIS AGItimal-- ENT Is Britr d rr°rtrr between the C141 of BoyMon Reseft,iror lrr ttor referred to as
"tho City', and r itfy., tt �r�n � �d i.Ili horelr't ilea Warred to gra "PROFESSIONAL", In
rr nsidar°rrtiorr of the mutual b rietriar,forms, aml candtflons har Arra tlor spairified.
i. i r.,a't` E I Wi 1 , Tha Proffiselonal it r atainad by h City t r r °t prof° ��ri i
r c e In rime tin witty the ia` FO �COMP UIE ISIIVE ANALYSIS -- FLEET
0115WI NS;RFP I&L,. W-2510-181ffI
. SCOPE OF r-56110ES, Firm agrees to pros r riro the r r i t Idoriffied In gnctlan ti._,,Stupe
f Seyvices and aftached har to as Exhibit A.
. TIME FOR E FOR r E. Work under this agreennent shall commence rr wrKtan
noUca by th@ Chy to theFIE I NA.t,to iroceed. PROFESSIONAL shall perform all
servicasand pWde 9JI work pnxitlet required pur*uwd to this putter upon written nonce
to proceed.
TERM:This Agreement shah oommence upon awardby City Commission.
. PAYMENT: The City iII pay the PROFESSIONAL,the fees as rr t fakth In Exhibit E, Foal
and Paymento,which Is Wachod horeto and made a pare hereof.
Thade fees will be paid by than C4 for comploted work and for sawle s mndered under this
agrearnent as V llows,not to exened$42,200.00
Payment for 9h rtc provided by PROFESSIONAL shall be made promptly on all involcms
submitted to the City properly,ly, r icl d that firs total amount of payment t
PROFESSIONAL shall not exceed the latal contmat price without exp=9 writtan
modification rat the Agreement signed by the City Mmiager or her designea.
b, `t"lie PROFESSIONAL may aubrnit invoices W the Cky once per month during the ryes
of the work for partial prrymant for I t oornplated to date, Such invoices will be
reviewed by the Ckyarid upon approval the riff, payment will be made to the
PROFESSIONAL In the arriount approved.
c, Final payrnont of any bulanos duo the PROFESSIONAL of the total contract prke earned
r lfl be madmada promptly upon its ascartainmerd and verffication by the Cftyafter the
°rpErtion of ths woik ander this Agreement arid Its acceptance by tits City.
d, Payment as provided In thle astAlonthe City shall Pie full compensation for Worlt
performed, rico rendered and for all rnaWdalw, supplies,equipmarg endincidantals
necessary to carapWtsthe work.
. The PROPESSIONAUGrd nd eanounts pailaining to t le vgraerrierA era to be I pt
avallable for Inspedlon by reprewfttivea of the City and State for a pedod of th )
years after the termination & the Agreement, COP . shall be mods available upon
request
OWNERSHIP AND EE OF DOCUMENTS. All document , ftwIngs, speefficsUons and
cAher materiele produced by the Firm In connedion with the rvirendered ander this
Agroament sheill be ft property of the City whaftir the project for vAilch thoy are made I
Wracutfid or noL The Firra shall ba WmIftedretain copies, Inckiding reproducible copies,
of i tc and npecifloations or hWarmallon, refamnee and use In connedon with Rrm's
endeavm.
7. COMPLIANCE WITH " l rofas ional shall,In.perrorming the services r emp ed by
is Agresmnt faithfully obsorve and comply with all fedeml,MWe and laval Ims,oanances
and regulaffonB that are applicable to the servicas to be rendered underthqperneriL
& INDEMNIFICATION. Profa clonal shall Indamnify, defend and hold homliss the City, its
offices,a and employees,from and against any and all clalrns,lome or liability, or any
parlion thereof, Including es and costs, arlaing f m Injury or death persons, Including
Injuries,alckness,dianase or death to Professional'& em os,or damage to property
a &® slo a negligent act,orrrlssion ortiluro of Me PvufaesiorvaL
. INSURANCE. he Prof clonal shall secure and maintain in force throughout the dumflon of
this contract comprohenelve general floWilly Insurance with a minimum covmUe
$1,000,000 proccu a $1,W0,000 a00re me forpersonal h4uryyi and$1,0W,000 per
occur ens a0 rag to for property damage,and prolegslonal liability Insurance n in the amount
of$1,000,000 per occurivnce to$2,000,000 aggmgata with defense coals In addition to lints
workeW compensation Insurance,and vehicular Ilablifty Insurance.
Said (joneral Wilily policy shall nente the City of Boynton Eknch as an "additional named
Insured"and shall Include a pmWelon prohlbitlr 0 oncellation of said policy except upon thirty
(W)days.prior written notlea to the City" CerflfloateB of covenigs os requirad by thla soollan
shall be delivered to the City within fft.en(10)days rrr on of this agraemant
rofeselonal Lla l y(Errare &C rnls lops) Inscr I Liability Insurance
tho Urnits of flablilly pruvIded by such policy for each dalm and on a claim mada boals or on
an accurrence basis to be no less then one million Dollars ($1,000,000) occurrence with
a limit of no leas than Kw million dollars($2,000.000)a00 ata wfth a deductible per claire
not to exceed n pe (10%)of the limit of liability®Consultant shall n tho City In writing
titin thirty ( 0)days of any olalrn filed or made against Its ProWelonal 1.1ablifty Insurance
Policy. Conpultant acknowledges that tho City Is relying on tho competence of the Conaullent
to design the project to moot Its functlwal InteriL If It In determined during n o on of the
project that ages must ba rte to on ultont'o nagligent errors and ornissions,
Consultant shall promrAly reft them at no cast to City and shall be responsible for additional
coate, if arty, of the projnd to the proportional extant caused by such neglWant errors or
omissions
10. INDC-PENDENT CONTRAC7011The Professional and the City agree diet the professional
Is art Indep9ndent contractorwith rasped to the servicesprovided pursuant to thio agrearnent.
Nothlrqj In this agreem6nt shall be wnsidered to create the relationship of employer and
employee between the parties hereto. Neier Professional nor any omployes of ProfeBalonsl
shall ba anifflad to any benefits accorded City employees byArtue of the servicee pm1ded
ander this agreement.T shell not ba vampansible forwhhholding or othermse deducting
fedeml Income tax or social socurfty or for contdbuting to tha state IndwArlal Insurarme
pmgmam, otherwise vasuming ft dufles of an employar vdih reapeat to ProfaslanA or any
employee of Prafassional.
11.COVENANT AGAINIST CONTINGENT FEES, 'rho Professional werrarft that he has not
employed or ratalned ony company or person,tither than a bons fW o working solely
for the Profeselonal. to solidtor secum thrs contract and fhat he has not paid or agreed to
pay any wmpany or person, other thea o to fide orhployes worldrig solely for the
Prafaisalonal, any fae, commission, parcentage, brokarage foe, gift, or any o am
consideration contingent upon or reauking ftom the award or mmking of this contract,
For breach or violation of this r r , the City shall have the right to annul this contract
withoutIlaWky or, In its discretion to deduct from the contract Mce or conalklaration, or
othervAss recover,the ful afficunt of such foo, commledon, perceninga, bmicerage fee, gift,
r confingent fee.
1 . DISCRIMINATION til I . 'the Professional, With mgard to the wodc pedarmad by It
under this agreement, MR not discrirninate on the grounds of race, Color, national otin,
religion,oread, We,so.-or tha presenceany physical or sonsory handicap In the seledlon
and r tarn n of arrtployeas or procurement of taaateriale or supplies.
13. ASSIGNMENT. The Professional shall not sublet or assign any of the sarvion oovared by
this A raerrtent vNioul the express written conaant of the City.
14. NONMAIVER. Walvar by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time RM1,186on
provided for In this res ent shall not conEtiluts a waiver of any other provision.
15. TERMINKnON.
a. "rhe C"Ity raservae the dart to torminate this Agreement at any time by giving ton
(1 0)Jaya Witton n Wes to the Prof anal,
be In the event of the death of a member, partnar or offloor of the Prdassional, or any of
its supsrAsary personnal assigned to the projaok, the sunifying meant -lie
Prafavolonal hareby agree to comrftte the work undar the terms of this Agreament, if
mquested to do so by the City, This section shall not be a bar to mnagollations of this
reemont between murviving members of the Professional sional and the City, ifCity so
cit s&
16. DI , Any disputes that arlea katvman the partles with respect to the parfannencaof
thla Agreement,wh1oh cannot be resolved through negolliations,shall be submitted to a court
of wnipatent] lolion in Point Beach County,Morlds. This Agreement shall be oonstrued
under Moria Law,
17 NariCEG. Notices to thislk!of Boyntoneach small he sant to the fbilowing a ss:
rl LeVardera,City Manager
City of Boynton Goach
p. m Box sio
Boynton Beach, FL 1
Notices to p nsMonal shall be sent to the folio In. addr so:
or° t,y. rtao�° ta, lr�er: ,
'/Sol Calhoun l Iaoe4 Suite ago
�q
Po kvIlla,MD
pp 2.t
Mires ep °m Lawl , idnYa
18, iNTEMAGREEMENT, vl`hia a reemsid$ together with rtftchrnort. or addande,
reprmnta the arvUre and Integrated agreemant.baMen ft City and the Professional and
supomades all prior negotidons, rqnsentaflona, or agrearriants vhftn or oral. This
agreement may be smanded only by witten Instrument stn ed by both City and Pmfesclonal.
10. PUBLIC RECORDS. Rented dootnents rac&Wd by tho City In response to an InyMon are
exempt fi-am public records dkolasure unill thidy(30)days after the opening of the Bid unims
the City onnounces Intent to award sooner,In aecordance vAth Florida Statutes I M07.
The City. Is publio age noy subject to Chapter I 10, Ficidda Statutm. 'rho Conkoctor shall
oomply vAth Floridas Public Records Low. Specifically,the Contractor shall:
A. Keep and maintain public,re required by the CITY to pedorm the wi&e;
13. Upon request from the CSI "s custodian of public records,provide ft MY vAth a copy
of the requoEted rewrils or all the rocards to be Inspected or copied Wthin a
ressonabla time at a at that does not e the cost pmvIdad In chapter i 19, Fla.
Stat.or as athetwisse provided by low,
0. Ensure Mat publio rawrds thsAt are axewnpl at that are confident1w and exempt from
public r6cord diseftura r6quirements are hot disclosed exeApt as author by law for
the duration of the contact tar rd and,follovAng complation of the contract, Cordractor
shall deatray all copies of such ora dentias and exempt records remaining in Ito
possewlan an the Cordraotor trmufem the recards In Its possaaalon to the CITY,and
D. Upon completion of tho contract, Contractor shall tffinsfar to the CITY, at no cost to the
CITY,all public records In Conbutoes pmession All records starad electronically by
Contractor must be provided to the CITY, upon requigat from the CnYs watodlen of
public records,In a format,that Is compatible with the Intaffnation technology systerfle of
the CITY.
"Ll PUBLIC,
dtd
�',Jt%. "'IN YN, i 10A..
TJ, U MA, OF
111`11111'1111`, Lie 11, 1 C111.1.113M I A
4
TED OtisAt!c"ay
CITY OF BOYNTON
Lori I ACRy Manager
ate t ti �m 4A A
... .....a
Wo
'I'l -44 , (Corporate I)
Jud 1 , y IPA-
v t AfteaVAuUmnficated,
�..va m I iii his
S
The Geope of Waric is to be awed a as general guldo and Is not Ided to be an all-
Inu.UWva flat of ilia steps nea.essary for complallng thlo study. 'rho follow am work tasks
aseumed to be necessmyfor pmparIng the analysis,reports,rewmmandations and action
plans ctescribed above.
The Consultant chall partoffn the fall Ing tasks through review of repoft, nmords and
exleflng datma, on-site tours acrd observatiam, masting. discuselons, department survoys
and Into w1wwa,r groups and other assessynarit tools:
1. PmJ60. Dsv6lopment Plart — Based on a thorwUh understanding of the purpoaa,
abjeotivw,and rscopa;the Conaultant will subrnit the folinvving for approval,
A. Schedule—Consultant YAll subtaft a Can chart(or equlvalenQ lisfing the project
milestones and th6 number of days reclulmd for each.
B.
or Plan — Consultant it submit an oxecWlve surnimary that provides
details/explanation of eAch of ft milestonas listed In the Schadulm
2. Fleet Analyala—Anticipated taska Include, bui are not 11mRad tw.
A. Survey, irdforview,and evAlixto the City's Reat Maintenance Department for
i) Lavals of training,ceitificatiom Gnd decisions maM authority.
2) Experience, lavals of knowladgeo smile, training, onOwilon, abliftles, asW-I
go staffing levels.
3) Evaluellon of hierarchy.
B. Perform onalls visits,obseive and evalu0a:
1) Fleet maintenonce prmnsem and procedures
2) Fueling processes, du s, locations, oondiflons, equIpmont, serAirity,
Nafety,at
3) Management of paris 2nd equipment ueed for maintenance Wrallons
Including security
4) Management and d1sposal of%%%to materials
C. Analyze and ovWuate existing fleal management program, proafte and cost
savings, as of focus include,but are not limited to:
1) ProvenUve maintenance programe and compliance levels
2) Madianic ataftg lavd,labor rate and produc4ft analysis
3) Maintenance and repair faclifflas
4) ContraoWd sanAaaeloperatiris
5) Stomroom and parts savlass
6) EnvlronmenW beat pmrAcw
7) Hurricane Reparation
0) Vehide acqulaftiono
9) ft"and secuflty
10)Fueling sera ces
11)Customer service
12)Pool vehides
13)SW training
D. Evaluate kind audit the enterpdoe furRYchargebadsc systern:
i) Crout o char geback rate development that can fluctuate yearly,
t"uaAssess 1he usa and n of.,
11) Wormation systams and atherischnolog6s
2) Pleat equipment nesda
S. Prepare a mport that
A, Analrzw findings and toren chmit arl(apInat best pmetices
RL Determines the UVe cost of uervicas and compare to industq#benchmarks.
CMake recommandatin s that Will improve operations and reduce costm
D. Ideritify and assess possible berflars and wmalraints to racammandations.
E. Recorarnend slyz 6rid configuration d a fleet mainterni ance facility that would bast
sulled for ft City of Boynton Seg ch taking Into ecoount two posBible u4nWou:
i) r-6MMaIntfamance reffisins atIts current kvAntion,or
2) A now Flet Maintenance Facility is rairitrucWd at the Railing Grarans site.
F. Rocornmend implamentatioret plan inclutfing preliminary bud
"1mmConsultant, based upon site visits, experience, absetvatlons, Inknvian, surveys,
mearch,analysis and findings shall pr rd the fbilowing,
,1. Preliminary mporl(5 bound coplas and a PDF flis)for staff review detailing tha
Cky's Float Usret agarnant Proomm booelines,the Consultrinfe arvilysis,findings,
recorn-mandations,possNa bwflam,Implaimritation tha*amo,Md eallarstad
cwtalbanahts. '17he mport f3hall Include an Itemized anabs and ilmefraw
estimates to kn&mane nt Connuftent's rawrnmendanti ret s.
2. Meet with CW&Project Manager,no necessary to ralew City comments and
Incorporate tapplicable tmmmants.
& Provitla dmft thial report for revlaw by the City;upon review addreas cornmente
and co=rna leading to a praswitailon of a final report.
4. Submk final tapart with exeouM aurdmary(20 bound copies).
Eor
N
R-0158 AID PAYlVjElT
a1�= s G"1.✓,� busy(d +f �,��sa�>4 �'�.s,`;i1 A �Eii L$Y4ii,s`, '---I
3 f Z.) ME.
Ah3i'a
oeE �1S
eoJd�2*;&�
S�
EXHIBIT B
f,
Proposal i
RFP ® 017-2510-18/ITt
to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of
Fleet Operations
the
,a
May 2018
MERCURY
�1��2� /�iJ��illN'al` ��� i rYlf111/��y/11r1r'JY1�f1'gWya�9G
�G�l�� Ynllll�� rl/l� /�l�llla�ill�n�%JO/YiN�Ifi/Yip
�,;����^� //��riy l �4� rkN,�yi�YrUdi�f/ruotur��!r�i�✓rhr��w
C,u�a/�lF,ilwn , /flY r�tglMF�aAil1'�r%i>"dr(rriri�N��7rlillJ!
�1'i���l�/��/��✓ '�� a �i�(2�Ni/��>�W!/G+i�i�F���/rlblullta�eP����i��%�
'�akPf/�"r�n�f✓�l'/+J/�l�lAyli�l�ll aF i Pdlv'%e"(id�Al(ci��f
lr�fJJ`lIIOYDIU/ rr(r�Ol� -
1
t
E
ASSOCIATES, I
s t t s
COI
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
TABLE T T
TAB 1: COVER PAGE AND INTRODUCTION LETTER................................................. 1
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE......................................................................4
CLIENTREFERENCES ..............................................................................................6
TAB 2: UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOLICITATION ..................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS ..............................................................................9
WORKPLAN ...............................................................................................................9
DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTIONS........................................................................... 12
OPTIONAL TASKS WITH TASK DESCRIPTIONS ................................................... 18
TAB3: PROJECT TEAM............................................................................................... 32
TAB 4: PROJECT APPROACH & SCHEDULE............................................................. 35
APPROACHTO THE PROJECT...............................................................................35
PROJECTSCHEDULE .............................................................................................38
TAB5: COST PROPOSAL............................................................................................ 40
TAB 6: REQUIRED FORMS
APPENDIX
LIST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIENTS, 2013-PRESENT
PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
TAB ® COVER PAGE AND INTRODUCTION
Proposal to Conduct a Comprehensive Analysis of
Fleet Operations
RFP No.: 017-2510-13/IT
For
h
B(�fl%' a ii lJllli!�r/ii ��
�j��1�1� uar������i��r,✓rr�1i
i��fr�l�✓�!%� s'��i1n���(rlUllG�rr�fiq�°
X ��Jurp-
a�r
1011
Submitted
Mercury Associates, Inc.
7361 Calhoun Place, Suite 680
Rockville, Maryland 20355
www.mercury-assoc.com
301 -519-0535
Proposal
Mr. Tony Yankovich, Senior Manager
913-563-5337
tyankovich@mercury-assoc.com
May 29, 2018
1
May 28, 2018
Consultant Selection Committee
City of Boynton Beach Finance/Procurement Services
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Dear Selection Committee Members:
Mercury Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct a Comprehensive
Analysis of Fleet Operations for the City of Boynton Beach, FL. As the largest dedicated
fleet management advisory firm in North America, we are confident that the City will not
find a better-qualified firm than ours to assist it in developing and implementing sound
and practical recommendations and plans for improving its fleet management practices
and the performance and costs of its fleet.
Mercury Associates, Inc. is a 16-year old Maryland corporation headquartered in
Rockville, a suburb of Washington, DC. As the largest dedicated fleet management
consulting firm in North America, we have the expertise and resources necessary to
successfully complete this project without the use of any subcontractors or other partners.
Our consulting services touch on virtually every facet of fleet management and operation,
ranging from broad-based assessments of fleet management organizational structures,
staffing levels, facilities and equipment, and business practices, to tightly focused
analyses of a single issue or opportunity such as "Can we reduce the size of our fleet?"
"What types of alternative fuel vehicles should we be adding to our fleet?" "Should we
lease or buy vehicles?", "Would a purpose-built fleet management information system
better meet our needs than a generic ERP or enterprise asset management system?" or
"How much space do we need for our fleet maintenance facility?"
We have extensive experience in evaluating fleet management business practices,
identifying cost reduction strategies and developing recommendations to improve the
management and maintenance of municipal fleet operations. Mercury is, by far, the most
experienced fleet management consulting firm in North America. Mercury has worked
with hundreds of municipal fleet operations since incorporating in 2002. In the last three
years, for example, we have worked with 227 clients. These have included organizations
such as the cities Alexandria, VA; Colorado Springs; Duluth, MN; Gresham, OR;
Jamestown, NY; Janesville, WI; Lincoln, NE; Long Beach, CA; Maricopa, AZ; Mount
Prospect, IL; Mountain Brook, AL; Oak Brook, IL; Olympia, WA; Palo Alto, CA; Phoenix,
AZ; Raleigh, NC; Salem, OR; and Wilmington, DE; among others. Some recent county
clients include Harford County, MD; Harris County, TX; Lane County, OR; Loudoun
County, VA; Prince William County, VA; Ventura County, CA; Wake County, NC; and
others. We have provided project references on the required forms.
Mercury Associates, Inc. - www.mercury-assoc.com
7361 Calhoun Place, Suite 680 - Rockville, MD 20855 - 301 519 0535
City of Boynton Beach Finance/Procurement Services
RFP No. 017-2510-18/IT
May 29, 2018
The following are the key strengths that distinguish Mercury Associates, Inc. from other
advisory services firms:
✓ Mercury is widely recognized as the leading fleet management advisory services
firm in the United States and is often asked to present topics at top industry
conferences and author articles in industry publications.
✓ Mercury has worked with more local government clients improving their fleet
operations over the last fifteen years than any other consulting group.
✓ Mercury is a fleet management consulting firm that devotes 100 percent of our
efforts helping organizations improve their fleet operations and have been doing
so for the past 15 years.
✓ We have the largest staff of fleet management consultants of any advisory services
firm in the U.S. and will not require the services of any sub-consultants or
partnerships with other companies to meet the requirements of the City's RFP.
✓ We offer the widest range of fleet management consulting services in the industry.
✓ Mercury is the only consulting firm that offers fleet management program advisory
services along with fleet maintenance facility space planning services.
✓ We develop solutions that are specific to each client that we serve. These solutions
are practical, defensible, executable, and measurable.
We continue to build on our trusted reputation, industry leadership and the services that
we offer to our global clients.
Our proposal will remain valid for a period of ninety(90) days after the date of bid opening.
We acknowledge receipt of RFP Addendum No. 1 dated May 1, 2018.
Mr. Tony Yankovich, Senior Manager, will serve as the primary point of contact at Mercury
for all matters relating to our proposal. He can be reached at tyankovich@mercury-
assoc.com and at 913-568-5837. We appreciate being given the opportunity to offer our
services to the City of Boynton Beach and look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
00
FA' AA4 .(I L^V.Ib t.�.
Paul T. Lauria
President
3
Proposal to Conduct
gg` Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
p Y p
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Company Overview
Mercury Associates, Inc. is a 16-year old Maryland corporation headquartered in
Rockville, a suburb of Washington, DC. We are a not a generalist management consulting
firm with a fleet management "practice" (among other larger practice areas), but rather
the largest dedicated fleet management consulting company in North America. Our
professional staff consists of 30 full and part-time employees, more than half of whom
were full-time professional fleet managers, primarily in municipal government
jurisdictions, prior to becoming fleet management consultants. This wealth of hands-on
experience, coupled with a single-minded focus on fleet management, helps explain why
Mercury has been retained by hundreds of clients in the last several years to assist them
with their fleet management practices.
Mercury's mission, simply put, is to help organizations improve the management and
operation of their vehicle and equipment fleets. Our company's experience and
"bandwidth" compared to that of any other consulting company that may respond to the
City's RFP also enables us to help our clients implement the recommendations we make.
Recent examples of implementation services we have provided to our clients include
developing a comprehensive fleet management policy and procedure manual (Capital
Regional District, BC); acquiring a new fleet management information system (Corpus
Christi, TX); developing an RFP for contract parts management services (Jefferson
Parrish, LA); developing a new fleet operating cost charge-back rate model (Palo Alto,
CA); and determining space and equipment requirements for a new fleet maintenance
facility (Fresno, CA). We take pride in our ability to assist our clients in following through
on our recommendations precisely because many of the recommendations in too many
other consultants' reports are never acted upon because they are impractical (no matter
how sound in theory) and/or because the client does not have the time or expertise to act
on them. And, in the case of a small two or three-person consulting firm, they simply do
not have the experience and resources to assist the organization in implementing their
recommendations.
Mercury has worked with a wide array of public and private-sector organizations around
the world — primarily in the United States and Canada and primarily with governmental
jurisdictions — with fleets ranging in size from fewer than 100 to more than 200,000
vehicles and pieces of equipment. For the US federal government, we have provided
services to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps; 13 of 16 executive branch
departments (Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation, State, etc.);
and the General Services Administration, NASA, the US Postal Service, and the
Smithsonian Institution. Our professionals have worked with one or more agencies in 33
state governments in the US and four provinces and territories in Canada, and with more
than 40 colleges and universities.
In the private sector, Mercury has provided consulting services to a diverse mix of large
and small companies. Recent corporate/commercial clients include 3M, Air Products, Bell
4
FA ,�
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Canada, Brinks, British Columbia Hydro, Carolinas HealthCare System, Cox Enterprises,
Cudd Energy Services, EPCOR, Gulf Stream Marine, Honeywell, Horizon Utilities, Intel,
Jarrett Fleet Services, Joerns-Recover Care, Johnson & Johnson, Lancaster Foods,
Pfizer, Republic Industries, Quanta Services, and Schindler Elevator.
Included in the appendix to this proposal is a table which lists approximately 100 city and
county government clients for whom Mercury has conducted fleet management
consulting projects in the last five years, and the types of consulting work we performed
for each. We are confident that the City will not find any other consulting firm that has this
much experience working with local government fleets.
Functionally, Mercury's consulting experience encompasses services touching on every
aspect of municipal fleet management, including:
® Comprehensive review and evaluation of fleet management resources
(organization structure, staffing, facilities, etc.) and policies, procedures, and
practices;
• Evaluation of inhouse vs. outsourced fleet maintenance and repair;
® Development of multi-year fleet management business plans;
• Development of fleet management policy and procedure manuals and associated
employee training programs;
® Development of programs of space requirements for new fleet maintenance and
repair facilities;
® Development of specifications and RFPs for the purchase of vehicles,
maintenance and repair (M&R) services, M&R parts management services, and
fuel and fuel management services;
• Conduct of fleet rightsizing and vehicle right typing studies for both general
purpose government and public safety (e.g., law enforcement) fleets of as many
as 56,000 vehicles and pieces of equipment;
• Development of annual asset usage guidelines by asset type and business
application for fleet utilization measurement and exception reporting;
® Development of asset own-versus-rent and own-versus-reimburse cost break-
even analyses;
® Conduct of benefit-cost studies of police department assigned vehicle and take-
home vehicle programs;
® Determination of optimal replacement cycles for numerous types of assets,
including passenger sedans; light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks; backhoe-
loaders; solid waste collection trucks; police patrol vehicles; ambulances; and fire
engines and ladder trucks;
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
® Development of multi-year fleet replacement plans that quantify future
replacement dates, purchase prices, and used vehicle sale (residual) values by
individual asset as well as by agency, fund type, and for a jurisdiction as a whole;
® Development of fleet modernization business case justifications that compare the
total cost of ownership of a fleet under modernization and status quo replacement
plans;
® Determination and comparison of the fiscal (budgetary) and economic (present
value cost) impacts of financing future fleet replacement costs under alternative
capital financing methods such as outright cash purchase, reserve fund, and tax-
exempt debt;
• Evaluation and optimization of fleet replacement reserve fund balances and rates;
® Evaluation and development of fleet operating cost charge-back systems, rate
models, and rates; and
® The determination of the near and long-term incremental capital and operating
costs of replacing conventionally fueled vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles,
including NGVs, PHEVs, EVs, propane vehicles, and E-85 vehicles.
CLIENT REFERENCES
In addition to providing the references on the required forms, we have provided the
contact information and brief project description below.
City of Duluth, IVIN
Fleet Services Division
Mr. Tom Anderson
2187304449
tanderson@duluthmn.gov
Mercury was engaged to conduct an independent assessment and analysis of the
operational efficiency of the City's fleet maintenance program. Fleet Services is
responsible for the management and maintenance and repair of nearly 900 vehicles and
pieces equipment. The fleet is diverse consisting of sedans, pickup trucks, dump trucks,
aerial ladder fire trucks, backhoes, asphalt pavers, trailers, etc. Specific areas studied
included organizational structure and staffing levels, shop productivity, parts inventory
management and control and performance measurement.
The study also included developing a comprehensive fleet replacement plan to quantify
fleet replacement funding requirements for a 20-year planning period and a
comprehensive fleet rightsizing study that identified an opportunity to eliminate 9 vehicles
from the fleet resulting in considerable cost savings and replacement cost avoidance.
Proposal to Conduct
frComprehensive Operations
� Com p Analysis Y � of Fleet p
City of Gresham, OR
Finance Department
Mr. Bernard Seeger
503 618 2373
Bernard.seeger@greshamoregon.gov
Mercury conducted a comprehensive review of the fleet management and maintenance
practices for the City of Gresham's fleet of nearly 500 vehicles and pieces of equipment
valued at $30 million in 2016. The objective of the study was to review fleet maintenance
practices to determine if the fleet organization was meeting best practices in the many
disciplines of managing and maintaining the fleet. Specific areas studied included
organizational structure and staffing levels, shop productivity, parts inventory
management and control, fleet replacement practices and performance measurement.
The study also included developing space requirements for a new fleet maintenance
shop. Subsequent to the initial study, the City engaged Mercury to assess the feasibility
of moving the fleet maintenance operation to a County fleet shop that had the potential to
house the City's fleet maintenance operation along with the County's fleet operation. This
study also included development of a potential shop layout that would accommodate the
City's needs.
City of Jamestown, NY
Fleet Management
Mr. Patrick Monaghan
716 483 7584
monaghan@cityofjamestownny.com
Mercury was engaged to conduct an independent assessment of the City's fleet
management and maintenance and repair program in 2017. The objective of this study
was to identify opportunities to make the delivery of fleet management services more
efficient and cost effective. Specific areas studied included organizational structure and
staffing levels, shop productivity, parts inventory management and control, fleet
replacement practices, performance measurement and other key elements of the fleet
program. The results of the study were provided in a detailed fleet report that discussed
current practices and identified opportunities for improvement. The City fleet was
comprised of 432 vehicles and pieces of equipment.
City of Janesville, Wl
Director of Operations
Mr. John Whitcomb
608 755 3110
whitcombj@ci.janesville,wi.us
Mercury was engaged to conduct an assessment of the City's Vehicle Operation
Maintenance (VOM) division. VOM is an operating unit of the Operations Division of the
Department of Public Works. The 8 VOM employees, with support from the Operations
Division, are responsible for the management, maintenance, and repair of 489 vehicles
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
ty
and pieces equipment. Another 121 vehicles and pieces of equipment are owned by City
departments but not managed or maintained by VOM. The fleet is diverse, ranging from
standard administrative sedans to complex aerial bucket trucks, and equipment, from
trailers to backhoes. The study included an assessment of all key components of the fleet
maintenance and repair program including organizational structure and staffing levels,
shop productivity, resource management, parts procurement and inventory control,
customer service, and other areas.
Village of Mount Prospect, IL
Public Works Department
Mr. Jim Breitzman
847 870-5640
jbreitzm@mountprospect.org
Mercury conducted an in-depth study of the feasibility of integrating various types of light-
and heavy-duty AFVs into the 230-unit fleet of this suburb of Chicago with a population
of 54,000. Our analysis included determining what types of conventionally fueled assets
in the fleet were operationally suitable for replacement with various types of AFVs,
including CNG and propane-fueled and hybrid-electric and electric vehicles, and
determining the incremental capital and operating costs of integrating suitable AFVs into
the fleet. Our cost analyses included identifying applicable grant programs that could be
used to offset vehicle acquisition and fueling infrastructure construction costs, and the
costs of accessing existing AFV fueling facilities in the vicinity of the Village. Mercury was
retained to conduct several follow-up consulting assignments focusing on fleet
replacement planning and the determination of optimal replacement cycles for key types
of vehicles and equipment assets in the Village's fleet.
City of Salem, OR
Human Resources Department
Ms. Mina Hanssen
503 589 2080
mhanssen@cityofsalem.net
Mercury Associates recently started a comprehensive assessment of the City's Fleet
Services Division. The study includes a review of organizational structure, staffing levels,
shop practices, customer service management, replacement planning, charge-back rate
development, and all other key elements of managing and maintaining the fleet. Fleet
Services manages a fleet of 1,500 vehicles and pieces of equipment.
� Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
TAB ® UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOLICITATION
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENT'S
The City of Boynton Beach, FL is seeking to engage a fleet management consulting firm
to conduct a Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations. The results of the study should
help the City improve operational efficiencies, maximize use of available resources and
position the fleet organization to become a leading provider of fleet management and
maintenance and repair services. This is consistent with the Fleet Maintenance Division's
Mission Statement; The Fleet Maintenance Division is committed to providing the highest
quality of service in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
The Study will include an evaluation of all key elements of the fleet program including
organizational structure, staffing levels, resource utilization, fleet governance,
performance, sustainability, fleet cost and financial management and use of technology.
Within the Fleet Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department, twelve positions
are charged with managing and maintaining nearly 650 assets at a single fleet
maintenance facility located at 222 NE 9th Avenue in Boynton. The Internal Service Fund
operation has a 2017/18 Adopted budget of$8.2 million ($3.1 million for operating costs
and $5.1 million for vehicle purchases). Revenues are generated from charges to other
departments for services provided, markup on goods and supplies sold, investments,
disposal of fixed assets and transfers from the General Fund and other Enterprise Fund
operations. It was estimated that 7,500 work orders were processed in 2016117 according
to the FY 2017-2018 Adopted Budget.
WORK PIAN
We propose to conduct a Fleet Management Practices Assessment to evaluate these key
areas. We have also identified additional optional tasks that the City may wish to consider
if a "deeper dive" is required or warranted after our initial review. The four components
(one base task and three optional tasks) of our proposed project approach are the
following.
1. Fleet Management Practices Assessment
The primary component of our proposed work plan is a comprehensive review and
evaluation of the City's fleet management practices that will identify opportunities for
improvement in all key functional areas of fleet management and operation, namely:
1. Fleet Governance
2. Asset Allocation and Utilization Management
3. Asset Acquisition and Disposal
4. Fleet Maintenance and Repair
5. Fleet Fueling and Fuel Management
.. A 9
Proposal to Conduct
r,
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
6. Fleet Replacement
7. Fleet Cost and Financial Management
8. Fleet Information Management
9. Fleet Management Resources
10.Customer Service
To cite but one example, a fleet management practice area that we will address in this
Assessment is Fleet Services' mechanic staffing requirements. Staffing needs are a
function of a myriad of factors including, to name a few of the more obvious ones, fleet
size, composition, utilization levels, and operating practices; asset selection and
procurement practices; asset replacement practices; customer service levels; insourcing
and outsourcing practices; maintenance facility location, size, layout, and condition; staff
recruitment, retention, supervision, and professional development practices; and, of
course, staff efficiency and productivity levels. The Fleet Management Practices
Assessment will touch on all of these factors.
As vehicle technology continues to advance, moreover, the City will need to either 1)
invest more in fleet management-related human capital (e.g., through greater use of
apprenticeship, training, and certification programs); 2) increase its reliance on third-party
service providers such as vendors and/or contractors; 3) replace fleet assets more quickly
so as to avoid having to deal with complex repair requirements; or 4) use a combination
of these strategies. Our evaluation of a variety of distinct but interdependent fleet
management practices in the Assessment will enable us to identify the best combination
of such strategies for the City to consider pursuing in the future.
2. Fleet Rightsizing Analysis (optional)
One of three optional study components we offer would focus on identifying specific
assets currently in the City's fleet that should be retained; reassigned to another
employee, organizational unit, or shared-use pool; replaced with a different type of asset;
or eliminated from the fleet altogether. Identifying opportunities to rightsize a fleet requires
a very different approach than does an evaluation of fleet management resources and
business practices. This component would entail an initial statistical analysis of
odometer/hour meter reading data aimed at identifying potentially underutilized assets,
followed by a Web-based survey of the users of the latter, and, finally, meetings with City
departments to establish agreement (to the fullest extent possible) on changes that
should be made to the size and composition of their fleets in order for them to effectively
and economically meet their fleet-related business needs if needed.
3. Fleet Replacement Analysis (optional)
The second optional component we offer is a detailed fleet replacement analysis which
would quantify future fleet replacement costs and funding requirements under various
alternative capital financing methods. An organization's fleet management practices and
resource requirements, fleet size and composition, and utilization levels are inextricably
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
'hJt
linked to its fleet replacement practices. An old fleet is more complicated, resource
intensive, and expensive to manage and repair than is a young one. A fleet undergoing
modernization requires mastery — by both maintenance technicians and
vehicle/equipment operators — of technologies that did not exist a decade ago. The
growing deployment and use of vehicle telematics solutions will transform the way fleet
owners like the City of Boynton Beach deploy, operate, utilize, and maintain fleet assets.
Generally speaking, the integration of alternative fuel vehicles into the City's fleet will
increase asset acquisition costs and reduce asset residual values—but may also simplify
fleet maintenance and repair requirements substantially.
For all of these reasons, the timely replacement (or lack thereof) of the City's fleet assets
will have a profound impact on many of the fleet management practices, strategies, and
resource requirements we will evaluate in the Fleet Management Practices Assessment.
The future timeliness with which the City replaces fleet assets will hinge, in large part, on
developing a sound understanding of average annual replacement costs, future peaks
and valleys in those costs, the pros and cons of alternative capital financing methods,
and the proper design of replacement rates for use with a replacement reserve fund.
In this optional study component, we would quantify the future replacement costs of the
City's fleet based on what we have found to be reasonable replacement cycles for the
different types of vehicles and equipment assets in a typical municipal government fleet.
At the City's option and for an additional fee, this could include modeling the costs of
replacing some conventionally fueled vehicles with commercially available, alternative
fuel variants of certain types of vehicles in the fleet. We will quantify and compare the
fiscal (budgetary) and economic (present value cost) impacts associated with replacing
the fleet in the future using different capital financing approaches such as buying versus
debt financing versus using a replacement reserve fund and charge-back system. This
analysis also would take into account the findings and recommendations of the fleet
rightsizing analysis if the City elects to have us conduct it.
4. Fleet Maintenance Facility Space Requirements Program (optional)
In this optional task, we would develop a detailed program of space requirements, space
adjacencies, and facility characteristics for a new fleet maintenance shop. The fleet
maintenance facility, the Workplace, should be adequately sized, suitably configured,
correctly equipped, and appropriately positioned. No amount of effort can fully overcome
facilities that are outgrown, disorganized, lacking in equipment, in the wrong place, and/or
on a site that is unsuitable. The most remarkable contributor to efficient and effective fleet
maintenance programs are the facilities.
We will draw on the results of the previous project components along with more than two
decades of fleet maintenance facility space programming and master planning
experience to develop a program of requirements for a new fleet maintenance facility for
the City.
W *
Proposal to Conduct
'r�ff'jJ Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Task 1: Fleet Management Practices Assessment
Task 1.1: Initiate and Manage the Project
We will start the project with a formal kick-off meeting whose primary objectives will be to
introduce the key members of the City and Mercury Associates project teams to one
another and to confirm both parties' understanding of key study parameters including but
not necessarily limited to project goals and objectives, scope, work plan, timeline, critical
success factors, and deliverables. We also will discuss logistical procedures such as key
points of contact and work location when members of our project team are on site in
Boynton Beach.
A key ingredient of an effective project management approach is periodic written progress
reports. We want to ensure that the City is afforded regular opportunities to discuss the
status of the project with us and to raise any questions or concerns relating to our
progress toward achieving its expected outcomes. To this end, we will submit a brief
progress report on a monthly basis, recapping the work accomplished to date. The written
progress reports will be integrated with our monthly invoices.
Task 1.2: Collect and Review Information
Prior to kicking off the Assessment, we will provide the Fleet Management Division (FMD)
with a written information request. This will identify the documentary material that we
would like to obtain to conduct the review. The checklist will be organized by functional
area of fleet management to be reviewed. If necessary, we can set up a cloud-based
SharePoint portal to facilitate the City's transmission of materials to our project team.
We will also request a detailed fleet inventory for all vehicles and equipment included in
this study. Examples of the quantitative data we will request for each asset include year,
make, model, serial number (VIN), City ID number, class code and description, user
agency name, in-service date, original purchase price/capitalized cost (for any leased
assets), life-to-date maintenance and repair cost, recent current meter reading and meter
reading date, utilization during the 12-month period, maintenance and repair costs during
the same period (broken out by in-house labor hours and costs, in-house parts costs, and
outside vendor charges), and gallons of fuel consumed during the same period.
Please note that our proposed level of effort (and budget) for this task assumes that the
City will be able to furnish these data to us using the Excel spreadsheet template that we
provide. It also assumes that these data will be substantially accurate and complete,
requiring minimal data scrubbing or normalization by our project team. While we do not
anticipate that this will be a problem, we do have consultants who can assist City
personnel in writing queries, extracting data, and cleansing data prior to analysis, if
necessary, for an additional fee.
OVA, '00 12
y Proposal to Conduct
;`'� Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
0,,00"
IJh��APir�.
We will request that FMD return a completed checklist with available documentary
materials. This way, we will have a clear record of what types of information were - and
were not- available for our use in conducting the study.
Examples of the materials we will request include:
® Pertinent sections of fleet management-related operating budgets and associated
actual expenditures for the last two fiscal years;
® Organization charts and personnel rosters;
® Position descriptions;
® Policy and procedure statements;
• Commonly used recordkeeping forms and management reports,
® Previously prepared consulting and/or audit reports; and
® Sample bid/proposal solicitation specifications, contracts and purchase order, and
supplier vendor invoices.
We will review all of the material and data provided in order to develop a preliminary
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current fleet conditions and
management and operating practices, as well as in mapping and evaluating fleet
management policies, procedures, and practices in a later task.
Task 1.3: Analyze Data and Benchmark Conditions and Performance
We will use the quantitative data collected in the previous task to begin the process of
analyzing current fleet-related conditions, costs, and performance levels in the City's fleet
operations. Analysis results will help us flag specific fleet management activities in which
opportunities for cost reduction and/or performance improvement appear to exist, which
we can then scrutinize during the process mapping and evaluation task of this study
component.
Subject to the availability of accurate and detailed data, we will calculate statistics for
current fleet management activities and the fleet for several key performance indicators
- quantitative measures of efficiency and effectiveness. We will interpret these statistics
by comparing them against recognized industry standards, benchmarks, and/or rules of
thumb, where available. Benchmarks will include, where applicable, information
developed from dozens of other municipal fleet management studies Mercury has
conducted. We will incorporate the results of our data analyses in the development of
findings and recommendations in specific areas of fleet management practice in the next
task.
Task 1.4: Evaluate Fleet Management Business Practices
We will review current conditions, resources, and business practices in several dozen
functional areas of fleet management and maintenance. The results of this evaluation will
- mT
4 13
tarp
��� Proposal to Conduct
011
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
serve as the foundation for developing specific recommendations for reengineering or
upgrading current organizational structures, staffing levels, infrastructure, and/or
business processes so as to reduce the costs and/or improve the quality and
effectiveness of both fleet management activities and the vehicles and equipment
themselves that comprise the City's fleet.
We will evaluate current practices using standard business process mapping and gap
analysis techniques aimed at first defining and then identifying strengths and weaknesses
in specific functional areas. We will utilize a detailed business process evaluation
checklist that we have developed and refined over more than 30 years of conducting best
management practices reviews to ensure the thoroughness of our review.
We will determine how processes currently are performed through a combination of
documentation review, employee interviews, focus group meetings, and site visits. In
doing this, we fully understand that the way City employees are supposed to perform
certain activities and the way they actually do so are not necessarily same. Thus, we will
assess the adequacy of both the definition, as expressed in regulations, rules, policies,
procedures, forms, etc. and the execution of fleet management processes in accordance
with these requirements and guidelines.
We will determine how well business processes are defined and executed by assessing:
1. Their intrinsic soundness (e.g., the clarity and logic with which they are
documented, the way they are communicated to employees, and the manner in
which they are enforced);
2. Their consistency with industry best practices, which we have observed, and in
many cases defined, through our project team's combined decades of professional
fleet management, consulting, public speaking, writing, and training experience;
and
3. Their results, as reflected in the quantitative measurement of costs and
performance levels in the previous task, and in the satisfaction levels of
management officials, fleet management employees, and fleet users.
In evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current fleet management practices, our
ultimate objective will be to advise the City as to how these practices can be improved.
Consequently, our evaluation approach will not seek to merely differentiate good
practices from bad, but to identify the factors unique to Boynton Beach-whether political,
organizational, managerial, operational, administrative, fiscal, technological, educational,
or other-that explain why some practices are strong and others weak. This will allow us
to develop recommendations for improvement that are not generic or academic in nature,
but of direct applicability to the needs, objectives, conditions, and capabilities of the City.
The fleet management business practices we will evaluate in this task, subject to
modification in consultation with the City, if necessary, during contract negotiation, include
the following:
IVID k-40-600, 14
AProposal to Conduct
r
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
w
ON
IMP
1. Fleet policies and procedures
2. Existence of standard operating procedures
3. Assets requirements definition
4. Shared/motor pool vehicle management and operation
5. Asset utilization measurement and exception management
=!:ii:ii;iiii:' iiii' ' ' i: i i ; ii 1: ing ME!
6. Purchase specifications development, bid solicitation, and asset/supplier
selection
7. Asset commissioning (including upfitting)
8. Asset decommissioning and remarketing/disposal
9. Preventive maintenance program design and execution
10.Work planning and scheduling
11.Service writing and job assignment
12.Technician supervision (i.e., authority) and work quality assurance
13.Warranty, recall, and campaign management
14.Supplier selection, purchase order/contract establishment, and performance
management
15.Inventory and ad hoc parts procurement
16.Inventory management and control
17.Disposal of obsolete parts, waste oil, and other waste materials
® -
18.Insourcing versus outsourcing determination
19.Vendor selection, purchase order/contract establishment, and performance
mane jement
20.Supplier selection and contract establishment
21.Bulk fuel procurement
111
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet
R Operations p Y
22.Bulk fuel inventory management and control
23.Fueling facility operation and maintenance
24.Commercial fuel transaction/credit card program management (if applicable)
•
25.Asset replacement cycle guidelines
26.Replacement planning
27.Replacement prioritization and budgeting
• • •
28.Fleet Services organization structure and staffing
29.Technician productivity
30.Employee training, certification and professional development
31.Maintenance and fueling facility locations, design, and condition
32.Shop equipment and tools
33.Facility housekeeping and maintenance
34.Fleet maintenance facility capacity and adequacy
35.Shop safety management
36.Emergency preparedness
37.Management information system functionality, configuration, and use
38.Management reporting and ad hoc management analysis
39.Fleet Services budgeting and expenditure control
40.Operating cost charge-back rate development (i.e., labor rate, markups, etc.)
41.Replacement rate development and customer billing (if applicable)
42.Customer satisfaction measurement
43.Fleet advisory committee establishment
Our evaluation of conditions and/or practices in each of the above areas will focus on
identifying opportunities to improve management and operating effectiveness and/or
reduce costs, as appropriate.
OWN
UA 16
` Proposal to Conduct
. �` Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Task 1.5: Develop Project Report
We will present our findings and recommendations to the City in a formal written report.
We will recap how we conducted the Fleet Management Practices Assessment, what we
found in terms of strengths and weaknesses of current fleet management conditions and
practices, and what we recommend the City do to improve fleet performance, reduce fleet
costs, and improve Fleet Services' efficiency and effectiveness. The report will also
include possible barriers to implementation, timeframe for implementation and estimated
costs and benefits. These will be provided based on our experience as fleet management
experts and our work with clients over the past 16 years.
First, we will organize and present our key findings and conclusions in a Preliminary
Report which we will deliver electronically (PDF) with up to five bound copies if required.
This Report will provide the City with the opportunity to validate the factual accuracy of
our findings and seek clarification, if necessary, on specific conclusions and preliminary
recommendations.
We will then proceed to the preparation of a revised Draft Report which will incorporate
feedback received from the City on the Preliminary Report and additional investigation or
evaluation performed by the Mercury team, if any, based on that feedback.
The Draft Report will be prepared in MS Word format. After providing an Executive
Summary, the report will present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for
improving fleet management practices in each of the functional areas of fleet
management outlined in Task 1.4 above.
We will submit the Draft Report electronically (PDF format) to the City for review and
comment. Our proposed level of effort assumes that the City will assume responsibility
for furnishing all formal feedback on the Report to us in a single redlined version using
MS Word's Track Changes tools or a single document that identifies specific issues or
requested changes. All changes will be considered.
We will prepare the Final Report by making revisions, as necessary, to the Draft Report
based on the written feedback received. The Final Report will include an executive
summary.
We will provide the City with up to 20 bound copies of the Final Report (if desired), along
with one copy in PDF file format.
j Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
OPTIONAL TASKS WITH TASK DESCRIPTIONS
Conduct a Fleet Utilization and Rightsizing Analysis (optional)
The goal of this optional component of the project is to ensure that City Departments have
the right types and quantities of vehicles and equipment to meet their current operating
and service delivery needs. In Component 1, we will examine vehicle allocation and
utilization management practices from a policy and process standpoint and analyze
odometer and hour meter reading data, where available, to determine if there are low-use
assets in the fleet that could be candidates for reassignment or disposal. In this optional
component of the project, we would conduct a "deeper dive" into fleet size and
composition, surveying the users of potentially underutilized assets using a Web-based
questionnaire, and making specific recommendations as to whether the assets
scrutinized should be retained as is, replaced with a different type of asset the next time
they are replaced, reassigned to another user, or sold immediately.
Task 2.1: Collect Data
We will begin by identifying any types of assets that the City wishes to exclude from the
rightsizing study. This typically includes marked law enforcement vehicles, other
emergency response/public safety vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks, and one-
of-a-kind units that are vital to City operations and cannot be rented commercially on an
as-needed basis.
We will then provide the City with a Microsoft Excel-based template to assist it in
assembling data we will require to analyze the utilization of and business need for the
remainder of the units in the fleet. These data include, by asset, VIN, license tag or other
unique City identification number, year, make, model, vehicle type, original purchase
price, in-service date, meter type (odometer or hour meter), recent meter reading, meter
reading date, usage (in miles or hours), maintenance and repair costs, and gallons of fuel
consumed in each of the two most recent calendar or fiscal years. Our proposed level of
effort and fees for this subtask are based on the assumption that these data will be
provided to us in a single Excel file in the format specified in the data collection template.
Task 2.2: Identify Potentially Underutilized Assets
We will perform statistical analyses of asset utilization data assembled in the previous
task. The purpose of these analyses will be to identify those assets in the City's fleet that,
based on available usage data, should be investigated for possible reassignment to an
existing or newly created motor pool, eventual replacement with a different type of asset,
or removal from the fleet either immediately or at the end of the service life of the current
asset. We will stratify the assets in the fleet inventory by user agency, and asset class or
type. We will calculate various statistics on usage levels by asset class and, based on the
findings of these analyses, we will recommend the annual usage level for each class
which should serve as a threshold for separating assets that clearly should be retained in
the fleet from those that require more detailed investigation and possible reassignment or
removal.
. .NO_ 18
l d Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Task 2.3: Survey Users of Potentially Underutilized Assets
In order to decide whether individual assets whose annual usage falls below the pertinent
threshold should be retained as is, reassigned to a shared pool, or removed from the
fleet, we will develop additional information on their use and the business need for them
using a Web-based questionnaire. The types of information we will develop for each asset
in this survey group include the following:
Frequency and timing of the asset's use
® Typical times of use, including evening and weekend hours
® Seasonality of use
® Ability to predict and manage when the asset is used
General requirements for the asset's use
• Typical number of passengers
• Types of passengers (e.g., City employees, VIPs, arrestees/inmates, etc.)
• Criticality to the user's job performance of the asset's reliability
Special characteristics of the asset's usage requirements
® Need to respond to emergency calls and frequency and timing of such calls
® Vehicle appearance (e.g., presence of City decals and other markings)
® Need for auxiliary equipment (e.g., light bar, radio, mobile data terminal, ladder
rack, tool box, storage bins/cabinets, security cage, etc.)
® Security of asset and its contents
® Need to transport materials, tools, and/or equipment that are not easily
removed from the asset so that someone else can use it
Location of the asset's use
® Proximity of the asset user to other City employees with whom the asset might
be shared
® Proximity of the user to potential motor pool locations or a commercial
vehicle/equipment rental facilities
® Variability in the user's work place locations and travel destinations (i.e.,
predictability as to where and when the asset will be available for use by others)
® Viability of alternative transportation options such as alternative fuel use,
alternative propulsion systems, and future transportation options.
User's rating of the asset's importance to his/her/the organization's job
performance
We will draft the questionnaire and submit it to appropriate City officials for review and
approval and make changes where necessary based on feedback received. We will post
the survey on-line for approximately two weeks and provide periodic updates on its status
so that follow-up calls can be made to agencies whose completion of questionnaires for
I raj;'`rr Proposal to Conduct
�r' 4 M Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
their particular assets is lagging. In order to ensure a high response rate, we recommend
that FMD arrange to have each of its customer agencies that is asked to complete a
questionnaire for one or more of the assets assigned to it to designate a single point of
contact (POC) to be responsible for ensuring that the users of those vehicles log on to
and complete the on-line survey form by an agreed-upon deadline. We will provide FMD
with regular status reports on the completion of the survey to assist it in following up with
the POCs of any agencies whose completion of their questionnaires is lagging.
Task 2.4: Earmark Assets for Reassignment or Removal from the Fleet
Once City departments have completed the on-line survey, we will review the data for
each surveyed asset for completeness (following up where necessary with agency points
of contact to obtain missing data) and then analyze the data in order to identify specific
assets that we believe should be reassigned to another user or to a motor pool or removed
from the fleet. We also will identify assets included in the survey that we believe could be
replaced with a more suitable or economical type of asset.
Upon completing these analyses, we may confer in face-to-face meetings or by
teleconference with City agencies to review and solicit feedback on our findings and
recommendations regarding the disposition of specific assets in their possession. The
objective of these meetings will be to review and discuss the reasonableness and
acceptability of our survey findings and recommendations in light of considerations such
as the following:
• Any special operating practices or circumstances that account for the low usage
of the assets earmarked for reassignment or disposal; and
® Recent and/or anticipated changes in the organization's size, mission, work
methods, staffing levels, or other operating needs and parameters that might
mitigate some of recommended reductions to their fleet.
On the basis of these discussions, we will finalize our recommendations regarding
changes in asset assignments that will adjust the size and composition of the fleet to a
more cost-effective configuration.
Task 2. : (quantify Cost Savings
To the extent that available data permit, we will quantify the immediate and recurring cost
savings associated with implementing our recommended changes to current vehicle and
equipment assignments and overall fleet size and composition.
Task 2.6: Develop Study Report
We will document our findings and recommendations in a written report. This document
will recap how we conducted the rightsizing analysis, our recommended changes to fleet
size and composition, and associated cost savings. We will submit this report to the City
in draft form for review and comment and make revisions, as necessary, based on written
feedback received. We will provide the City with an electronic copy in PDF file format.
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
y F
Conduct a Fleet Replacement Analysis (optional)
In our experience, one of the most important things a fleet owner can do to promote the
cost-effective performance of its fleet is to have an effective fleet replacement program.
This requires, in turn, an effective capital financing program since different financing
approaches have different impacts on an organization's budget and the use of some
financing methods actually discourages organizations from replacing their fleet assets in
a timely manner. In this component of the project, we will review the City's current
replacement practices and identify opportunities for improvement. This includes an
optional task of identifying the optimal replacement cycle for key types of assets in the
fleet.
The central task of this optional project component is the development of a multi-year
replacement plan for the City's fleet which identifies the future replacement dates and
costs of every individual asset in the fleet, by year, over the next 20 years. We will develop
this plan using a proprietary computer program called CARCAPTM (Capital Asset
Replacement Cost Analysis ProgramTM). This plan will provide the foundation for 1)
assessing the appropriateness of the current age of the fleet and the adequacy of current
and recent replacement funding/spending levels; and 2) quantifying the costs and fiscal
impacts of alternative methods that the City could use to finance the replacement of the
fleet, such as outright cash purchases and a lease-purchase (i.e., debt financing)
program, in the future. The work of this task will incorporate the findings and
recommendations regarding fleet rightsizing developed in Component 2 of the project if
the City elects to have us perform that component.
A widely held principle of fleet management is that vehicle replacement practices have a
significant impact on fleet costs and performance. These impacts result from the fact that
the total cost of ownership (TCO) of any type of vehicle or piece of equipment does not
remain constant over time. Rather, it is high when a vehicle is new, diminishes steadily
for some period of time until it reaches a minimum, and then increase steadily thereafter.
Graphically speaking, the total cost of ownership of a vehicle takes the shape of a "U".
This is illustrated in the graph below, taken from a life cycle cost analysis that Mercury
Associates performed of a particular type of truck in the public works fleet of a mid-sized
US city.
m 21
�x Proposal to Conduct
t t4 f r✓
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Capital, Operating and Total Cost Trendlines The implication of this principle is that
(Single-Axle Dump Truck) organizations that keep vehicles and
26 � equipment in their fleet beyond the
20 point at which their TCO is at or near
a minimum — that is, near the bottom
15 of the U-shaped curve — incur higher
than necessary costs. Accordingly,
10 increasing the frequency of vehicle
replacements and reducing average
5 vehicle age lowers vehicle and fleet
costs — assuming that vehicles are
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 not already being replaced at or near
Replacement Cycle(years) the point at which their TCO Is at a
minimum.
Mercury Associates professionals has been conducting vehicle and fleet replacement
studies since the 1980s (i.e., at other consulting firms, long before Mercury was founded).
We have conducted such studies for many of the largest cities and counties in the US,
along with countless other public and private-sector organizations. These studies have
consistently found that the average age at which vehicle TCO is minimized in a local
government fleet — taking into account the wide variety of asset types, from mowing
equipment to passenger cars to police patrol vehicles to refuse collection and fire trucks,
that comprise such fleets — is approximately 8 to 9 years. This means that, at any given
time, the average age of all the assets in such a fleet,should be approximately half the
average replacement cycle, or 4 to 4.5 years.
A significant disparity between the amount that the City should be and may actually be
spending on fleet replacement would beg a question: If there is a large gap, how does
the fleet continue to function? The graph shown above provides the answer. Many cities
trade low fleet capital costs for high fleet operating — maintenance, repair, and fuel —
costs, including high indirect costs resulting from increased vehicle downtime, reduced
vehicle reliability and safety, and reduced employee productivity. In addition, these
entities usually have more vehicles in their fleets than are necessary to meet their
business needs, since more spare vehicles are needed in an old fleet than a young one
to ensure a given level of vehicle availability. Consequently, modernizing a fleet not only
reduces direct fleet operating costs but permit an organization to reduce the size of its
fleet as a result of improvements in vehicle reliability and reductions in vehicle downtime.
These types of costs — and cost savings — may be difficult to pinpoint in specific
departments' line-item budgets, but they are real costs to taxpayers nonetheless.
Our experience performing many fleet replacement studies over the last 30 years
suggests that the sum of the incremental capital and operating costs of an old fleet (to
say nothing of the indirect operating costs) usually far exceeds the costs that the owner
of that fleet avoids by replacing its fleet assets too infrequently. This means that
Proposal to Conduct
✓ � '
� ,�`0ti Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
increasing fleet replacement spending usually will more than pay for itself by reducing
fleet operating expenses.
'ask 3.1: Determine Future (Fleet Replacement Costs
In this task, we will quantify the future replacement costs of the fleet by developing a
detailed, multi-year fleet replacement plan — i.e., a projection of future asset replacement
costs based on appropriate replacement cycle guidelines. We will develop this plan using
Mercury's fleet replacement planning and cost analysis program CARCAPTM (Capital
Asset Replacement Cost Analysis ProgramTM). This program employs specific
parameters or assumptions and regression equations for specific types or classes of
assets in a fleet to project future replacement dates, purchase prices, residual values,
capital (depreciation) costs, and other pieces of information for each individual asset in a
fleet over a 20-year period. Thus, our determination of future fleet replacement costs will
not be based on, say, the average purchase/upfitting cost and replacement cycle of an
"average"vehicle in the City's fleet, but on parameters that are established for the specific
types of assets in the fleet and on a complete inventory of the assets that currently
comprise this fleet. In conducting fleet replacement cost and alternative financing studies
for large cities, we frequently establish such parameters for as many as 150 different
types of fleet assets.
In addition to ensuring the relevance of our analysis results to the specific conditions (e.g.,
contract purchase prices, annual utilization levels, operating environment, etc.) that
pertain to a specific fleet owner, this parameter-based analysis approach enables us to
perform a wide array of sensitivity analyses of our findings. For instance, we can quantify
the immediate and ongoing impact on a particular agency's and/or the entire City's fleet
replacement costs resulting from changing a given type of vehicle's recommended
replacement cycle from, say, seven to eight years; replacing one type of vehicle that
currently is used to meet a particular business need with a different type of vehicle; or
introducing alternative fuel or electric vehicles into the fleet as part of a fleet sustainability
improvement initiative.
We will begin this task by developing and submitting to FMD a data request that specifies
the types of information needed to develop the replacement plan and alternative financing
analysis. Next, we will work with appropriate City officials to develop the analysis
parameters needed by CARCAP to project future vehicle replacement dates and
purchase prices. These parameters include, by vehicle type or class, recommended
replacement cycles in terms of age (months) and/or usage (miles or hours); current
purchase price, including upfitting costs (if any); and purchase price inflation rate.
We will begin developing the parameters by examining the vehicle classification scheme
currently employed by FMD to determine its suitability for replacement cost analysis
purposes. In our experience, some organizations employ class definitions that are too
broad for this purpose. For instance, a classification such as "Pickup Truck" or "Service
Van" may be adequate for the purpose of describing the composition of a fleet in general
23
Proposal to Conduct
Ari y`'F Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
terms, but generally not for accurately projecting the future replacement dates and costs
of specific vehicles in specific City departments. This could be the case if the range of
purchase prices and annual utilization levels associated with the vehicles that fit into such
categories is quite broad. At the same time, like types of vehicles with similar purchase
prices might need to be classified differently due to significant differences in the way they
are used. For example, a backhoe-loader assigned to a parks and recreation department
may be used far less and thus should have a longer planned replacement cycle than the
same type of asset in a water utility department fleet.
Where appropriate, we will use FMD' existing asset class definitions as the point of
departure for identifying the class codes to be used in this analysis. This may require
performing statistical analyses of original vehicle purchase prices and recent annual
usage levels to determine the suitability of the current class codes — to the extent that
such data are available. Where the class codes currently used are clearly too broad (or
do not exist), we will classify the vehicles in the fleet inventory using class codes we have
developed in performing previous fleet replacement studies. Once we have completed
the validation/refinement of existing vehicle class codes and/or the development of new
vehicle class codes, we will submit a complete class code list to Fleet for review,
finalization, and approval. This list also will include recommended replacement cycles;
either those currently used by the City and confirmed for reasonableness by Mercury or
cycles we have used in dozens of other fleet replacement studies for large and small
cities across the country.
The finalization of the planning parameters will entail identifying the estimated current
purchase price for each type of vehicle for which a separate class code has been
established. Our proposed level of effort for this task presumes that City personnel will
provide this information to us based on current vehicle purchase contracts and other
suitable information sources. If necessary, we can perform statistical analyses of
historical vehicle acquisition cost data to develop these parameters, but there would be
an additional cost for us to do this.
Next, we will use the fleet inventory and replacement cost analysis parameters to develop
a preliminary or baseline replacement plan for the entire City fleet. This plan will project
the replacement date and cost of each individual vehicle in the fleet each time it meets
the recommended criteria for replacement over the next 20 years. A sample baseline
replacement plan for a 900-vehicle municipal water utility fleet is shown in the following
exhibit.
R Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Sample Baseline Replacement Plan
Gross Replacement Costs
$30
$25
$20
c
O $15
$10
$5
$0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Fiscal Year
This exhibit is merely a graphical representation of the replacement plan, with each
column showing the total annual cost of replacing all assets that meet or exceed their
recommended replacement cycle in that year. The graph is based on a detailed
spreadsheet which shows the projected replacement cost for each individual asset each
time it meets the user-defined replacement cycle during the 20-year planning period. All
cost amounts shown are in nominal dollars.
As this graph suggests, we almost always find peaks and valleys in future spending
requirements when we develop a baseline fleet replacement plan for an organization.
Even in the most homogeneous of fleets (and the City's fleet is far from homogenous),
the confluence of replacement dates of vehicles with different rates of utilization and
replacement costs rarely results in an equal number of vehicles meeting established
criteria for replacement each year. Such factors often result in significant fluctuations in
annual replacement costs. Moreover, backlogs of replacement needs, signified by the
above-average projected fleet replacement cost in the first year of the plan shown above,
are an obvious result of an organization spending considerably less than necessary on
fleet replacement for a sustained period of time.
For these reasons, we almost never recommend that a client implement a baseline
replacement plan. Such a plan really should be viewed more as a benchmarking tool that
indicates how well an organization has managed the replacement of its fleet assets in the
past and how much it should expect to spend in the future if it wants to replace these
-; _h 0. 11 25
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
4
assets in a timely manner. Consequently, the next step in this task will be to fine-tune the
baseline plan in order to produce a realistic, "implementable" plan that would eliminate
any replacement backlog that may currently exist over a reasonable period of time and
provide for the timely replacement of all the assets in the fleet thereafter.
We will develop this plan by making a series of adjustments to the timing of the initial
replacement of individual assets in the fleet to reduce to a manageable level any backlog
of replacement spending needs that we find, resulting in a final, "smoothed" replacement
plan. CARCAP has functionality for doing this, including a replacement prioritization
scoring system and a replacement plan "smoothing" algorithm that allows the user to
systematically adjust planned replacement dates for individual assets in the fleet to
accommodate near and long-term budget realities. A smoothed version of the baseline
replacement plan shown above can be seen in the following exhibit.
Sample Smoothed Replacement Plan
Gross Replacement Costs
$30
$25
$20
N
C
o $15
$10
$5
$0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Fiscal Year
Task 3. : Compare Funding Requirements under Alternative Financing Methods
Once we have finalized the replacement plan, we will use it as the foundation for
quantifying and comparing future replacement funding (i.e., budgetary) requirements
under various alternative capital financing methods. Our replacement planning program
CARCAP is designed to calculate funding requirements, by vehicle and by year for each
year of a 20-year analysis period, under each of several financing approaches, including
outright cash purchase; a replacement reserve fund and charge-back system; and debt
financing. Specifically, the program can calculate replacement reserve fund rates and
7
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
K
loan payments based on user-defined loan durations and interest rates, by vehicle by
year for the entire 20-year analysis period.
We will quantify and compare the net replacement funding (i.e., cash) requirements under
these methods against one another and identify the financing approach that we believe
would be most beneficial to the City from a fiscal (i.e., cash budget) perspective and an
economic (i.e., present value cost) perspective.
The graph and table below illustrates some of the additional outputs of this task. The first
exhibit shows net fleet replacement funding requirements for the same 900-vehicle fleet
whose baseline and smoothed replacement plans are shown above. The second exhibit
is a side-by-side comparison from a cash — as opposed to an economic— perspective of
the future replacement cost of the fleet under three alternative capital financing methods.
Sample Side-by-Side Comparison of Replacement Funding Requirements under
Alternative Capital Financing Approaches
Cash Purchase v.Reserve Fund v. Debt Financing
(Net of Used Vehicle sale Proceeds)
$10
$s
$8
$7
c $6
$6
$4
$3-
$2
$1
$0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Fiscal Year
AD HOC CASH PURCHASES O RESERVE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS -LOAN PAYMENTS
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Sample Comparison of Fleet Replacement Funding Requirements under
Alternative Capital Financing Approaches
:i"Em :10' ;1:11m !!:! I 1 1! i IM! iii R
Capital Financing 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 20222023 Total
Approach
Outright Purchase $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $5.3 $5.3 $5.1 $5.2 $5.1 $5.1 $5.0 $52.4
Reserve Fund $5.6 $5.8 $5.8 $5.9 $4.1 $5.1 $5.4 $4.7 $5.0 $5.2 $52.7
TE Lease Purchase $0.6 $1.1 $1.7 $2.3 $2.8 $3.3 $4.1 $4.6 $5.4 $5.7 $31.5
Capital Financing 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total
Approach
Outright Purchase $3.4 $5.9 $5.0 $6.0 $3.6 $8.7 $8.6 $7.0 $6.2 $7.2 $61.7
Reserve Fund $5.3 $5.7 $5.9 $6.2 $6.3 $6.5 $6.8 $6.9 $7.2 $7.3 $64.1
TE Lease Purchase $5.7 $5.6 $5.4 $5.5 $5.5 $5.6 $5.6 $6.5 $6.8 $7.0
Expressing the comparative costs of these three financing approaches in economic (i.e.,
present value cost) terms is a simple matter of selecting a suitable rate for discounting
future cash outlays under each approach.
Task 3.3: Develop Study Report
We will document our findings and recommendations in a written report. As in the two
previous project components, we will submit this report to the City in draft form for review
and comment and make revisions, as necessary, based on written feedback received.
We will provide the City with an electronic copy in PDF file format.
Fleet Maintenance Facility Space Requirements Program (optional)
In this optional task, we would develop a detailed program of space requirements, space
adjacencies, and facility characteristics for a new fleet maintenance shop. The fleet
maintenance facility, the Workplace, should be adequately sized, suitably configured,
correctly equipped, and appropriately positioned. No amount of effort can fully overcome
facilities that are outgrown, disorganized, lacking in equipment, in the wrong place, and/or
on a site that is unsuitable. The most remarkable contributor to efficient and effective fleet
maintenance programs are the facilities.
We will draw on the results of the previous project components along with more than two
decades of fleet maintenance facility space programming and master planning
experience to develop a program of requirements for a new fleet maintenance facility for
the City.
/ Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
a§
In a typical maintenance facility programming study, we begin by examining an
organization's current fleet maintenance and repair practices. Through our work in the
previous study components, we will have a thorough understanding of the activities to be
housed in a new facility including, for example, the size and organization of the
maintenance workforce, the split of in-house performed and sublet services, the number
of shifts operated, and so forth. Another key objective, however, is to determine ways in
which these activities can be improved in recognition of the fact that an organization's
current work practices typically reflect the physical limitations of the facilities in which the
activities are performed. It goes without saying that activities housed in 60 to 100-year
old facilities do not typically reflect state-of-the-art thinking as to how to organize and run
a fleet maintenance and repair program. Consequently, the programming of a new fleet
maintenance facility should always be viewed, in our opinion, as an opportunity to
modernize business practices as well as the physical setting in which those practices are
executed.
Task 4.1: Develop Space Requirements
Using the information and recommendations developed in the previous project
components, we will conduct a space needs assessment for those fleet activities that will
be housed in a new central maintenance facility. Our intent is to identify space
requirements and a recommended facility layout for one proposed organizational
configuration of maintenance and repair activities, based on the recommendations
developed in the previous components of this study.
We will develop net usable space requirements for five general space types including:
1. Administration—addressing the employee's and visitor's space needs (i.e., offices,
files, workstations and conference rooms)
2. Employee Amenities — addressing the needs for space dedicated specifically to
the staff (i.e., restrooms, locker rooms and breakrooms)
3. Shop—defining, describing, and addressing the areas where the work takes place
4. Shop Support - addressing the space dedicated to supporting shop operations
(i.e., parts room, reference libraries, fluid distribution, and tool storage)
5. Exterior — personal vehicle parking and work vehicle staging (i.e., employee and
visitors parking, dead line, ready line, upfit, and decommissioned vehicle staging).
We will begin by identifying the number, types and sizes of work bays and other work
spaces required based on projections of the size and composition of the fleet to be
maintained in the new facility, projected annual volumes of work to be performed by type
of fleet asset and type of work, and appropriate ratios of bays per technician. This will
include identifying requirements for servicing light and medium-duty vehicles, heavy
trucks, construction equipment, attachments, and miscellaneous motorized and non-
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
motorized equipment. Work bay/space requirements also will make distinctions, where
appropriate, between routine M&R work versus, say, welding and metal fabrication,
component rebuilding, asset upfitting and decommissioning, and paint and body repair,
as necessary.
We will identify parts storage requirements based on the projected annual consumption
of parts by the fleet; anticipated parts sourcing practices (e.g., reliance on just-in-time
procurement to the fullest extent possible versus maintenance of large quantities of stock
items); and anticipated outsourcing practices (e.g., outsourcing tire repairs reduces on-
site tire storage space requirements; performing frame, body, and other repairs in house
requires storage space for sheet and bar metal).
We will identify all ancillary facility space and layout requirements. These typically include
those associated with material and supplies and specialty tools storage; shop equipment
storage; wash bay(s); offices; meeting/training/lunch room(s); lavatories; and customer
waiting areas. We will identify exterior parking, staging (ready line, deadline, vehicle in-
servicing, etc.), and vehicle circulation space requirements and total maintenance facility
footprint requirements. Space allocations will represent net assignable square feet.
Task 4.2: Develop Facility Layout
Next, we will develop a recommended layout for the facility and all its constituent parts.
These drawings will show recommended facility dimensions and configurations by type
of space, including vehicle and equipment maintenance areas, support areas, and
administrative areas. This plan will be developed in a "virtual' setting, not specific to any
existing facilities, site, etc. We will then develop a general description of major
characteristics for the facility. The facility plan also will identify key facility characteristics
such as unobstructed overhead clearance, vehicle and pedestrian traffic flows, fluid
distribution and ventilation methods, etc. This task does not include detailed drawings or
design specifications. Rather, it is intended to be a program plan of requirements that will
eventually be used for final design by a licensed architecture/engineering firm.
N, ' 30
Proposal to Conduct
r� Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Sample Fleet Shop Plan — Repurposing Existing Warehouse Facility
• �„ a ���\ 13 �16 >20
17 21
" 15j' 18 .122
w5/ajj4 3 /l 19. 123
...� E'er Y 6 •� � s'' � *'%���
7
(� 8
Task 4.3: Develop Facility Report
We will document the program of requirements in a brief technical document and provide
it to the City in PDF format.
31
' Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
TAB 3: PROJECT TEAM
Our consultants are the strength of our firm and are among the foremost experts in the
fleet management field. They tackle challenges that require a degree of technical
sophistication and analytical rigor that simply cannot be found anywhere else. They are
recognized industry experts in virtually every area of fleet management including shop
operations, replacement planning, charge-back rate development, space planning,
finance, leasing, maintenance, information technology, fuel including alternative fuels,
and safety, among others.
The project team that we propose for conducting this study is shown in the table below.
Brief biographical sketches of each team member follow, and detailed resumes can be
found in the appendix to this proposal. As can be seen, all of our project team members
are former local government fleet management professionals, which should give the City
confidence that the recommendations Mercury develops in this project will not be just
technically sound, but practical and implementable. We will also utilize others in our firm
with subject matter expertise if required. If there becomes a need to change members of
the project team we will advise the City and provide resumes for any proposed new project
team member.
The expected level of effort by project team member and work plan task is shown in the
Price Proposal Breakdown exhibit in Tab 5; Cost Proposal.
' 1 mzl��E....
Project manager with day-to-day
Tony Yankovich 7anager77
responsibility for project team direction and
active involvement in all project tasks.
Len Rammer. Manager Lead analyst for assessment of fleet
maintenance and repair practices.
Keith Grant Senior Consultant Analyst for emergency preparedness and
other maintenance and repair tasks.
Gary Nalven Senior Consultant Support analyst for all project tasks.
" —, 32
RIUM
Proposal to Conduct
, fComprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Tony Yankovich is a Senior Manager in Mercury Associates with nearly 30 years of
experience as a management analyst and consultant in the fleet
management and public works areas. Mr. Yankovich specializes in serving
state and local governments, universities and private companies in the
provision of fleet management consulting services, management operations
reviews, facilities space needs assessments, and development of facilities
master plans. Current and recent projects include the City of Raleigh, NC;
the City of Colorado Springs; the City of Gresham, OR; the City of Fresno, CA; the City
of Duluth, MN; Ventura County, CA and many others.
Mr. Yankovich has authored a number of fleet related publications and has presented at
many fleet conferences. The last two years he has taught day long classes on "Fleet
Management 101" offered at the annual NTEA conference.
Prior to joining Mercury Associates, he was Senior Manager in the Fleet and Facilities
Division of Eclipse, a division of Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, and Senior
Consultant with Maximus, Inc. Before beginning his consulting career, he worked for the
Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas County, KS where he held several
management positions in the Public Works, Operations Services, and County Clerk
departments. He was the fleet asset manager for the City's fleet of 1,200 units. Mr.
Yankovich's particular areas of expertise include program evaluation; productivity and
competitiveness assessments; fleet replacement planning and financing; maintenance
facilities reviews and facilities space needs assessments. He holds a Bachelor's Degree
in Sociology from the University of Kansas.
Len Rammer, a Manager with Mercury, has more than 35 years of experience as a
public-sector fleet manager and fleet management consultant. Immediately
before joining Mercury in 2003, he was the General Superintendent of
Maintenance for the Denver Regional Transportation District, where he
managed a 2,200-vehicle fleet maintenance organization with 480
� employees and an annual operating budget of $46 million. During his 20-
year professional fleet management career, Len also held maintenance
technician, maintenance supervisor, and/or fleet manager positions with
the Town of Vail, CO; Jefferson County, CO; Larimer County, CO; and the City of
Colorado Springs. He is a past Chairman of the Board of the Rocky Mountain Fleet
Management Association.
Len's particular areas of expertise include maintenance operations planning and program
evaluation, vehicle life cycle cost analysis, fleet replacement planning, and fleet
maintenance outsourcing feasibility determination and contractor performance evaluation
and oversight. He currently is working on consulting assignments for Lane County, OR;
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and the City of Wilmington, DE, among
other clients. Len holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration from Regis
University (Colorado Springs, CO).
Proposal to Conduct
r
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
,
Keith Grant is a Senior Consultant in Mercury Associates who has 30 years of experience
in the fleet management profession. Prior to joining Mercury, he spent 17
years as the Director of Fleet Management for Pinellas County, FL, directing
t� r an organization that managed and maintained a County-wide fleet of more
` than 3,300 units. Before that, he spent 22 years in public transit, serving as
maintenance superintendent for a fleet of 400+ units, and as a maintenance
technician and supervisor for a large local government jurisdiction, St.
Petersburg, FL. A former ASE-Certified Master Technician, Mr. Grant
successfully navigated the transition from wrench turner to enterprise-wide fleet manager.
He is experienced in the deployment and use fleet management information systems,
fleet cost charge-back systems and revolving funds, vehicle and equipment replacement
planning models, automated fuel management systems, vehicle specification
development, vehicle acquisition, and regulatory compliance for fuel sites. Mr. Grant
possesses a combination of first-hand experience with, and deep knowledge of vehicle
and equipment technology, and experience running a large, successful fleet management
organization that is rare in the fleet management and fleet management consulting
profession.
Gary Nalven, a Senior Consultant with Mercury, has 12 years of experience in fleet
management, including more than a decade as a maintenance technician
and supervisor in local government, transit, and state university fleet
operations. Before joining Mercury, he supervised the maintenance and
repair of a large fleet of heavy-duty vehicles, including diesel, CNG, and
hybrid-electric transit buses, and medium and heavy-duty vocational trucks,
for Montgomery County, MD in suburban Washington, DC. His experience
includes the development and implementation of maintenance processes
and preventive maintenance, quality assurance, and training programs. At Mercury, Gary
works extensively on projects involving analysis of fleet utilization and cost data, including
determination of vehicle life cycle costs, determination of optimal vehicle replacement
cycles, development of fleet replacement plans and modernization strategies,
development and determination of the costs of alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) integration
plans, and development of activity-based cost and charge-back rate models for in-house
fleet management programs. He has recently served as the lead analyst on AFV
feasibility studies for such clients as Orange County, CA; Lincoln, NE; Phoenix, AZ;
Tacoma, WA; and Travis County, TX; and optimal replacement cycle analyses for Mount
Prospect, IL and Washington, DC.
Gary is an unusual fleet management professional in that he is an ASE-certified Master
Transit Vehicle and Medium/Heavy Truck Technician who also holds a Bachelor's Degree
in English with minors in Physics and Mathematics from the University of Maryland at
College Park.
kk r... 'w,: 34
Proposal to Conduct
Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
�i
F f!f'"°.
PROJECTTAB 4:
APPROACH TO THE PROJECT
Our approach to this project draws on more than two decades of fleet management
consulting experience. It will involve extensive interaction with FMD employees, customer
representatives, and other project sponsors.
In conducting this study, we will utilize information collection and analysis techniques that
fall into two broad categories: quantitative performance measurement and benchmarking,
and business process mapping and gap analysis. Having conducted consulting projects
for more than 600 organizations, our consultants understand both the importance of, and
the best techniques for, collecting information efficiently and with minimal disruption to
day-to-day work activities. The primary techniques we use in a fleet management
practices review like this one to collect information on, and evaluate strengths and
weaknesses in, current business practices are the following.
Written Information Request. We begin by providing detailed information requests
specifying the types of documentary material (e.g., organization charts, position
descriptions, policy and procedure statements, etc.) and quantitative data (e.g., work
order and fuel transaction data, meter readings, etc.) we would like to review. This
request will serve not only as a guide for the City to follow in assembling information
for our review, enabling our project team to "hit the ground running" once we come on
site, but actually constitutes the start of the evaluation process itself. This is because
the availability or lack thereof of key information on the fleet and fleet management
business processes provides us with initial insights into the soundness of those
processes. For instance, the existence of formally documented standard operating
procedures indicates that an organization has been proactive in defining how key fleet
management activities are to be performed, while the lack of such SOPs may indicate
a lack of sufficient structure, clarity, and accountability in some areas of fleet
management.
Sample Information Request(partial)
x� City of Gresham
Fleet Management Study-Information Request Checklist
Cienaral. ,. .
9..f,a re s or mall+,.rant a nua[4epnn,L>.nxss plan.apgraUa+al repyrts;ar StraeS7c p.an td Rhe i
......... ....i...
2 Recz3li p�u>$epa+£s f ar4u::.d U,x'cr toe float ape dan.
3 epa-tp PntaintR{p(ree:reln:eci perfartnanoe ntpasta'es 6ocp p11n8 pdstthrEe yaorg,i7ava'.Ial�e.
a rc.rq a renis reSare n3 paternal h 9. ro tiro r.
R prc3rar
5 ioplaf arsy llabt relaVetl evatonxar saliblaeaaa aurvays mpletad wnhin.:rse last thiaayaars.
6 ?aiay and pra¢nbaro R!atcm^.MS a3mi Irotiva rciaa,cRa,rolaing Ra Mc'';q stnradc a..aaurtabtity,
v
airier 'C.and chlor—Won sR Pal-quipmmN and 6trppllc9
7 llnd pe—d—Sme,,,..,IS retlg(o t2 t.e.t ewd ogn,w tY h0'4Tiem'Jen 4fi 3'4'0Up val.
£S
"M C.RL$lrfl catFlryanl;IH(ftY.,,A f4Pet nUSl.41 Y attE Ygpal
9 Copec o!any wa;k flpw a dcr ca�mu at cr Oow cnartc ..
Organizational Structure and Staffing
t❑ 't•rarit ,a l t']na1 IN fl,th.ttpet fto
t". 'Job tlese'Pfcrt¢f?:al yzcpee class L s in Lne a&.9rgrniasllan.
ndsFy.G m mro amAa3 ut}.h a.,Rdmv6 a;n-„A 'a a,+xl.,In o,s emmr m�TwM xrt aaz Sw n .rs„,q Ak,F ,....p.. ^, rc•um+_ -tiy;...
. 35
/l
;r Proposal to Conduct
dr{ . `� Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
Interviews and Focus Group Sessions. Face-to-face interviews and focus group
discussions are staples of this type of evaluation. We will interview employees
involved in the direct maintenance and repair activities as well as representatives from
support organizations (i.e., procurement, human resources, etc.) and customer
groups as necessary.
Site Visits. No amount of second-hand information can substitute for first-hand
inspection of facilities and vehicles, and observation of day-to-day work activities.
Simply walking through maintenance facilities and yards and observing the number,
condition, and appearance of vehicles waiting for service and/or waiting to be picked
up by customers; the layout, age, condition, orderliness, and cleanliness of the facility;
and the general level of employee activity all provide clues about the performance of
a fleet management organization that give direction to our interviews, process
mapping, and data analysis efforts.
Performance Measurement and Benchmarking. Data availability permitting, we
employ quantitative performance measurement techniques in every management
review we conduct, interpreting the resulting performance statistics using suitable
internal and industry (if available and relevant) benchmarks. In addition to serving as
a valuable diagnostic tool that helps us home in on potential problem areas and avoid
devoting unnecessary time and attention to areas in which current practices are
strong, performance measurement adds objectivity and consistency to our evaluation,
and hence, credibility to our findings and conclusions.
Business Process Mapping and Gap Analysis. The other key method we use to
evaluate fleet management practices and identify opportunities to improve quality and
lower costs is process mapping and gap analysis. This involves ascertaining 1) if and
how specific management and operating processes are formally defined; 2) the
soundness of their design—e.g., their logic, thoroughness, compliance with applicable
regulations, responsibility and authority for execution, and so forth; 3) their
consistency with industry best practices; and 4) the nature of their actual execution,
which is a function of how they are communicated (e.g., through a policy and
procedure manual) and how employees are held accountable for following them.
Based on the results of our evaluation, we recommend improvements that typically
have both strategic and tactical dimensions. While the majority of these usually relate
to the reengineering of existing in-house business processes, we also may
recommend changes to the current mix of in house-performed and outsourced
services, organization structures and staffing levels, fleet-related infrastructure and
management information systems, and other conditions that affect overall fleet
performance and costs, such as fleet size, composition, and age.
Proposal to Conduct
° F% Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
2a ,
Sample Work Process Chart
J
'!fm tza 3 { 4J 1
dv vw lv. 6d�.viv '
a
i
t{( A++R•^nH I I nrM .u..Y:;a � vv„ jj
}
1
I 3 �
Analytical Tools. Mercury has developed a number of proprietary tools that assist
our consultants assess and evaluate fleet management operations. These tools range
from our simulation based fleet replacement solution called CARCAPTM (Capital Asset
Replacement Cost Analysis ProgramTM), a life cycle analysis tool to determine optimal
replacement cycles called ORCATM (Optimal Replacement Cycle AnalyzerTM), a fleet
rightsizing solution call eVAMTM (Electronic Vehicle Allocation Methodology), and
many others.
Our approach to conducting the evaluation of the City's fleet-related business practices
will be inclusive, interactive, and results oriented. Our ultimate goal as fleet management
consultants is for our clients to improve their fleet management practices by taking action
on our recommendations. This requires that the recommendations be practical and
appropriate to the challenges and opportunities facing a specific organization at a specific
point in time. It also requires that stakeholders not only understand the analytical
methods, findings, and conclusions on which such recommendations are based, but
actually take ownership of proposed organizational, business process, and other
changes. This requires, in turn, that we continuously interact with and secure the
cooperation and confidence of an array of stakeholders both within FMD and in other
organizational units.We will accomplish this through a combination of regularly scheduled
progress meetings in which we brief appropriate project stakeholders on project progress
and preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
We do not rely on general industry benchmarks or a one size fits all approach. We
understand the intricacies of managing and maintaining a fleet and the challenges that
organizations face. While the overall strategic concepts for maintaining a fleet are
. . 37
, s-
1
Proposal to Conduct
a 0/r, ,
, Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
,o
consistent for most municipal fleets, each organization has unique conditions, operating
environments, maintenance requirements, political climates, etc. that must be
considered.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
We estimate that the Fleet Management Practices Assessment will take approximately
16 weeks to complete from the date of the project kick-off meeting or receiving and
accepting all of the required data and information as complete and accurate per our
information request, whichever is later. Adherence to this timeline is contingent upon the
activities not only of the Mercury project team but of the City as well, including the timely
delivery of requested data and documentary material; scheduling of site visits, interviews;
and receipt of written feedback on draft final reports. The three optional project
components, if the City elects to have us perform them, would add a few weeks to the 16-
week timeframe. The timeline by task is provided in the GANNT chart on the following
page.
! r
k I
.O_
.. !:
C ..........:._.................._._y....._... .._....._._........._.... ....... .............. .._...............
O
U —.1—
o_
® O _....... _.......
o..u
o _.._ ... _ ._. ._._...._._........_
o
�n
U) -
�s
c
_._...._.............._..__ _...._... ...._._ ..... _.._... —
cu
a�
_.._.._...�._..._ ......... _....._.._...... .........
0
.......... ......_....._._ _....... .........
W M
41
U)
G) I_-
C 41 m a)
a,
a
y c 0 c
ui E A a m a�
0 ® E
th a) d W >_ :3
cr
i c .N en
V) > c
w m e o f o a)
CL
a o m U) a) o
U) O O� .N a) U a) a
® E CO .0 'p YS a3 C '� a) a) 7
CV U U) C C "O N N C ow E �,
R,aoi p E c N c E to C) c w U) (D
a) E o .� m �' a� E > a�
}' �O C a) N N "a C N a) d C C
C a) .>
C a) CX
"O ¢' N U) -O LL 4) 7 p O .i a) a)
c C ®1 p C CCL 0
L ` m C C O N C z '� U = L- fG >
E as � m a� N o B ® O as C)
-0 M a3 0 o o C7 a) a m M me– ® 3
O U N (6 U `.'_ O (Q w- E C O > O O O v
°� c2a U °� ? ro m E > > > > E N ® o r
o c > o m ca o a� o a) ® m m m m
5UQ W 0_ U � (nWC10 DUD DDD d O
<- N M d' tC) r N M d' to CD r N M �- N M V ® ® `
C 0
VV b d
b it ) (D �y
T1 j'y f) ® .L- L- g
N Cl) NY a M-0 4-
IL 0 U-
� Proposal to Conduct
' 6(r�ff l Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
T 0 COST PROPOSAL
Our proposed price for performing the Fleet Management Practices Assessment is
$42,280. This amount includes all professional fees and out-of-pocket expenses for
travel. The cost for the optional tasks (Comprehensive Fleet Utilization Study, Detailed
Fleet Replacement Plan and the Development of Detailed Space Allocations) are
included in the Price Proposal Breakdown provided on the following page.
This detail provides our proposed hours and fees by work plan component (including the
optional components), task, and project team member.While the level of detailed analysis
that we have offered as part of the optional tasks is not required to complete the City's
review of these areas as included in the RFP, we have offered these optional tasks in the
event that the City wished to complete the detailed analysis as included in the optional
tasks. However, since there would be economies of scale associated with performing all
four components, we would be happy to pass the associated savings on to the City in the
form of a 20-percent reduction in hours and fees. This maximum discount is shown in the
aforementioned exhibit. If the City elects to have us perform only one or two of the
proposed optional components, a smaller discount would apply.
We recognize that this is not an insignificant amount of money for the City to spend on a
fleet management consulting project. However, we are confident that the study will
uncover cost savings opportunities that far exceed the cost of having Mercury conduct
this project and believe that many of our past clients will readily attest to the fact that this
has been their experience in working with Mercury. Nevertheless, please be assured of
our willingness to discuss modifications to our proposed approach to the project if the City
wishes to explore ways to reduce its overall cost or the cost of any particular components
of our proposed work plan.
U U)
C eJ-
-� O
O �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�..� O V CO O N 00 O V V to V tD V 00 00 00 V N (D 00 to -
O N 1
r .. M O M N O h r V O (D O V M O N N
N ti M f` N N M r' V CO O ((> N M 00 00 M O
N r N N
r
In L N! t9 d3 tH to Fdk CA Ess to ffD fR fsT EA EPr to t4 Es? m 6% m tH -
0 cd V V N O 00 N (D O O O V O CD to N d' 00 co O
r V 0V Cl) r 00 r N V M M r 00 �' to N N
O 4- r N r
p
N
0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Cl 0 0 O 0 0 0 O —
Cn 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
2 N (D O c0 co (D V O (D V M M c0 N 0A 00 N V —
M (D O N (D N r V V O V t— N r
Q W 69 69 6A 69 EA 69 69 69 64 69 eR M 64 Uf (s3 6% (a (» 646%co V O N N V (D O V (D N N N 00 N N a0 (D tD
N N V I-- V O M Cl) 1•• co V M
U
00 0 O O O O O
O O O O O O O O —
I- c m N tD (D t-- M
L-- N rV of u) (D —
� r
C (s3 W) 61> (Al (fl t% (A (A (sT 69 (s) (A (s} (s3 fH w tH (sT (s3 (s) to
O V (fl 00 V N -It O O Co
U (D N r M co
r
0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 -
O V 00 00 N O V V (D V (D d' 00 00 tb d' N (D co 0
N V 00 N U' 00 V V N V 1l- 00 co 00 00 tD u ti c0 r
t() Cl) r 4 N M (D -
r
w 69 69 w 64 to 0% - - U-T ff3 69 6A 69 64 64 6% W 69 64 E9 -
p9® co N V N (D N N c0 N W N Vv V N (D 00 V co
N
p w
N L
E ® m E
U) 0. w 0 `
C:
N c C
0
Q E c •� = a
(D a) N N Q j 0Y
V (D
ad .6 C) O N N C a5 (/)
V > a1 C
m m R m o E Nv
IL C L1 10 G N D p V N a3 nmi •L1 .ems+
C O rn O 03 N_ O b 0 O (0 0
E 'O (D 3 ® co O (D C "O A .LL yQ
i 9 C 3
o y cn ° a) U) E (n c U)O U C U O 'D w to l6
N j E d a) C C N -
m m
acL E (D D n n c m
E c (n E E
V Oa N �p 5 .2:1. n O 7 N (� a) [T N (6
m .> c E a ° o n a = c u a> .A
c E P o c mo ® @
o Q V o N m N m
M M w > to
to ro
V a� n a a c Y a c °> n a n o n
a> T m o Z ca o E Q o p o 0 0
o c > 'm o 5 m w am o aa) aa)i a' m
5 U Q W p
(-)1:2 co W C1 D 0 U ol p
N M V (O r N M V U�
N N N N N N M M M V V V
r N M cp
qy fj (�
Jk " I�
U
1
�1 Proposal to Conduct
ry ttf � �to Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
r
TAB m REQUIRED FORMS
ift
i
ori
Proposal to Conduct
� Comprehensive Analysis of Fleet Operations
APPENDIX
LIST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIENTS, 2013-PRESENT
PROJECT TEAM RESUMES