BPS lays out bus contract
BPS has laid out a thorough explanation of the new transportation contract with controversial incumbent-bidder Transdev — finally providing fuller answers to questions long-raised by watchdog investigators and a skeptical community.
“We have put out a contract that requires (Transdev) to put their money where their mouth is,” BPS Transportation Director Daniel Rosengard said. “They have shown us and told us that they are willing to take on that challenge and that they believe they can continue to improve and hit the performance targets that we’ve set.”
The contract was awarded to Transdev, the only bidder and BPS’s current transportation provider, for a five-year term with the option of three oneyear extensions at $17.5 million in December. BPS has presented the finalized version, including a long list of accountability measures.
Major areas of adjustment in the contract, Assistant Director of Contract Operations and Fleet Jackie Hayes said, are incentives and penalties for performance and cost metrics, a shift of financial liability from BPS to the contractor and steps to an electric bus fleet.
For instance, Hayes detailed, Transdev get a bonus for 85% on-time bus performance in their first 10 days and a higher bonus for 90%.
“The district will be able to demand accountability from the vendor for our shared goals,” Hayes said.
BPS has stuck by the contract decision through community pushback — following persistent issues with on-time performance and special education service under Transdev — and warnings from state and city watchdog investigations.
BPS officials addressed at length two points of contention raised: why Transdev came out the only bidder and why they decided to risk signing a longer five-year contract with an agency that’s had persistent issues.
Though four bidders initially showed interest in the bidding process, Rosengard said, feedback from most took issue with the financial risks of the contract’s costly performance accountability incentives.
“That is ultimately what we heard,” Rosengard said. “But we knew what was most important to us was having a contract that puts students first and that really drives student outcomes.”
The previous investigations questioned whether iffy contract requirements — like previous experience with very large districts — unfairly limited competition.
As for the five-year contract term, Hayes noted the longer term “provides the district stability” while they implement widescale improvements and was necessary to attract any vendors.
“We’ve made steady progress with transportation services and still have a great deal of work to do,” said Superintendent Mary Skipper. … “The five-year vendor contract proposed tonight is a critical part of the consistent and comprehensive process that we believe is required.”