2012 40'/60' Procurement

[Busjack]

I have no idea of how they will comply, but they are definitely bidding, along with New Flyer, Nova, and just confirmed in stone, Millennium.

NABI is out of the question, and all the bidders are listed just above. There will only be 4 of them, and CTA could award contracts to 3 of the 4 bidders.

Not very likely. I looked at the specs again, and the word "and" is frequently used with respect to 40' and 60' buses. I'm really sure that they would want to send QC folks all over the world, and go against specs that stress compatibility (you bet).

But the real question...you say the Chinese are bidding, and you are hot and cold on Millennium, but tell us, how do either qualify?

[jajuan]

I have no idea of how they will comply, but they are definitely bidding, along with New Flyer, Nova, and just confirmed in stone, Millennium.

NABI is out of the question, and all the bidders are listed just above. There will only be 4 of them, and CTA could award contracts to 3 of the 4 bidders.

Ok which one is it? You come on here with an obvious interest in MTS being in on the current bidding process with CTA. Then when someone points out that apparently they didn't make a bid, you backtrack and say you never said for sure MTS would be bidding. This despite your posts warning against counting MTS out of the process when confronted with the uphill battle they would have when it comes to the merits of the qualifications and the fact that MTS won't have a 60 foot artic model built until 2016. Now you point to a "confirmed in stone" bid by MTS.

[Busjack]

Ok which one is it? You come on here with an obvious interest in MTS being in on the current bidding process with CTA. Then when someone points out that apparently they didn't make a bid, you backtrack and say you never said for sure MTS would be bidding. This despite your posts warning against counting MTS out of the process when confronted with the uphill battle they would have when it comes to the merits of the qualifications and the fact that MTS won't have a 60 foot artic model built until 2016. Now you point to a "confirmed in stone" bid by MTS.

Not to mention that the prior comment that Millennium was looking to partner with CTA "on a test fleet" is consistent with what Millennium said on its website about the RTS Extreme, which it doesn't say is a production model yet.

But to restate the question: How does either Millennium or BYD qualify under the solicitation, Dante????????

[East New York]

Once again, I'm not going to argue about this. I do however know for a fact that they are both bidding, so instead of asking me questions to which I do not know the answers, just wait until the black and white comes out and see for yourselves. It won't be long now....

[jajuan]

All I know is if Millenium gets any part of this deal when there's not a credible production model already getting produced in any significant numbers if it exists at all beyond design drawings or prototype photos that fits the merits of the qualifications they laid out in the RFP along with the ongoing legal mess CTA's already fighting through with NABI or whoever owns what's left of it because they went with an unproven bus model, I would be surprised to say the least and be questioning the mental states of the CTA board members more than I already do now with questionable moves they already make or are set to make.

[Busjack]

All I know is if Millenium gets any part of this deal when there's not a credible production model already getting produced in any significant numbers if it exists at all beyond design drawings or prototype photos that fits the merits of the qualifications they laid out in the RFP along with the ongoing legal mess CTA's already fighting through with NABI or whoever owns what's left of it because they went with an unproven bus model, I would be surprised to say the least and be questioning the mental states of the CTA board members more than I already do now with questionable moves they already make or are set to make.

Which was my point all along.

Another tendency of CTA is that it doesn't change unless something bites it in the @$$, In this case, NABI did and New Flyer didn't, and was originally procured (at least with regard to articulateds by the assignment of options for 308 of them) because the NABIs had (and Huberman lied about that).

Nova also hasn't bitten the CTA, so I would leave them in the competition.

However, with someone who claims to have information now saying he doesn't know how the two he is touting qualify, I'll leave it to his comment that we will find out, although all we will find out is the press release saying that [who we both think] got the contract. I'm sure he is not going to post any verifiable information on who else bid.

[BusExpert32]

I have no idea of how they will comply, but they are definitely bidding, along with New Flyer, Nova, and just confirmed in stone, Millennium.

NABI is out of the question, and all the bidders are listed just above. There will only be 4 of them, and CTA could award contracts to 3 of the 4 bidders.

I would gladly welcome a return of the RTS to the CTA.

Jajuan, obviously Millenium Transit won't have a 60 foot articulated bus ready for this CTA order. CTA is accepting seperate bids for 40 and 60 footers, probably to keep New Flyer from becoming a monopoly.

The low floor RTS Extreme isn't proven, but it appears to meet the specifications of the CTA's rfp for the low floor 40 footers.

[jajuan]

I would gladly welcome a return of the RTS to the CTA.

Jajuan, obviously Millenium Transit won't have a 60 foot articulated bus ready for this CTA order. CTA is accepting seperate bids for 40 and 60 footers, probably to keep New Flyer from becoming a monopoly.

The low floor RTS Extreme isn't proven, but it appears to meet the specifications of the CTA's rfp for the low floor 40 footers.

It's not even clear that there's even production models of the Extreme beyond a few prototypes which given the whole NABI fiasco that we all got on CTA's case about, including you, doesn't necessarily make this a bright move. Yeah we had the RTS-08 4400 series, but one of the other requirements of the RFP is that each bidder show their production book that gives an idea of who they're selling a particular model to and how it performs for other TAs. There is no evidence that they can do this for the Extreme. Now if you want to ignore the whole legal mess CTA still has on its hands with the NABI fiasco in cheering for this bus, a mess they got into by in 2004 going with an unproven bus model, then by all means be my guest.

[artthouwill]

It's not even clear that there's even production models of the Extreme beyond a few prototypes which given the whole NABI fiasco that we all got on CTA's case about, including you, doesn't necessarily make this a bright move. Yeah we had the RTS-08 4400 series, but one of the other requirements of the RFP is that each bidder show their production book that gives an idea of who they're selling a particular model to and how it performs for other TAs. There is no evidence that they can do this for the Extreme. Now if you want to ignore the whole legal mess CTA still has on its hands with the NABI fiasco in cheering for this bus, a mess they got into by in 2004 going with an unproven bus model, then by all means be my guest.

The RTS was pretty much a prov model. It was first built by GM, then TMC, which delivered to CTA, then Novabus. Nova has gotten out of buiding it. Now this Millenium company is trying to build its business on someone elses name. As a high floor bus, and a "successful" model, it still has the distinction of being the only model built by three different manufacturers. In essence, the Extreme is a new, unproven model, but with the RTS name tacked on to lend itself credibility. At best, MTS bought rights to the name andbranding but it strikes me as odd that with the success of the RTS, GM got totally out of bus manufacturing. TMC, which built motorcoaches such as the Challenger MC 7 & MC 8, gave way to MCI, took over building the model gave way to Nova. Nostalgia really doesn't sell in the bus industry, just ask Eagle. Those buses were originally built by Kassbohrer, aka Setra. Eventually buses were built overseas and in the U.S before being bought out and the buses being built in Brownsville, TX. They went out of business after Continental Trailways, Eagle's biggest customer, was bought out by Greyhound. I think the last of those Eagles were built late 80s, maybe early 90s. Someone resurrected the company as a entertainer coachbuilder, but I don't think they are in business anymore, even after making "improvements" and building a so called new model.

IMO, if MTS wants to build a low floor bus, let them do it. My issue is thinking using RTS for the name is supposed to generate excitement and credibility for what really is a new bus, not a variation if an existing one.

[Busjack]

CTA is accepting seperate bids for 40 and 60 footers, probably to keep New Flyer from becoming a monopoly. ...

I've pointed out before, that unless you want to take the word of a Mr. Know it all or nothing at all consultant, there is no evidence of that. The proposal says AND.

The RTS was pretty much a prov model. It was first built by GM, then TMC, which delivered to CTA, then Novabus. Nova has gotten out of buiding it. Now this Millenium company is trying to build its business on someone elses name. As a high floor bus, and a "successful" model, it still has the distinction of being the only model built by three different manufacturers. In essence, the Extreme is a new, unproven model, but with the RTS name tacked on to lend itself credibility.....

The turnover was (at least in GM's and Nova's cases) that they couldn't make money selling it. GM got out of that business when the foreign companies such as MAN and Flyer made inroads (and people building foreign buses under license, such as Neoplan USA). Nova's stated reason was that there was no longer a market for high floor buses, but some people formerly associated with Nova/Volvo Truck and Bus thought they could restart the Roswell plant. Apparently not with much success.

The real issue is that the current Millennium punted a N.J. order, resulting in NABI getting the rebid. To the extent one can rely on fan pages 6 years later, this one says:

NJT ordered 168 transits and 221 suburbans from Millennium Transit, which acquired the rights to produce the RTS design. Millennium went out of business before the order could be fulfilled. Some production buses were delivered but never put into service. The two demos were eventually sent to Texas A&M University.

Then it went bankrupt.

Like jajuan indicated, the CTA would have to be totally insane to award the contract to them. While possible, difficult to believe.

Update: A more verifiable source re Millennium's checkered history through 2007 and the lost NJT contract.

[Busjack]

From the Department of Redundancy Department, the deadline has again been extended to Oct. 24.

As I indicated would happen in an earlier response to sw, this now is the 9th entry of an addendum or extension.

[East New York]

IMO, if MTS wants to build a low floor bus, let them do it. My issue is thinking using RTS for the name is supposed to generate excitement and credibility for what really is a new bus, not a variation if an existing one.

If this were true then that may be the issue. However, by law, you cannot call an RTS an RTS unless it is built with the techniques and structure as it has been for the last 35 years. That would be false advertisement in case you didn't know. It's nowhere near a new platform. It's a 35 year proven structure, which has already been Altoona tested.

Unlike ALL other low floors in existence today, the RTS is the ONLY bus that that is built the exact same way as the high floor, and on the same platform. The only major difference is the dropped front floor, and sidewall reinforcements, and an all new front axle. It's 100% RTS! Don't believe me? Ask Altoona.

Not to mention the guys who run the new MTS (in charge of building buses, engineering, and contracts) are the same ones who built RTS buses with either GMC, TMC, Nova, or all three. Not to mention they are the exact same guys who bid the RTS-08 which was created by and for Chicago. (Yes the final design of the bus was Chicago's doing for the most part.) There was no such bus when TMC was awarded the contract. After the contract was awarded, the first ever RTS-08 was then designed and created. The bus had not been engineered or designed in any capacity prior to the Chicago bid.

So what do we have now? Almost the exact same scenario we had in 1989. Only exception this time is that 2 low floors have already been built, and have racked up 12,000 miles of testing, and it has a modified front section. Mind you TMC/MCI had just begun to build the RTS when this contract was awarded, which was just after GM saved the division from bankruptcy by selling it to Greyhound subsidiary MCI.

Fact of the day. Nova designed and certified the first RTS T-Drive with 2.5 foot modules. When MTS took over, the Legend was ready to go immediately as it's configuration was already tested. Nova also designed and built the first 42.5 foot RTS low floor. Prevost/Nova have a flawless record for building strong buses. That's why they created the RTS low floor as a one off from the high floor WFD model. MTS just took over all rights, improved off Nova's T-Drive design and built a few new buses.

And if anyone actually read the RFP, you would know that it also states that if a manufacturer does not have the current model they offer in service, to provide drawings and details of a similar product. #Done

Fact #2. CTA is ONLY accepting individual proposals for both the 40 and 60 footers. This means that Nova and New Flyer cannot combine both bus models into one proposal. They have to submit 2 each, and contracts can be awarded to up to 3 different manufacturers.

[jajuan]

If this were true then that may be the issue. However, by law, you cannot call an RTS an RTS unless it is built with the techniques and structure as it has been for the last 35 years. That would be false advertisement in case you didn't know. It's nowhere near a new platform. It's a 35 year proven structure, which has already been Altoona tested.

Unlike ALL other low floors in existence today, the RTS is the ONLY bus that that is built the exact same way as the high floor, and on the same platform. The only major difference is the dropped front floor, and sidewall reinforcements, and an all new front axle. It's 100% RTS! Don't believe me? Ask Altoona.

Not to mention the guys who run the new MTS (in charge of building buses, engineering, and contracts) are the same ones who built RTS buses with either GMC, TMC, Nova, or all three. Not to mention they are the exact same guys who bid the RTS-08 which was created by and for Chicago. (Yes the final design of the bus was Chicago's doing for the most part.) There was no such bus when TMC was awarded the contract. After the contract was awarded, the first ever RTS-08 was then designed and created. The bus had not been engineered or designed in any capacity prior to the Chicago bid.

So what do we have now? Almost the exact same scenario we had in 1989. Only exception this time is that 2 low floors have already been built, and have racked up 12,000 miles of testing, and it has a modified front section. Mind you TMC/MCI had just begun to build the RTS when this contract was awarded, which was just after GM saved the division from bankruptcy by selling it to Greyhound subsidiary MCI.

Fact of the day. Nova designed and certified the first RTS T-Drive with 2.5 foot modules. When MTS took over, the Legend was ready to go immediately as it's configuration was already tested. Nova also designed and built the first 42.5 foot RTS low floor. Prevost/Nova have a flawless record for building strong buses. That's why they created the RTS low floor as a one off from the high floor WFD model. MTS just took over all rights, improved off Nova's T-Drive design and built a few new buses.

And if anyone actually read the RFP, you would know that it also states that if a manufacturer does not have the current model they offer in service, to provide drawings and details of a similar product. #Done

Fact #2. CTA is ONLY accepting individual proposals for both the 40 and 60 footers. This means that Nova and New Flyer cannot combine both bus models into one proposal. They have to submit 2 each, and contracts can be awarded to up to 3 different manufacturers.

That's all fine and dandy, but I still don't see how MTS has a shot when part of the presentation to be given to CTA is in essence show how said model you're trying to sell them has performed for other TAs if they are to stick to their own merits of the the RFP requirement that a production book be shown. And there is that snafu MTS still has to get through by not having a workable artic model in production when the solicitation in the RFP does indeed say 40 foot AND 60 foot buses not one or the other.

[Busjack]

To head this off at the pass, I did download the current addendum.

There is a Q&A "4. Q We understand that CTA may award up to 3 contracts to up to 3 different manufacturers. Please confirm. A. Yes it is possible."

Things of interest to the rest of us here:

• After minimum quantities, the terms of the contract have changed that this becomes a 5 year contract, with orders of 25 at a time based on a price determined on giving the notice to proceed adjusted by the PPI. However, the contract is not assignable.
• The third door is an additional option, to be specified in the notice to proceed [from the awkward way it is phrased, apparently only on hybrids].
• A pilot bus will be required for each model.
• Seating make and model subject to negotiation.
• LCDs used to display route information.
• Somebody wanted the performance bond and liquidated damages reduced, but it was indicated that that was a subsidiary of a well financed company. See the next item regarding who is probably is.
• One proposer, who repeatedly used the term "We kindly request" said that its middle axle on the 60 foot bus uses Continental tires and the others use Michelins. But there were a number of "we kindly requests" denied.*
• A couple of requests regarding the acceleration times of the ZF transmission were denied. One was for "our XD bus."*
• Among repeated "A proposer requests" includes a stock fire extinguisher, which was denied. I guess the "stolen from CTA" ones will be used.

____________

* I guess we can determine that the "kindly" is Nova, and "a proposer" is New Flyer. However, from all the DENIEDs to the kindly requests, apparently the Nova LFS doesn't meet CTA standards at the moment. New Flyer isn't totally congruent either, although they should know what CTA wants by now.

BTW, the responses indicate that CTA did a real poor job proofreading the original proposal.

[sw4400]

Couple of points I want to clarify:

However, the contract is not assignable.

Can you specify what this line means? It sounds like, for example, New Flyer wins the contract, but it's not assignable to them. I gotta be reading this wrong.

-The third door is an additional option, to be specified in the notice to proceed [from the awkward way it is phrased, apparently only on hybrids].

I think the third door option, if exercised, is a bad idea. There was a lot of problems with the new touch doors first delivered on the 4000's. Add an additional door and who knows what kind of problems you get.

-A pilot bus will be required for each model.

That would be XX00. That is understandable so the CTA brass can check the model over and make changes to the order(s).

-Seating make and model subject to negotiation.

I would look for these buses to have a seat layout similar to 1930-2029

-LCDs used to display route information.

I think you mean LED's...

Somebody wanted the performance bond and liquidated damages reduced, but it was indicated that that was a subsidiary of a well financed company.

NABI... NABI... NABI. When are you going to learn???

One proposer, who repeatedly used the term "We kindly request" said that its middle axle on the 60 foot bus uses Continental tires and the others use Michelins. But there were a number of "we kindly requests" denied.*[*]A couple of requests regarding the acceleration times of the ZF transmission were denied. One was for "our XD bus."*

What is NABI. BTW: None of these buses are going to have ZF transmissions. All are going to have Allison transmissions.

Among repeated "A proposer requests" includes a stock fire extinguisher, which was denied. I guess the "stolen from CTA" ones will be used.

Hey, at least the extinguishers from the NABI 60-LFW's work, unlike the buses they came from.

I guess we can determine that the "kindly" is Nova, and "a proposer" is New Flyer. However, from all the DENIEDs to the kindly requests, apparently the Nova LFS doesn't meet CTA standards at the moment. New Flyer isn't totally congruent either, although they should know what CTA wants by now.

Ok.... I actually thought the manufacturer you were mentioning was NABI throwing it's hat in... I was suprised that it was New Flyer and NOVA Bus, and that the LFS doesn't meet CTA standards.

[Busjack]

Couple of points I want to clarify:

Can you specify what this line means? It sounds like, for example, New Flyer wins the contract, but it's not assignable to them. I gotta be reading this wrong.

This refers to the usual practice of assigning options. For instance, options in two Seattle contracts were assigned to Chicago for the 4000s and the to be delivered next articulated buses. If CTA only orders 300 40 footers and 50 60 footers, the manufacturer would want CTA to assign the other 250 bus "options" to some other transit authority. However, CTA is saying that it won't

As discussed in connection with a Minnesota multi-agency contract, allowing assignment might make it easier to meet FTA competitive bid requirements; i.e. other transit agencies may no longer be able to "piggy back" in the sense of some manufacturer saying "I'll sell the unordered buses," unless it is shown that the original bid was competitive. New Flyer says that its assignable options program meets FTA requirements.

I think the third door option, if exercised, is a bad idea. There was a lot of problems with the new touch doors first delivered on the 4000's. Add an additional door and who knows what kind of problems you get.

As Kevin originally indicated, and the original specs implied, this would be in connection with a BRT bus, if any. That was in the original specs with a reference to different end caps.

I think you mean LED's...

I meant, and I suppose that CTA meant, BusTracker screens. The original question was whether they were for advertising, which was no. The next question had to do with updating them on the cellular link.

There was a separate question whether CTA would accept Luminator or Twinvision signs, to which the response was either was acceptable, but apparently due to the merger, it doesn't make any difference (or does it?).

I would look for these buses to have a seat layout similar to 1930-2029

I take this mostly to refer to the manufacturer, which is open.

My view is in light of various newspaper comments that "the reason the L cars have the lousy seats was a deal with Freeman, which is the only company that manufactures that model." Apparently the buses are not that locked in.

NABI... NABI... NABI. When are you going to learn???

As you later acknowledge, it wasn't NABI. However, I had implied earlier that some other manufacturer, touted by someone else, was trying to recreate the NABI scenario. However, given that possibility, I was surprised that CTA reduced the requirements, even if kindly requested by a subsidiary of a solvent corporation (i.e. Volvo).

BTW: None of these buses are going to have ZF transmissions. All are going to have Allison transmissions.

In that two manufacturers [i presume, since there were 2 similar questions] asked, I don't think you can make that assumption, yet. However, if CTA told both that their requests were denied, I suppose that they have to go somewhere else. What would be interesting is to determine what engineering expertise CTA has to rule on the numerous technical requests.

[sw4400]

In that two manufacturers [i presume, since there were 2 similar questions] asked, I don't think you can make that assumption, yet. However, if CTA told both that their requests were denied, I suppose that they have to go somewhere else. What would be interesting is to determine what engineering expertise CTA has to rule on the numerous technical requests.

My guess is that must've been already discussed, as per the Wikipedia page...

<<< Future Orders >>>

67

New Flyer

D60LFR

60 ft (18 m)

Cummins ISL9 Allison WB-500R

Diesel

TBA

I'm sure when Wikipedia gets info about items on their page, they go straight to the source(in this case, CTA).

[Busjack]

My guess is that must've been already discussed, as per the Wikipedia page...

....

I'm sure when Wikipedia gets info about items on their page, they go straight to the source(in this case, CTA).

I'm sure that unless a link to a verifiable source is listed, it is fiction.

If the bids are not due until Wednesday, I'm sure some anonymous wikithug does not know what is in them, and certainly does not know what CTA Purchasing will accept.

To repeat for about the thousandth time; WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE. Heck, I admitted to someone here with regard to the Pace page not to take the Wikipedia page as gospel, because I posted it.

[See Tea Eh]

I'm sure when Wikipedia gets info about items on their page, they go straight to the source(in this case, CTA).

Wikipedia is not a specific person or group. Wikipedia doesn't go to any source for anything. Wikipedia is just a collection of information that anybody in the world could update.

If you or I wanted to go onto the CTA Wikipedia page and say that they just ordered 1,000 new MAN low-floor artics with engines powered by happy thoughts and good intentions, you very well could do so, and it would remain on that page until the next person either flagged it or edited it with something else.

This page shows the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information.

[artthouwill]

Wikipedia is not a specific person or group. Wikipedia doesn't go to any source for anything. Wikipedia is just a collection of information that anybody in the world could update.

If you or I wanted to go onto the CTA Wikipedia page and say that they just ordered 1,000 new MAN low-floor artics with engines powered by happy thoughts and good intentions, you very well could do so, and it would remain on that page until the next person either flagged it or edited it with something else.

This page shows the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information.

You can't cite the Onion as a reliable source. It is a reader with articles based on satire, sarcasm, and dry humor. In this case, it is poking at Wikipedia. Wiki usually has footnotes with sources and links located at the bottom of each article, and they usually post which items neef verification. It can be one source of informatio, but not the only source. I would cross reference with CTA, and each of the manufacturers as well as trade publications.

As an example, I looked up the 2nd.Ave subway project the MTA is constructing in New York on Wikipedia. I then went to MTA's site as well as other articles which verified what I found on Wikipedia.. Agsin, it alone is.not gospel, thus I wouldn't cite it as a source.

[Busjack]

You two are correct.

It might be a reasonable inference that someone got their hands on the addendum and figured that with ZF shot down twice, it will be Allison. However, as I pointed out above, no one would know at least until Thursday.

In fact the minutes of the Pre-Bid meeting indicate that New Flyer asked whether NTP would be in Feb 2013, and the answer was "not sure because it depends on the evaluation process."

BTW, the minutes reflect an appearance by someone on behalf of "Transit Associates (BYD)" but the sign-in sheet doesn't match the minutes. No appearance by the name or organization that someone here was touting. There were also several parts suppliers represented, such as American Seating and BAE, but obviously they were not bidding on entire buses.

[Busjack]

It went off the Contract Opportunities page, so we probably will know in a month or two.

[sw4400]

It went off the Contract Opportunities page, so we probably will know in a month or two.

It's gotta be New Flyer or NOVA Bus. Any other manufacturers will definitely suprise me.

[MVTArider]

It's gotta be New Flyer or NOVA Bus. Any other manufacturers will definitely suprise me.

Definitely.

Watch, something completely unexpected will happen, like EDN winning with Axess 40' and some new 60' version. :lol:

[Busjack]

Definitely.

Watch, something completely unexpected will happen, like EDN winning with Axess 40' and some new 60' version.

Based on the attendees at the prebid meeting, it'll probably be an American Seating bus.