CITY OF SAN DIEGO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND SW RESPONSE
On November 10, the City of San Diego published it Request for Proposals for contractors to provide shared mobility device rentals.
Download: November 10 2021 City of San Diego RFP
On November 29th we released our analysis of the RFP and our requests to the City for clarification of the RFP and improvements to the Municipal Code.
Here’s a summary from page 1 of our Action Requests document:
“The RFP states the requirements of contractors providing Shared Mobility Device, (SMD), services in San Diego.
It addresses a long-standing major public safety issue: the proliferation and use of motorized rental scooters on sidewalks and in doing so represents a significant shift in approach by the City, one that is greatly welcomed.
Specific commendable features of the RFP include:
- the requirement that contractors prevent staging and parking of motorized scooters on sidewalks city-wide.
- the required use of technology by the contractor to ensure scooters are not driven on sidewalks.
- caps on the number vehicles, (max 8,000), and companies, (max 4).
- proposals for changes to the Municipal Code including that SMDs display a unique identifier and measures to prevent dual and underage driving.
- a requirement that the contractor explain how their operation contributes to the CAP.
- a goal utilization rate of two rides per device per day, (with exceptions) and an idle limit of three days.
These all represent desirable requirements, rules and regulations, (RRR), to enhance public safety. However, RRR alone are not sufficient to ensure that the safety of the public will be protected. Also essential are:
- Evaluation of contractors to select those most likely to be and remain in compliance,
- Monitoring of their compliance with RRR, and,
- Enforcement measures if they are not in compliance to either induce compliance or remove the contractor as an operator.
Our concern is about:
- the lack of detail on the evaluation of applicants,
- the lack of clarity and transparency about both processes for monitoring and enforcing compliance and
- the lack of resources currently devoted by the City for each.
- a one year or longer delay on imposing fines for failure to achieve the target utilization rate or idle limit.
Clarity and transparency are both needed on what constitutes compliance and the penalties for non-compliance in order for the companies to submit appropriate proposals, avoid providing grounds for contractors to appeal rejections and enforcement measures and for the public to have confidence that the City intends to achieve its stated goals. For both the RFP and changes to the Municipal Code, actions are needed as set out in the following section.”